How do ordinary citizens support junk mail since the US Post Office is fully self supported?
When we mail letters, pay bills, etc., we pay 37 cents (or has it gone up again? I've lost track) per item.
When bulk-mailers mail crap to us at home, they pay a helluva lot less -- maybe like 12-25 cents per item (cost, not savings).
This despite the fact that most of the people sending us the crap are big corporations with huge budgets to pay for such mailings. The same for magazines -- it costs Time a lot less to mail a magazine than it would you and me to mail an equivelantly sized and shaped letter.
The fun part is that, as computers get more and more integrated into society, people are (1) writing much fewer letters, (2) sending cards and greetings over email, and (3) paying bills electronically. Which means that all that first-class income is going down, which means the stamps go up faster, which means (1-3) happen faster, etc. All the while, junkmailers still get cheap rates.
So, yes, we do subsidize junk mailers.
(and as for the other person who only gets 1 junk postal mail per day -- I'm jealous. I get about 3-5 a day, easily 20+ a week. Less than SPAM, but I can't imagine that any email stamp would be as expensive as even subsidized bulk mail.)
As crappy as it sounds, charging some tiny fee per email would cut spam dramatically
Yeah. Sure.
How much crap do you get a day in your postal mailbox? How much of that was sent with a $0.37 First-Class stamp? How much of that was sent with heavily discounted postage because of its "bulk mail" status? (I won't even go into how ordinary citizens end up subsidizing this crap, even junkmail from large companies that could afford a full-cost stamp).
How much you wanna bet that some kind of postage on email won't make much difference, as the cost will either be so low that most won't care, or there'll be ways for companies to get out of it (or to get a much cheaper rate)?
Sure, it might cut back some. Maybe. But remember how the big junkmail senders got cheaper rates in the first place: Lobbyists. So I wouldn't expect it to last.
Slashdot supported user hosted mirrors: legal and/or statistical reasons (banner ad displays, click thru's, page views, etc.)
I'm not sure I've seen categorical refusal to support the listing of mirrors. Yes, slashdot can't actually do a mirror for bandwidth and legal/statistical reasons, but they certainly permit users to submit mirror links in comments, and this would simply be a standardized way to detect such links and bubble them up to the top of an article.
From what I understand, you're right -- an HDCP-compliant TV will not reject a non-HDCP signal. At least that's what I've been told. I recently purchased a Sony HDTV (46" rear proj.) with DVI-HDCP, and I've been told (on a mailing list) that it *is* compatible with computer outputs, provided you get your computer to send the right kind of signal. Because this is tricky, the "official" word from Sony is that the set doesn't support computers.
I haven't tried looking for the right kind of cable -- I know there are different kinds of DVI connectors, and the TV's connector is likely different from what's on my video card. One of these days, I'll probably give it a shot.
BTW, I was surprised when I dug into the DVI spec -- it's nothing more than a digitized raster signal. I'd expected something a bit more structured, somehow, like (x,y,r,g,b) data. (though I didn't see anything about how HDCP worked).
It seems the real advantage of DVI over, say, an RGB/VGA connection, is that the pixel levels are exact-digital (as opposed to a varying voltage level) and the digital format (with error correction) is less prone to noise. Or am I missing something? Because unless it allows for direct mapping of pixels, I don't see why DVI would be more precise for, say, an LCD panel, than a very clean VGA signal.
I always wanted to pay for the privilage of proof reading slashdot
I'm paying for the priv. (easier to abbreviate than to verify the spelling:) ) of seeing stories on/. earlier than the rest of people.
Helping the editors to do their jobs better is a volunteer thing, which I'm happy to do, if they make it easy for me to do so.
It just happens that the easiest way to enable such a feature is to put it in a special pool of "previewable" stories, and since that feature (previewing stories) has "apparent value," it got rolled into the subscription model.
Or something like that.
I wouldn't pay for just the form -- I'd pay (and have) to eliminate some of the ads, to get previews to stories, to get to see ALL of my past posts, and some other "plums". Getting the ability to help "edit" the site with immediate, pre-publication feedback is a bonus.
