But as you demonstrated there are numerous ways for Company A to acquire Company B, in part or in whole. Without knowledge of the textdrive->Joyent acquisition, we can't even guess as to what obligations might have been passed along. Assuming even *one* lawyer sat at the table, I think it's safe to say Joyent didn't end up committing to servicing contracts that would be unprofitable in the long term.
Regardless, if the User/textdrive agreement was "lifetime as long as we/textdrive exist" and Joyent no longer employs the textdrive name/trademark/corporate structure, it is highly unlikely they would be obligated to service that agreement. Purchase of the textdrive infrastructure and customer base would not constitute the continued existence of textdrive by any measure I am aware of.
Do they actually still exist? I was under the impression the agreement was with textdrive, and textdrive no longer exists (having been bought by Joyent).
I will say this and only this: What you are describing is a significant part of the downward spiral of humanity. There was a time when journalists challenged their readership because it was assumed the readership came to the journalist in search of knowledge. Over time it became apparent that you could sell more paper if you simplified the wording and phrasing, and made it more accessible to more people. That phenomenon has become a race - make things easier, sell more stuff. The goal of the journalist should be to inform, not sell papers As I said before, when the focus becomes understanding the words and not the meaning, you accomplish nothing (except selling paper).
"Accessible" is the increasing problem with our society. The mentality that people should not have to work to improve themselves is totally and utterly flawed. Getting stronger requires working out your muscles. Getting smarter requires working out your brains. Reassuring people that they don't have to work - making the weights lighter and the words simpler doesn't make them stronger or smarter. It fills time. It sells weights and paper. My grandmother knows this, and that's why when I talk to her like a 7th grader she gets upset.
If you don't get this, I'm sorry for you. I'm sure you'll enjoy your Twilight novels, your Oprah, and your Doritos. I will always be in the camp that the only way to improve one's lot in life is to be challenged. So I'll take my novels wordy, my TV off, and my journals rich with jargon that I barely understand but know that I have the tools to decipher them. Thanks.
I know of no such theory that would make that claim. Doctors have had a jargon for as long as there have been doctors, and while SOME of their terms have made it into common language, most have not.
What does "common language" have to do with anything? I'm a technical guy, but I don't use technical terms "commonly." I use them when they are appropriate, such as discussing technical things. And if I'm talking about a medical condition, even though I am not a doctor, I am going to use technical terms that I know, as best I know how to use them. If I use a term incorrectly, or the doctor uses a term I don't understand, I'm going to ask for an explanation or look it up later. It's not difficult. What's difficult is having a useful conversation or worse yet relaying useful information when people refuse to use the words best suited for the conversation. Your example of "meat vindaloo" below is exactly an example of that. Why would I use a vague or general term when a specific term exists that does the job better?
No, they won't. Just what terms do you think someone who is going to see is doctor is supposed to front load into his brain? Just which of the tens of thousands of medical terms will you need today? How about learning the jargon in today's newspaper? Got a clue, before you try reading the article, what's going to be there? Nope.
You are being obtuse and you know it. I was not suggesting people memorize the dictionary prior to picking up a news article, I was suggesting people have a dictionary handy when reading one. There is nothing new here - didn't they teach you that in English 101? Turns out not everyone knows the meaning of every word, and intentionally using the most simplistic terms possible to ensure people understand the words at the expense of the meaning is ridiculous. In 2012 when learning the definition of a word or phrase is a mouse click away, there is less a reason now than ever not to be specific.
didn't say that and you know it. Let's communicate with our intended audiences so they understand what we are saying, not leave them stuck running for the dictionary because we're too erudite to actually communicate.
You did say that, exactly. You said the average person reads at the 7th grade level, let's talk to them as such. I am proposing we talk to them at a 12th grade level, and let them get a little smarter than they were before. It sickens me to the core that anyone would accept the notion that dumbing down mass communication serves any other purpose than selling magazines and newspapers. It certainly doesn't actually made them smarter.
When you say "I ordered a PRI T1 line to replace your SLIP over 56k modem, Gramma", you aren't educating her, you're leaving her behind deliberately.