I *hate* credit-card entry fields (and, for that matter, date fields). Why do website designers trust users to enter their phone number or credit card numbers, but not to enter dates (forcing them instead to select from month and year dropdowns)? Why do we always have to enter credit card numbers "with no spaces or dashes," when it's much easier (and less error-prone) to enter them *with* spaces or dashes? Couldn't a simple "s/\s\-//g" eliminate the pesky extra characters on the backend with little muss?
Something like this would make it trivial for people to immediately help with the editorial process -- as opposed to having to write up a full email, etc. Plus, by allowing previewers to voluntarily announce a mirror this way, a list of mirrors could be presented once the mirror goes live, right at the top of the article. (come to think of it, it might be good to keep a mirror link list / submission form for all users, even once it's posted...)
BSA represents that the information in this notification is accurate and states, under penalty of perjury, that it is authorized to act in this matter on behalf of the copyright owners listed above.
Ha!
I'd've spent DAYS scouring every open directory on the aforementioned server, just to verify that no copy of MS-Office was on there, then send them the bill. And use that clause as justification. Run it through court, and you've got a decision against the BSA showing that, at least once, their practices were shoddy and their information unreliable.
Wouldn't *that* be a great thing for the next recipient of a BSA-extortion-threat to point to?
First, I'd strongly suggest avoiding anything you can buy in a mall. The quality just isn't there, and the capabilities are often a little, er, overstated. (for a good rule of thumb, look for no more than 50x magnification for each inch of telescope aperture. That is, if you see a 3-inch refractor advertising "300x Magnification!!", then don't buy it. You might, under extremely bright and ideal conditions, achieve 300x, but it'll probably look like crap.)
In the astronomy club I used to be a part of (NOVAC, I quit 'cause of time constraints), there were some pretty strong differences over Meade, a fair consensus on quality Celestron (though I seem to remember they were going through a change in ownership that may have affected their reputation), and there are a lot of smaller semi-custom telescope manufacturers out there in a decent price range.
My best advice would be to go to a local astronomy club for information and advice -- they'll have people who REALLY know their stuff, and can give a good recommendation for just about any price range. The NOVAC link above has (under "Resources") a nice page with lots of different "how to buy a telescope" pages. Personally, I've heard "moderatly good" things about Orion 'scopes (wouldja believe, they're at telescope.com), and they've got a nice catalog with decent prices.
A key criteria is what you think he'll be looking for. Planetary scopes need better magnification, but not as much light-gathering capability. Plus, a smaller 'scope is easier to outfit with an errect-image prism for daytime use (birdwatching, for a politically-correct example). If he's more apt to go after "faint fuzzies," like galaxies, clusters, and nebulae, then a larger diameter scope (like 8-16 inches) becomes more of a requirement because of the better light-gathering capability. (Plus, he should definitely check out the Messier Marathon, "held" each March, as an observational challenge).
There're lots of other resources out there (one national-level organization is the Astronomical League, which has lists of many local groups which could provide you with input into telescope selection, and, most importantly, could provide your father with the support and encouragement to help him turn a cool gift into a favorite hobby. Too many people (myself included) simply buy a 'scope and then never make the effort to enjoy it, by being a part of a good, active club, he'll be likely to get infected by their enthusiasm and explore avenues he might not otherwise think of.
What really bothers me is when you get like 5 phone calls a night and no one is there when you pick up. You can't tell them to remove you from the calling list if you don't get to talk to them.
Sure you can. They called you, they've got a responsibility to allow the call to complete. Otherwise, I'd say, you could sue them not only for ignoring your legally delivered "do not call" request (just because they don't listen doesn't mean you didn't ask), but also could charge them with telephone harassment (last I heard, repeated hang-ups could get you in trouble). I'd argue that they have a reasonable expectation that someone they call might ask to be put on a list, and by using an auto-dialer that hangs up on 4 out of 5 simultaneously-dialed calls 'cause one of them answered first shouldn't be an excuse to shirk that responsibility. At least, I'd love to see a smart lawyer argue that.
Of course, if they don't provide any CID information, then you'll never be able to figure out who to sue.
It's interesting that this story comes the same day that the Congress decided to fund the FTC's opt-out list.
I still say, as I have many, many times before, that none of these remedies will help, in the long run. I get more tape-recorded calls now (which are illegal in the first place) than normal telemarketers. If they're ignoring the law prohibiting taped messages, they'll just ignore opt-in or opt-out laws, too. It all comes down to knowing who called you (which you can't because the FCC crippled caller-id regs), and having the time to bother with suing them (which nobody does).
It was management that said "We have a teacher on board and a world waiting, fuck the cold weather, we have to launch now" despite a handfull of engineers saying "The o-rings could be too cold and they could crack and leak."
That's not entirely true. Sure, there was a lot of pressure, but the engineers were having a tough time convincing management that there was a problem. There had been an o-ring malfunction before (one of the two rings in a joint was burned through), but it happened in warm weather, to which NASA middle management said "see, it's not cold related," and the engineers didn't have a good response to that argument. Like it or not, you have to be able to prove your argument to win it.
There's a very good description of the problem in one of the Tufte books (a series of books on visual design and display of data, usually hawked during seminars, see http://www.edwardtufte.com). It concentrates on how not all the data was immediately available to engineers, so they made presentations (and drew conclusions) on incomplete information. Further, he argues that the data they presented was done so in a confusing, and hard to interpret, fashion. Had they had more data, they would have been able to make a much stronger case for delaying launch, but as it was, the "suits" had to go with what they knew, which was that "it seems safe enough, and nobody can convince us otherwise." (I should also mention that at least one paper takes issue with Tufte's methods and findings, but I feel that the basic truth remains -- not enough data, presented in a poor fashion, failed to convince management of the imminent risk.)
So, it wasn't so much management saying "fuck the cold," with engineers saying "they could be too cold and could leak," but instead was engineers saying "we think it could be too cold," management saying "prove it," and engineers trying to do so but not being able to present a convincing argument. Management listened, but in the end, had to go with what they knew.
But just because you happen to catch a bad break in a very public location is not an automatic ticket to the exulted status of hero.
I agree, and dislike use of the term "hero" as applied to people going about everyday, normal activites, but ending up in the wrong place at the wrong time, like victims of a terorist attack or a freak accident.
However, those who knowlingly put their life on the line for the safety of others can certainly be called a hero. The passengers on the 9/11 flight that crashed in Pennsylvania were heroes, because they took action to save others' lives, even though it most likely meant an immediate death for themselves. The workers in the World Trade Center who stayed behind to help others escape, or who helped carry people down stairs even though it meant delaying their own safety, are heroes.
I'd say that Astronauts fall into the same category. They willingly risk their lives for the advancement of science -- for the betterment of all mankind. These astronauts knew the risks, they new who'd died before them, they knew there was a chance that they might not return, but they still went. That takes a kind of bravery that I'll never be able to personally muster, just as I'll never have the bravery to take a hill with an M-1.
I'd even go so far as to say that the families of the astronauts are heroes, in a way -- they sacrifice their own piece of mind by accepting, and encouraging, their loved ones to take these risks. They may be a "lesser rank" of heroes, but their support they provided the astronauts before the disaster, the stoicism they've shown during their loss, and their united support for continuing the program all earn them a respect that most people, myself included, don't deserve. They're heroes, too, in my book.
...still do. But it looks like this is the first trek movie since #1 that I won't be seeing in the theatres, as it's about gone from my area now.
There were a lot of things going against it, for me -- a busy holiday season, a busy holiday MOVIE season (bond, potter, lotr are three I remember off the top of my head). Add to that some lackluster reviews, not a lot of strong promotion (so I wasn't as likely to remember, oh yeah, there's a ST movie out!), and a general feeling that what I had seen looked more contrived and forced than most, and I just basically forgot all about it.
I think one thing I was concerned about was that it seemed (from the previews) to be shaping up as a kick-ass action movie, which ST has never been. If they'd been offering something with more meat, storywise, then I might have been more tempted. Maybe. As it was, the main reason I wanted to see it was just because it was there.
Even if it has issues, I think any step towards integrating the vast array of personal electronics (Cel Phone, MP3 Player, PDA, Digital Camera) is a good one. And this looks like the first PDA with a real camera.