My Grandma would smack you for that remark, and so would everyone in my family save my drunken uncle. My grandmother may or may not know what those terms you used are, but she wouldn't look too kindly on me talking down to her. If she has a question about the terms I used or how I used them, she'll ask. Even at her advanced age, dismissing her with "I got you a faster internet connection and that's all you need to know" is nothing but condescension. She is old, not dumb.
(She would also probably also ask why you you channelized a data connection, which is in fact dumb.)
You'll save time and not drive your readers away. You're competing for his time, and you'll lose as soon as you lose him. Write an article that's too hard to understand because you're using jargon and the first reaction will be "turn the page", not "find a dictionary".
So you are a publisher! Explains your bent. Get readers at all costs! How about this: We don't treat people like they're 7th graders for a while, and then find out once people are used to some hard to digest words now and again, we throw more at then, and eventually they are 12th graders! Kind
There are two reasons that jargon are used. First, by a person in the field to another person in the field to convey information based on a common understanding of the terms used. That's fine. That isn't what a journalist is trying to do, however.
The jargon of today is the plainspeak of tomorrow. The reason common people use words like hard drive and engine are because they realized the best way to talk about a technical device was to use the concise word or phrase that best describes it. The author's point was that journalists choosing to use "plain English" has created or is creating a sentiment amongst the masses that jargon is hard and should be avoided. That is a dangerous sentiment. When people decide it's easiest to stop learning new words, communication becomes slow and error-prone.
Ever been to a doctor? Do you want him to tell you about your medical condition using jargon or clear language? How about the side effects of your prescription? Which is clearer?
I would absolutely prefer he use the jargon. If I don't understand a term I can ask him to define it, or look it up later. In 2012 there is even less of a reason to not use jargon than ever before. If you don't understand a word, highlight it and look it up. It's not tough. It's not like reading a newspaper fifty years ago when understanding exactly what the difference between fusion and fission took a trip to the library. To use your own example, let me ask you this: Would you rather be told you have "a heart condition" or "cardiomyopathy?" Which of those is going to get you answers about your affliction more quickly?
Scientists typically have a hard time conveying information about what they do to the public, precisely because they become used to the jargon and don't realize that the average reading ability of their audience is 7th grade.
Got it. So rather than educate people to the 12th grade, we will all communicate as 7th graders. In fact, we will go so far as to deprive people of the ability to be 12th graders by withholding "confusing jargon" and speaking complete in "plain English." Great solution. Go humanity.
For many people "meat" means dog, cat, snake, horse, and a host of other things.
Exactly, which is why we use dog, cat, snake, horse and not "meat," We are using the most specific term available to reduce confusion. That's why "we" went a step further and have ham and bacon, and not just pork.
By the way, your use of "dark" to refer to a T1 line is questionable. T1 is a copper pair which carries no light. "Dark" refers to fiber optic lines which do have a photonic signal when activated and are dark when disconnected. As in "dark fiber".
By the way, your understanding of T1 is questionable. T1 is a signalling method used to produce a 1.544 Mbit/s line rate and has nothing to do with the line over which the signal travels. T1 can be optical or copper, and an optical line with T1 signalling equipment at each end that is not powered up is dark.
There are two reasons that jargon are used. First, by a person in the field to another person in the field to convey information based on a common understanding of the terms used. That's fine. That isn't what a journalist is trying to do, however.
The jargon of today is - in theory - the plainspeak of tomorrow. The reason the masses use words like "hard drive" and "engine" are because people in the past realized the best way to talk about a mechanical device that stores information or a construct that converts energy into motion was to use the jargon employed by people in a specific field. The author's point, which is spot on, is that dumbing things down has created a general sentiment that jargon is hard. If people stop learning the jargon for things, not only does communication become time consuming but it also becomes error-prone as people try to describe a thing based on their perception of its function rather than using a term which is concise.
Ever been to a doctor? Do you want him to tell you about your medical condition using jargon or clear language?
The doctor should use the medical jargon, and if I don't understand s/he can either define the terms, or I can look them up later. That is exactly the point of the article. If readers (and listeners) take some time on the front end to learn the terms, they will have an easier time in the long run. To use your specific example, do you want the doctor to tell you that you have "a heart condition" or "cardiomyopathy?" Which is going to make it easier for you to learn more about your problem? If the common sentiment is "plain English" then peoples' abilities to learn more are compromised.
Scientists typically have a hard time conveying information about what they do to the public, precisely because they become used to the jargon and don't realize that the average reading ability of their audience is 7th grade.
Got it. So let's all communicate like 7th graders, instead of educating people to the 12th grade. In fact, let's go a step further and deprive people of the jargon, speak "plain English," and deprive the 7th graders of the possibility of becoming 12th graders. Great solution. Go humanity.
By the way, your use of "dark" to refer to a T1 line is questionable. T1 is a copper pair which carries no light. "Dark" refers to fiber optic lines which do have a photonic signal when activated and are dark when disconnected. As in "dark fiber".
Your understanding of T1 is questionable. T1 is defined by a line modulation that produces a 1.544 Mbit/s line rate. A T1 can be copper or optical, and a physical optical cable connected to T1 signalling equipment that is not powered up, is dark.
I am totally behind this. The reason we have jargon and technical terms in the first place is specificity, and failure to use these specially created words and phrases only causes confusion and false understandings. Investing some time on the front end so you can have an easier conversation in a couple months always pays off. We somehow managed to learn that meat could be chicken, beef, or pork, how come we can't learn that T1 could be PRI, DIA, or dark?
Few if any of them install their own shocks. Most of them are off the shelf... Koni, Ohlins, Sachs, etc. I'm not aware of any brand of automobile much less rally team that builds their own.
As great as Attack the Block and Shaun of the Dead were, I'm not sure how that experience translates into directing Snow Crash. And, while direction is certainly important, I think for a movie like this all the important bits are tied up in the screenplay and the acting. I really hope this turns out to be amazing, but I have little expectation it will. Hopefully Mr. Stephenson is heavily involved with all aspects and can guide his baby safely.
Not very. It's like learning to ride a bike. Dad shows you how to balance and then pushes you down the hill. The only real metrics are whether you make it across the intersection at the bottom or not. The part is the middle isn't actually a shared experience.
Are you kidding me? When I was a kid my porn didn't require electricity, was reasonably water resistant and completely shock proof because it was on paper. There was *always* a guy at the convenience store who would sell to minors and there was 'always* some kid with a father or brother who wouldn't miss a Hustler or two so it's not like it was tough to get. And yet, somehow, despite being completely portable and usable anywhere my parents managed to do a reasonably good job of keeping it out of my hands. Are you telling me that in 2012 where porn requires electricity to power the screen and some sort of subscription (like an ISP) to get to it, the job is now somehow more difficult? We used to have to run out to the farthest reaches of the baseball field to crowd around Sexual Fantasy and they still found us. You're saying sitting in the library at school is somehow stealthier? The reason why Wikipedia is a problem is because modern parents think the internet is like TV and a perfectly good baby sitter as long as you don't subscribe to the premium channels. Turns out that just because both technologies show up on a screen, they aren't actually the same. Just like the library was 30 years ago when kids could look up foul words in the Oxford Dictionary or sex in romance novels or violence in World Book, the internet requires guidance and oversight by parents and other authority figures. I gained an amazing vocabulary of dirty words and depraved acts from printed material when I was a kid, but I didn't know how to properly apply them til my dad taught me.
Indeed. Until I read this headline, I didn't even know there was pornographic material on Wikipedia. I guess I assumed it must be there somewhere, but it's certainly not an in-your-face problem.
I take exception on behalf of Jimmy Wales at the notion that anyone would concern themselves with a "problem" on his website. Nobody is forcing anyone to use wikipedia for anything, and the notion that the population at large has to swoop in and filter a private resource that is shared freely is preposterous. If you don't want your kids seeing porn on wikipedia, don't let them use wikipedia. If you would like to change how wikipedia works, how about you send the guy a wad of cash to help him make those changes. "OH NO! This free stuff doesn't work the way I want it to!" SHADDUP!
Crap. I was all prepared to cut EA a little slack and maybe even consider buying a game from them for standing up against FRC et al, but if it's just a diversion tactic then screw them, I will continue to despise them for being the worst company in video gaming. Actually, "worst company in video gaming" doesn't do them justice. They're just a terrible group of arseholes. Jeebus, I hope the old saying "enemy of my enemy is my friend," because I'm not interested in buddying up with homophobes or EA.