I agree, but only to a point.
Integrating an MP3 player with my Palm sounds like a cool idea, at least it did when most MP3 players were stuck at 64 or 128 MB of storage. Now that we've got many 20+ gigabyte players out there, a "real" MP3 player will never fit in a PDA (at least not until we can get HD-like capacities in flash or extremely low power drives).
Getting a cell phone integrated is good, for cool factor, but I wouldn't want one. For one, I'd be tied to whatever local providers had service for my particular model. Unless you could trade in a CDMA version for a GSM version the next time I get annoyed with my wireless carrier, then this simply won't fly for many people. Plus, I can certainly see a need to talk on the phone while looking something up -- which you can't do with an integrated unit unless you put it in speakerphone mode (or carry a plug-in earpiece/microphone).
And, finally, maybe this new Clie has a "real" digital camera, but please define "real." Compared to 640x480 2nd generation cameras, maybe it's cool, but compared to modern 4 megapixel cameras? How big is the lens opening (which helps to drive its sensitivity to low-light situations)? How quickly will you drain the batteries when using the flash?
I think it's important to remember what made PDAs, especially Palm-powered ones, so popular in the first place. They filled a need, not for a "laptop in your shirt pocket," but for a quick way to take notes, keep contact lists together, etc. I'd say that as far as PDAs take that same approach to integrated features like MP3s or photos, that's a Good Thing. The PDA approach to these should be to allow users to listen to "an album or two" and to take "an occasional photo of the whiteboard that you just filled with a world-changing idea."
But if they're trying to make a PDA into a "PowerMac in your shirt pocket," then it'll fail. And it should -- there will always be far better cameras / mp3 players / phones available than what's integrated into a PDA.
OK you don't have a generator?? I mean you should have BOTH a UPS and a generator. Especially for a data center.
True, but smaller companies, or big companies with important data in smaller facilities, might not have generators.
And, true, you're typically not wanting to get into a closet if the power's out, but there might be times. We had a terrible storm once, and water backed up into a storm drain that was somehow connected to an under floor drain in our computer room. So we had water under the floor (I only noticed 'cause it was leaking out into the hallway). If we'd had a loss of power, we couldn't have gotten into the server room without a key (okay, fine, *THAT* room at least would have had a UPS for the door, but you get the picture).
You'll always need some kind of physical backup for any room -- it's just a failsafe. But it's easy enough to keep those keyed totally differently, with no master, and to keep those keys in a safe somewhere.
Server rooms and now even wiring closets should have controlled card key access at a minimum.
Yes, except that if the power goes out, you're screwed. So all doors will still need a key lock of some sort. (or a mechanical combination, like a simplex lock, but you still need a key to use that in the event the combination is messed up or nobody who knows it is around and there's a burst pipe behind the door....)
So, really, what it boils down to is that critical doors simply shouldn't be part of ANY master key system.
Of course, if the emergency keys for these rooms are kept locked in an office protected by a master-keyed lock, then, well....
Disney is more concerned with not being able to re-release their movies every twenty years and then locking them up again.
Of course, when was the last time that Disney released any of its classic movies to theatres?
I was looking at boxofficemojo.com the other day, and I don't think I saw a major classic (Snow White, Pinocchio, etc.) released to theaters since 1993. Which is a shame, since I'd rather people take their kids to one of those than to an intern-inked sequel to The Jungle Book (or something even more dreadful). Plus, it'd cost them even less to re-release a classic than to create a new knockoff, no matter how cheap the animators.
So, I guess what I'm asking, off-topic, is why the hell is Disney not re-issuing movies that were actually very good, instead of releasing crap every 4 months?
Any transation that cannot be completed over the phone is exempt from the do-not-call list. That means most of those annoying recorded messages that end up on your answering machine -- "Sorry I missed you, but let me tell you about a great deal on clothes at..."
This is the example I always bring up to show that simply prohibiting any kind of SPAM won't work.
These calls are already explicitly illegal -- and have been for years (though, again, political calls like "Tom Jones wants to remind you to vote for him!" are exempt, dammit.) But try to make them stop. We've tried many times, but they ignore our requests and keep calling anyway.