Haha! We tried this back in 2000 and it didn't work out. Company tanked, got sold for pennies on the dollar. Herakles (new name) is, however, still a really nice facility.
I have several Epson inkjets at the office which all use a continuous ink system. They're cheap on the net, though quality varies so be cautious. Quality is about 90% of Genuine Epson Ink, cost is about 10%. Works for me. Takes up a little more space, saves painful refilling of ink cartridges. After we go through about 300-400ml of ink (per color) the heads are pretty much shot and we replace the printer. Standard ink cartridges are 10-15ml (per color), so we get our money's worth.
If your printer can use a setup like this, I'd recommend it.
Yep, or the Olevia 327V - 27", 1360x768, and no tuner. I bought the previous generation of this display for $250 at Fry's two years ago and it's been a great second monitor.
I've got a pair of Dell Mini 9s, one with a 4gb SSD and the other a 32gb. Neither have had problems, although they only see maybe 1-2 hours of use daily. We also run a pair of Dell XPS laptops - one 1340, one 1640, both with the 128gb Samsung (IIRC) SSDs. Those systems are on and working 6-10 hours a day every day, no problems. All four of these systems run XP; the 4gb Mini 9 runs a lightened version. I've also got a home-built HTPC made out of mostly ASUS components running Win7RC on a Patriot 64gb SSD. It's on 24x7, though never sees heavy use - just streaming movies from various places. It's been flawless as well.
I've not heard of any SSD reliability grand conspiracy - maybe your users have personal magnetic fields that disrupt the traditional and proper flow of electrons?
I don't have Verizon FIOS, but Surewest's (local Sacramento thing, previously WinFirst) fiber-based IP internet/tv/phone service. The 10mb bidirectional internet is $65/mo, but they offer substantially faster speeds (up to 50, IIRC). I've never seen less than 9mb and sometimes see 12mb, but in general the speeds in both directions hover right around 10mb. They specify a 50gb/mo limit with this tier of service - it's not great, but I've not had a problem working within those guidelines - ~1.5gb/day does ok for me. I went with them specifically because the other choices - AT&T DSL & Comcast - are such a PITA to deal with. Surewest has been very straightforward about what they offer and what you pay, and the service matches the brochure to a T.
I came in here expected a big fight about morality and ethics and free software and evil software, and damnit, you all are being reasonable. Crap. Now what?
COMPLETELY agree. I know a number of other folks have made similar remarks, but this one caught my eye. The internet didn't have nearly the popularity it does today when the boy bands originally surfaced, and I'd say that was largely the beginning of the end. If you wanna blame someone or something for death of musical innovation, blame the folks who want to sell CDs and merchandize, and not art.
Most everyone I know locally who is in a band locally got hooked up over the internet. CL ads, forums, mailing lists. It's not like you can go hang out at the local record store to meet music aficionados anymore, and the music gear megastores are too few and far between for younger people to get to & hang out.
Internet-distributed indie groups, (dare I say it) MySpace, and internet radio (which is being killed) are what's keeping the good parts of the business alive. In fact, I'd say the internet is the only thing that allows individuals to be competitive anymore in *anything*.
A while back I did some consulting for a somewhat remote municipality, who was in your exact same situation. They had small "equipment sheds" located throughout the region, and were having problems maintaining physical access. Their solution was to invest in a bunch of programmable electronic combination locks that they could reprogram as people were fired and/or promoted and not have to go through the whole rekeying process.
This created an entirely new problem: People forgetting access codes that changed every several months. These workers worked around the problem the only way they could: Prying open the doors with tools, breaking the doors and sometimes the locks in the process. This forward-thinking municipality ended up footing the bill for the lock retrofit, a bunch of broken doors, and ultimately a return to standard keyed locks.
FYI, YMMV...