Every now and then I consider starting a log, but:
1. I'd have to keep a log by EVERY phone in the house 2. I'd have to call their numbers, do extensive searching on the web, etc., to figure out who they are 3. Many of these companies are very well "cloaked" so #2 becomes quite difficult 4. When I have enough information, I'd have to try suing them (since nobody else seems willing to take the necessary measures to put them out of business) 5. They could always say "it was a real human leaving a message," and it'd be difficult to prove otherwise, unless I happened to have 5 different copies of exactly the same message (with the same inflection, etc.).
When it comes down to it, I just don't have the time. My life's busy enough without doing the government's job of catching lawbreakers for them.
Now, if I could simply forward a copy of the telemarketer's messages directly to the FTC and expect a real response, and an automatic check for damages from the company in question, then we'd have it. But in this era of tax cuts and expensive wars, I don't expect the government to be able to do something so helpful for "normal people."
I've considered just starting to get abusive with them -- I can always say that I've got a EULA published on my website that says I can yell, cuss, and generally abuse anyone who calls me. At least I could vent my anger that way, rather than doing something personally destructive like kicking the cat.:( If the guy at the other end doesn't like it, then he can just get another job.
Anyway, the point is, people who are ignoring current laws will simply ignore new ones. Until we have a way to quickly and decisively prosecute these companies (without putting the burden on the victims, as it currently is), no amount of opt-out lists will solve the problem.
That's my rant for this iteration of this topic. Feel free to search the archives for other, better-worded ones.:)
We in the US take water for granted. It's basically free -- cheaper than all other utilities, our water bill is about $15 a month, tops.
Not only do we take it for granted, we tend to take it at the expense of the environment or others downstream. The Colorado River, for example, is only a trickle of a dried-up stream where it used to dump into the ocean, and many Mexican communities have been lost, all because people keep moving to LA and, well, needing water.
We need to be much more aware of how we use water in this country, and most importantly, start looking for alternative sources whenever local demands start to affect the ecology or overall flow levels of major rivers.
Desalinization is a great step -- but the next big step would be builidng the huge pipelines (or canals, which'd be much cheaper) to bring water from the coasts to interior cities (though, since most of the population, and thus, most of the worst of the water problems, are near the coast, this isn't as bad as it might be). (yes, I'm ignoring cyclical dust-bowl problems or interior water-starved cities like San Antonio).
Of course, if this current effort flops, then it'll be much tougher to get other cities interested in the program.
It'd be, obviously, preferable of they could use some kind of distillation system, rather than permeable membranes, to arrive at "pure" water with disposable solids (that might themselves be mineable for things like table salt or other chemicals). On the other hand, it might be possible to pipe the very salty "leftover" water back into the ocean, but through a wide-ranging diffusion network over several hundred square miles.
I'm already using The Brain [thebrain.com]. It's *really* unique, and it works. It works very well.
Various people have tried to get me interested in The Brain, but I've never quite warmed up to it. Maybe I'm just using it wrong.
What's the great deal about The Brain? Is there any easy way to describe an initial "project" or organizational need I should tackle with The Brain to really understand its utility? Or a good fan/FAQ site? (not just marketing-speak)
How is this any different from the "simulator" rides that already exist at theme parks and in Dave & Buster's locations? Basically, those just move you up and down, and tilt and shake you until you wish you had never gotten on the ride.
The problem I have with these sorts of rides is that they don't even come close to a roller coaster experience, for me. No wind (okay, they could solve that with clever ducted fans), but most importantly, no real G-forces. When you go down a steep hill, you feel lighter. When you go around a tight turn, you're glued to your seat. When you go upside down, you're glued to your seat.
Somehow, I suspect that if RoboCoaster turned the car upside down, you'd fall out. Unless they've created a gravity generator.
I've had good luck with four Rio / SonicBlue items -- three Rio Receivers (MP3/ethernet/stereo components) and a Rio Riot (20G portable MP3 player).
Plus, a lot of what they do is linux based, so this might be hackable. If so, and if this avoids a noisy fan, it might be a great set-top box "terminal" for a centralized PVR system. Maybe. (I haven't read the article yet).