CR also rated my 1980 Saab poorly in ALL ratings, but the former has 376,000 miles on it, and still lays does a 14 second quarter mile... I'm sure they didn't have many positive things to say about the Suburban, either, but it seems to keep on keepin' on...:)
Slashdot Mirror
But as you demonstrated there are numerous ways for Company A to acquire Company B, in part or in whole. Without knowledge of the textdrive->Joyent acquisition, we can't even guess as to what obligations might have been passed along. Assuming even *one* lawyer sat at the table, I think it's safe to say Joyent didn't end up committing to servicing contracts that would be unprofitable in the long term. Regardless, if the User/textdrive agreement was "lifetime as long as we/textdrive exist" and Joyent no longer employs the textdrive name/trademark/corporate structure, it is highly unlikely they would be obligated to service that agreement. Purchase of the textdrive infrastructure and customer base would not constitute the continued existence of textdrive by any measure I am aware of.
Do they actually still exist? I was under the impression the agreement was with textdrive, and textdrive no longer exists (having been bought by Joyent).
I will say this and only this: What you are describing is a significant part of the downward spiral of humanity. There was a time when journalists challenged their readership because it was assumed the readership came to the journalist in search of knowledge. Over time it became apparent that you could sell more paper if you simplified the wording and phrasing, and made it more accessible to more people. That phenomenon has become a race - make things easier, sell more stuff. The goal of the journalist should be to inform, not sell papers As I said before, when the focus becomes understanding the words and not the meaning, you accomplish nothing (except selling paper). "Accessible" is the increasing problem with our society. The mentality that people should not have to work to improve themselves is totally and utterly flawed. Getting stronger requires working out your muscles. Getting smarter requires working out your brains. Reassuring people that they don't have to work - making the weights lighter and the words simpler doesn't make them stronger or smarter. It fills time. It sells weights and paper. My grandmother knows this, and that's why when I talk to her like a 7th grader she gets upset. If you don't get this, I'm sorry for you. I'm sure you'll enjoy your Twilight novels, your Oprah, and your Doritos. I will always be in the camp that the only way to improve one's lot in life is to be challenged. So I'll take my novels wordy, my TV off, and my journals rich with jargon that I barely understand but know that I have the tools to decipher them. Thanks.
I know of no such theory that would make that claim. Doctors have had a jargon for as long as there have been doctors, and while SOME of their terms have made it into common language, most have not.
What does "common language" have to do with anything? I'm a technical guy, but I don't use technical terms "commonly." I use them when they are appropriate, such as discussing technical things. And if I'm talking about a medical condition, even though I am not a doctor, I am going to use technical terms that I know, as best I know how to use them. If I use a term incorrectly, or the doctor uses a term I don't understand, I'm going to ask for an explanation or look it up later. It's not difficult. What's difficult is having a useful conversation or worse yet relaying useful information when people refuse to use the words best suited for the conversation. Your example of "meat vindaloo" below is exactly an example of that. Why would I use a vague or general term when a specific term exists that does the job better?
No, they won't. Just what terms do you think someone who is going to see is doctor is supposed to front load into his brain? Just which of the tens of thousands of medical terms will you need today? How about learning the jargon in today's newspaper? Got a clue, before you try reading the article, what's going to be there? Nope.
You are being obtuse and you know it. I was not suggesting people memorize the dictionary prior to picking up a news article, I was suggesting people have a dictionary handy when reading one. There is nothing new here - didn't they teach you that in English 101? Turns out not everyone knows the meaning of every word, and intentionally using the most simplistic terms possible to ensure people understand the words at the expense of the meaning is ridiculous. In 2012 when learning the definition of a word or phrase is a mouse click away, there is less a reason now than ever not to be specific.
didn't say that and you know it. Let's communicate with our intended audiences so they understand what we are saying, not leave them stuck running for the dictionary because we're too erudite to actually communicate.
You did say that, exactly. You said the average person reads at the 7th grade level, let's talk to them as such. I am proposing we talk to them at a 12th grade level, and let them get a little smarter than they were before. It sickens me to the core that anyone would accept the notion that dumbing down mass communication serves any other purpose than selling magazines and newspapers. It certainly doesn't actually made them smarter.
When you say "I ordered a PRI T1 line to replace your SLIP over 56k modem, Gramma", you aren't educating her, you're leaving her behind deliberately.