Has anyone been able to convert a DirecTV TiVo unit (the Phillips units) to access the live MPEG stream (after decryption?) I'm interested not in getting free service, but in paying for it for a registered DirecTV unit, then slurping the MPEG data out an ethernet port to a central server. From there, I can send it to slimline, fan-less set-top boxes (yet to be built), so I'll have a centralized, networked, ubertivo.
It's difficult to search for this sort of information, as on most hacking sites they're either talking about adding a webserver to your TiVo unit (and any talk about getting streams is verboten as "piracy"), or they're talking about stealing the stream altogether (with emulation or whatever).
It probably has different sets of codes for each remote.
A perfectly reasonable and extremely obvious solution. So, naturally, I missed it.:)
Though this doesn't address what happens when a transmission gets missed (from interference or distance), but another reply covered that one pretty well...
Slashdot Mirror
How do ordinary citizens support junk mail since the US Post Office is fully self supported?
When we mail letters, pay bills, etc., we pay 37 cents (or has it gone up again? I've lost track) per item.
When bulk-mailers mail crap to us at home, they pay a helluva lot less -- maybe like 12-25 cents per item (cost, not savings).
This despite the fact that most of the people sending us the crap are big corporations with huge budgets to pay for such mailings. The same for magazines -- it costs Time a lot less to mail a magazine than it would you and me to mail an equivelantly sized and shaped letter.
The fun part is that, as computers get more and more integrated into society, people are (1) writing much fewer letters, (2) sending cards and greetings over email, and (3) paying bills electronically. Which means that all that first-class income is going down, which means the stamps go up faster, which means (1-3) happen faster, etc. All the while, junkmailers still get cheap rates.
So, yes, we do subsidize junk mailers.
(and as for the other person who only gets 1 junk postal mail per day -- I'm jealous. I get about 3-5 a day, easily 20+ a week. Less than SPAM, but I can't imagine that any email stamp would be as expensive as even subsidized bulk mail.)
As crappy as it sounds, charging some tiny fee per email would cut spam dramatically
Yeah. Sure.
How much crap do you get a day in your postal mailbox? How much of that was sent with a $0.37 First-Class stamp? How much of that was sent with heavily discounted postage because of its "bulk mail" status? (I won't even go into how ordinary citizens end up subsidizing this crap, even junkmail from large companies that could afford a full-cost stamp).
How much you wanna bet that some kind of postage on email won't make much difference, as the cost will either be so low that most won't care, or there'll be ways for companies to get out of it (or to get a much cheaper rate)?
Sure, it might cut back some. Maybe. But remember how the big junkmail senders got cheaper rates in the first place: Lobbyists. So I wouldn't expect it to last.
Slashdot supported user hosted mirrors: legal and/or statistical reasons (banner ad displays, click thru's, page views, etc.)
I'm not sure I've seen categorical refusal to support the listing of mirrors. Yes, slashdot can't actually do a mirror for bandwidth and legal/statistical reasons, but they certainly permit users to submit mirror links in comments, and this would simply be a standardized way to detect such links and bubble them up to the top of an article.
From what I understand, you're right -- an HDCP-compliant TV will not reject a non-HDCP signal. At least that's what I've been told. I recently purchased a Sony HDTV (46" rear proj.) with DVI-HDCP, and I've been told (on a mailing list) that it *is* compatible with computer outputs, provided you get your computer to send the right kind of signal. Because this is tricky, the "official" word from Sony is that the set doesn't support computers.
I haven't tried looking for the right kind of cable -- I know there are different kinds of DVI connectors, and the TV's connector is likely different from what's on my video card. One of these days, I'll probably give it a shot.
BTW, I was surprised when I dug into the DVI spec -- it's nothing more than a digitized raster signal. I'd expected something a bit more structured, somehow, like (x,y,r,g,b) data. (though I didn't see anything about how HDCP worked).
It seems the real advantage of DVI over, say, an RGB/VGA connection, is that the pixel levels are exact-digital (as opposed to a varying voltage level) and the digital format (with error correction) is less prone to noise. Or am I missing something? Because unless it allows for direct mapping of pixels, I don't see why DVI would be more precise for, say, an LCD panel, than a very clean VGA signal.
david.