My Grandma would smack you for that remark, and so would everyone in my family save my drunken uncle. My grandmother may or may not know what those terms you used are, but she wouldn't look too kindly on me talking down to her. If she has a question about the terms I used or how I used them, she'll ask. Even at her advanced age, dismissing her with "I got you a faster internet connection and that's all you need to know" is nothing but condescension. She is old, not dumb. (She would also probably also ask why you you channelized a data connection, which is in fact dumb.)
You'll save time and not drive your readers away. You're competing for his time, and you'll lose as soon as you lose him. Write an article that's too hard to understand because you're using jargon and the first reaction will be "turn the page", not "find a dictionary".
So you are a publisher! Explains your bent. Get readers at all costs! How about this: We don't treat people like they're 7th graders for a while, and then find out once people are used to some hard to digest words now and again, we throw more at then, and eventually they are 12th graders! Kind
There are two reasons that jargon are used. First, by a person in the field to another person in the field to convey information based on a common understanding of the terms used. That's fine. That isn't what a journalist is trying to do, however.
The jargon of today is the plainspeak of tomorrow. The reason common people use words like hard drive and engine are because they realized the best way to talk about a technical device was to use the concise word or phrase that best describes it. The author's point was that journalists choosing to use "plain English" has created or is creating a sentiment amongst the masses that jargon is hard and should be avoided. That is a dangerous sentiment. When people decide it's easiest to stop learning new words, communication becomes slow and error-prone.
Ever been to a doctor? Do you want him to tell you about your medical condition using jargon or clear language? How about the side effects of your prescription? Which is clearer?
I would absolutely prefer he use the jargon. If I don't understand a term I can ask him to define it, or look it up later. In 2012 there is even less of a reason to not use jargon than ever before. If you don't understand a word, highlight it and look it up. It's not tough. It's not like reading a newspaper fifty years ago when understanding exactly what the difference between fusion and fission took a trip to the library. To use your own example, let me ask you this: Would you rather be told you have "a heart condition" or "cardiomyopathy?" Which of those is going to get you answers about your affliction more quickly?
Scientists typically have a hard time conveying information about what they do to the public, precisely because they become used to the jargon and don't realize that the average reading ability of their audience is 7th grade.
Got it. So rather than educate people to the 12th grade, we will all communicate as 7th graders. In fact, we will go so far as to deprive people of the ability to be 12th graders by withholding "confusing jargon" and speaking complete in "plain English." Great solution. Go humanity.
For many people "meat" means dog, cat, snake, horse, and a host of other things.
Exactly, which is why we use dog, cat, snake, horse and not "meat," We are using the most specific term available to reduce confusion. That's why "we" went a step further and have ham and bacon, and not just pork.
By the way, your use of "dark" to refer to a T1 line is questionable. T1 is a copper pair which carries no light. "Dark" refers to fiber optic lines which do have a photonic signal when activated and are dark when disconnected. As in "dark fiber".
By the way, your understanding of T1 is questionable. T1 is a signalling method used to produce a 1.544 Mbit/s line rate and has nothing to do with the line over which the signal travels. T1 can be optical or copper, and an optical line with T1 signalling equipment at each end that is not powered up is dark.
There are two reasons that jargon are used. First, by a person in the field to another person in the field to convey information based on a common understanding of the terms used. That's fine. That isn't what a journalist is trying to do, however.
The jargon of today is - in theory - the plainspeak of tomorrow. The reason the masses use words like "hard drive" and "engine" are because people in the past realized the best way to talk about a mechanical device that stores information or a construct that converts energy into motion was to use the jargon employed by people in a specific field. The author's point, which is spot on, is that dumbing things down has created a general sentiment that jargon is hard. If people stop learning the jargon for things, not only does communication become time consuming but it also becomes error-prone as people try to describe a thing based on their perception of its function rather than using a term which is concise.
Ever been to a doctor? Do you want him to tell you about your medical condition using jargon or clear language?
The doctor should use the medical jargon, and if I don't understand s/he can either define the terms, or I can look them up later. That is exactly the point of the article. If readers (and listeners) take some time on the front end to learn the terms, they will have an easier time in the long run. To use your specific example, do you want the doctor to tell you that you have "a heart condition" or "cardiomyopathy?" Which is going to make it easier for you to learn more about your problem? If the common sentiment is "plain English" then peoples' abilities to learn more are compromised.