I always wanted to pay for the privilage of proof reading slashdot
:) ) of seeing stories on /. earlier than the rest of people.
I'm paying for the priv. (easier to abbreviate than to verify the spelling
Helping the editors to do their jobs better is a volunteer thing, which I'm happy to do, if they make it easy for me to do so.
It just happens that the easiest way to enable such a feature is to put it in a special pool of "previewable" stories, and since that feature (previewing stories) has "apparent value," it got rolled into the subscription model.
Or something like that.
I wouldn't pay for just the form -- I'd pay (and have) to eliminate some of the ads, to get previews to stories, to get to see ALL of my past posts, and some other "plums". Getting the ability to help "edit" the site with immediate, pre-publication feedback is a bonus.
(...and another thing!!)
I *hate* credit-card entry fields (and, for that matter, date fields). Why do website designers trust users to enter their phone number or credit card numbers, but not to enter dates (forcing them instead to select from month and year dropdowns)? Why do we always have to enter credit card numbers "with no spaces or dashes," when it's much easier (and less error-prone) to enter them *with* spaces or dashes? Couldn't a simple "s/\s\-//g" eliminate the pesky extra characters on the backend with little muss?
Just a peeve.
...to fix spelling, to check for dupes (HAH!) or even to reject the story outright!
How about putting a simple little form underneath the stories for these previews? Something like:
Story is:
[] dupe (enter orig. url: ______)
[] fake (rebuttal url: ______)
[] mis-filed (better section: {popup})
[] mirrored (enter mirror url: _____)
Misc. Comments: [__________________]
[submit comment to editor / author]
Something like this would make it trivial for people to immediately help with the editorial process -- as opposed to having to write up a full email, etc. Plus, by allowing previewers to voluntarily announce a mirror this way, a list of mirrors could be presented once the mirror goes live, right at the top of the article. (come to think of it, it might be good to keep a mirror link list / submission form for all users, even once it's posted...)
BSA represents that the information in this notification is accurate and states, under penalty of perjury, that it is authorized to act in this matter on behalf of the copyright owners listed above.
Ha!
I'd've spent DAYS scouring every open directory on the aforementioned server, just to verify that no copy of MS-Office was on there, then send them the bill. And use that clause as justification. Run it through court, and you've got a decision against the BSA showing that, at least once, their practices were shoddy and their information unreliable.
Wouldn't *that* be a great thing for the next recipient of a BSA-extortion-threat to point to?
(obscure references provided upon request.)
First, I'd strongly suggest avoiding anything you can buy in a mall. The quality just isn't there, and the capabilities are often a little, er, overstated. (for a good rule of thumb, look for no more than 50x magnification for each inch of telescope aperture. That is, if you see a 3-inch refractor advertising "300x Magnification!!", then don't buy it. You might, under extremely bright and ideal conditions, achieve 300x, but it'll probably look like crap.)
In the astronomy club I used to be a part of (NOVAC, I quit 'cause of time constraints), there were some pretty strong differences over Meade, a fair consensus on quality Celestron (though I seem to remember they were going through a change in ownership that may have affected their reputation), and there are a lot of smaller semi-custom telescope manufacturers out there in a decent price range.
My best advice would be to go to a local astronomy club for information and advice -- they'll have people who REALLY know their stuff, and can give a good recommendation for just about any price range. The NOVAC link above has (under "Resources") a nice page with lots of different "how to buy a telescope" pages. Personally, I've heard "moderatly good" things about Orion 'scopes (wouldja believe, they're at telescope.com), and they've got a nice catalog with decent prices.
A key criteria is what you think he'll be looking for. Planetary scopes need better magnification, but not as much light-gathering capability. Plus, a smaller 'scope is easier to outfit with an errect-image prism for daytime use (birdwatching, for a politically-correct example). If he's more apt to go after "faint fuzzies," like galaxies, clusters, and nebulae, then a larger diameter scope (like 8-16 inches) becomes more of a requirement because of the better light-gathering capability. (Plus, he should definitely check out the Messier Marathon, "held" each March, as an observational challenge).