Scientists typically have a hard time conveying information about what they do to the public, precisely because they become used to the jargon and don't realize that the average reading ability of their audience is 7th grade.
Got it. So let's all communicate like 7th graders, instead of educating people to the 12th grade. In fact, let's go a step further and deprive people of the jargon, speak "plain English," and deprive the 7th graders of the possibility of becoming 12th graders. Great solution. Go humanity.
By the way, your use of "dark" to refer to a T1 line is questionable. T1 is a copper pair which carries no light. "Dark" refers to fiber optic lines which do have a photonic signal when activated and are dark when disconnected. As in "dark fiber".
Your understanding of T1 is questionable. T1 is defined by a line modulation that produces a 1.544 Mbit/s line rate. A T1 can be copper or optical, and a physical optical cable connected to T1 signalling equipment that is not powered up, is dark.
I am totally behind this. The reason we have jargon and technical terms in the first place is specificity, and failure to use these specially created words and phrases only causes confusion and false understandings. Investing some time on the front end so you can have an easier conversation in a couple months always pays off. We somehow managed to learn that meat could be chicken, beef, or pork, how come we can't learn that T1 could be PRI, DIA, or dark?
Got it. Pedantic is less desirable than wrong. Noted.
Few if any of them install their own shocks. Most of them are off the shelf... Koni, Ohlins, Sachs, etc. I'm not aware of any brand of automobile much less rally team that builds their own.
As great as Attack the Block and Shaun of the Dead were, I'm not sure how that experience translates into directing Snow Crash. And, while direction is certainly important, I think for a movie like this all the important bits are tied up in the screenplay and the acting. I really hope this turns out to be amazing, but I have little expectation it will. Hopefully Mr. Stephenson is heavily involved with all aspects and can guide his baby safely.
Not very. It's like learning to ride a bike. Dad shows you how to balance and then pushes you down the hill. The only real metrics are whether you make it across the intersection at the bottom or not. The part is the middle isn't actually a shared experience.
Are you kidding me? When I was a kid my porn didn't require electricity, was reasonably water resistant and completely shock proof because it was on paper. There was *always* a guy at the convenience store who would sell to minors and there was 'always* some kid with a father or brother who wouldn't miss a Hustler or two so it's not like it was tough to get. And yet, somehow, despite being completely portable and usable anywhere my parents managed to do a reasonably good job of keeping it out of my hands. Are you telling me that in 2012 where porn requires electricity to power the screen and some sort of subscription (like an ISP) to get to it, the job is now somehow more difficult? We used to have to run out to the farthest reaches of the baseball field to crowd around Sexual Fantasy and they still found us. You're saying sitting in the library at school is somehow stealthier? The reason why Wikipedia is a problem is because modern parents think the internet is like TV and a perfectly good baby sitter as long as you don't subscribe to the premium channels. Turns out that just because both technologies show up on a screen, they aren't actually the same. Just like the library was 30 years ago when kids could look up foul words in the Oxford Dictionary or sex in romance novels or violence in World Book, the internet requires guidance and oversight by parents and other authority figures. I gained an amazing vocabulary of dirty words and depraved acts from printed material when I was a kid, but I didn't know how to properly apply them til my dad taught me.
Indeed. Until I read this headline, I didn't even know there was pornographic material on Wikipedia. I guess I assumed it must be there somewhere, but it's certainly not an in-your-face problem. I take exception on behalf of Jimmy Wales at the notion that anyone would concern themselves with a "problem" on his website. Nobody is forcing anyone to use wikipedia for anything, and the notion that the population at large has to swoop in and filter a private resource that is shared freely is preposterous. If you don't want your kids seeing porn on wikipedia, don't let them use wikipedia. If you would like to change how wikipedia works, how about you send the guy a wad of cash to help him make those changes. "OH NO! This free stuff doesn't work the way I want it to!" SHADDUP!
Crap. I was all prepared to cut EA a little slack and maybe even consider buying a game from them for standing up against FRC et al, but if it's just a diversion tactic then screw them, I will continue to despise them for being the worst company in video gaming. Actually, "worst company in video gaming" doesn't do them justice. They're just a terrible group of arseholes. Jeebus, I hope the old saying "enemy of my enemy is my friend," because I'm not interested in buddying up with homophobes or EA.
Haha! We tried this back in 2000 and it didn't work out. Company tanked, got sold for pennies on the dollar. Herakles (new name) is, however, still a really nice facility.
Maybe I can substantiate its imminence!
I have several Epson inkjets at the office which all use a continuous ink system. They're cheap on the net, though quality varies so be cautious. Quality is about 90% of Genuine Epson Ink, cost is about 10%. Works for me. Takes up a little more space, saves painful refilling of ink cartridges. After we go through about 300-400ml of ink (per color) the heads are pretty much shot and we replace the printer. Standard ink cartridges are 10-15ml (per color), so we get our money's worth. If your printer can use a setup like this, I'd recommend it.
Yep, or the Olevia 327V - 27", 1360x768, and no tuner. I bought the previous generation of this display for $250 at Fry's two years ago and it's been a great second monitor.
I've got a pair of Dell Mini 9s, one with a 4gb SSD and the other a 32gb. Neither have had problems, although they only see maybe 1-2 hours of use daily. We also run a pair of Dell XPS laptops - one 1340, one 1640, both with the 128gb Samsung (IIRC) SSDs. Those systems are on and working 6-10 hours a day every day, no problems. All four of these systems run XP; the 4gb Mini 9 runs a lightened version. I've also got a home-built HTPC made out of mostly ASUS components running Win7RC on a Patriot 64gb SSD. It's on 24x7, though never sees heavy use - just streaming movies from various places. It's been flawless as well. I've not heard of any SSD reliability grand conspiracy - maybe your users have personal magnetic fields that disrupt the traditional and proper flow of electrons?
I don't have Verizon FIOS, but Surewest's (local Sacramento thing, previously WinFirst) fiber-based IP internet/tv/phone service. The 10mb bidirectional internet is $65/mo, but they offer substantially faster speeds (up to 50, IIRC). I've never seen less than 9mb and sometimes see 12mb, but in general the speeds in both directions hover right around 10mb. They specify a 50gb/mo limit with this tier of service - it's not great, but I've not had a problem working within those guidelines - ~1.5gb/day does ok for me. I went with them specifically because the other choices - AT&T DSL & Comcast - are such a PITA to deal with. Surewest has been very straightforward about what they offer and what you pay, and the service matches the brochure to a T.
It's not how big the games are, it's what you do with them.
I came in here expected a big fight about morality and ethics and free software and evil software, and damnit, you all are being reasonable. Crap. Now what?
COMPLETELY agree. I know a number of other folks have made similar remarks, but this one caught my eye. The internet didn't have nearly the popularity it does today when the boy bands originally surfaced, and I'd say that was largely the beginning of the end. If you wanna blame someone or something for death of musical innovation, blame the folks who want to sell CDs and merchandize, and not art. Most everyone I know locally who is in a band locally got hooked up over the internet. CL ads, forums, mailing lists. It's not like you can go hang out at the local record store to meet music aficionados anymore, and the music gear megastores are too few and far between for younger people to get to & hang out. Internet-distributed indie groups, (dare I say it) MySpace, and internet radio (which is being killed) are what's keeping the good parts of the business alive. In fact, I'd say the internet is the only thing that allows individuals to be competitive anymore in *anything*.
A while back I did some consulting for a somewhat remote municipality, who was in your exact same situation. They had small "equipment sheds" located throughout the region, and were having problems maintaining physical access. Their solution was to invest in a bunch of programmable electronic combination locks that they could reprogram as people were fired and/or promoted and not have to go through the whole rekeying process. This created an entirely new problem: People forgetting access codes that changed every several months. These workers worked around the problem the only way they could: Prying open the doors with tools, breaking the doors and sometimes the locks in the process. This forward-thinking municipality ended up footing the bill for the lock retrofit, a bunch of broken doors, and ultimately a return to standard keyed locks. FYI, YMMV...
CR also rated my 1980 Saab poorly in ALL ratings, but the former has 376,000 miles on it, and still lays does a 14 second quarter mile... I'm sure they didn't have many positive things to say about the Suburban, either, but it seems to keep on keepin' on... :)