There're lots of other resources out there (one national-level organization is the Astronomical League, which has lists of many local groups which could provide you with input into telescope selection, and, most importantly, could provide your father with the support and encouragement to help him turn a cool gift into a favorite hobby. Too many people (myself included) simply buy a 'scope and then never make the effort to enjoy it, by being a part of a good, active club, he'll be likely to get infected by their enthusiasm and explore avenues he might not otherwise think of.
Good luck!
What really bothers me is when you get like 5 phone calls a night and no one is there when you pick up. You can't tell them to remove you from the calling list if you don't get to talk to them.
Sure you can. They called you, they've got a responsibility to allow the call to complete. Otherwise, I'd say, you could sue them not only for ignoring your legally delivered "do not call" request (just because they don't listen doesn't mean you didn't ask), but also could charge them with telephone harassment (last I heard, repeated hang-ups could get you in trouble). I'd argue that they have a reasonable expectation that someone they call might ask to be put on a list, and by using an auto-dialer that hangs up on 4 out of 5 simultaneously-dialed calls 'cause one of them answered first shouldn't be an excuse to shirk that responsibility. At least, I'd love to see a smart lawyer argue that.
Of course, if they don't provide any CID information, then you'll never be able to figure out who to sue.
It's interesting that this story comes the same day that the Congress decided to fund the FTC's opt-out list.
I still say, as I have many, many times before, that none of these remedies will help, in the long run. I get more tape-recorded calls now (which are illegal in the first place) than normal telemarketers. If they're ignoring the law prohibiting taped messages, they'll just ignore opt-in or opt-out laws, too. It all comes down to knowing who called you (which you can't because the FCC crippled caller-id regs), and having the time to bother with suing them (which nobody does).
It was management that said "We have a teacher on board and a world waiting, fuck the cold weather, we have to launch now" despite a handfull of engineers saying "The o-rings could be too cold and they could crack and leak."
That's not entirely true. Sure, there was a lot of pressure, but the engineers were having a tough time convincing management that there was a problem. There had been an o-ring malfunction before (one of the two rings in a joint was burned through), but it happened in warm weather, to which NASA middle management said "see, it's not cold related," and the engineers didn't have a good response to that argument. Like it or not, you have to be able to prove your argument to win it.
There's a very good description of the problem in one of the Tufte books (a series of books on visual design and display of data, usually hawked during seminars, see http://www.edwardtufte.com). It concentrates on how not all the data was immediately available to engineers, so they made presentations (and drew conclusions) on incomplete information. Further, he argues that the data they presented was done so in a confusing, and hard to interpret, fashion. Had they had more data, they would have been able to make a much stronger case for delaying launch, but as it was, the "suits" had to go with what they knew, which was that "it seems safe enough, and nobody can convince us otherwise." (I should also mention that at least one paper takes issue with Tufte's methods and findings, but I feel that the basic truth remains -- not enough data, presented in a poor fashion, failed to convince management of the imminent risk.)
So, it wasn't so much management saying "fuck the cold," with engineers saying "they could be too cold and could leak," but instead was engineers saying "we think it could be too cold," management saying "prove it," and engineers trying to do so but not being able to present a convincing argument. Management listened, but in the end, had to go with what they knew.
But just because you happen to catch a bad break in a very public location is not an automatic ticket to the exulted status of hero.
I agree, and dislike use of the term "hero" as applied to people going about everyday, normal activites, but ending up in the wrong place at the wrong time, like victims of a terorist attack or a freak accident.
However, those who knowlingly put their life on the line for the safety of others can certainly be called a hero. The passengers on the 9/11 flight that crashed in Pennsylvania were heroes, because they took action to save others' lives, even though it most likely meant an immediate death for themselves. The workers in the World Trade Center who stayed behind to help others escape, or who helped carry people down stairs even though it meant delaying their own safety, are heroes.
I'd say that Astronauts fall into the same category. They willingly risk their lives for the advancement of science -- for the betterment of all mankind. These astronauts knew the risks, they new who'd died before them, they knew there was a chance that they might not return, but they still went. That takes a kind of bravery that I'll never be able to personally muster, just as I'll never have the bravery to take a hill with an M-1.
I'd even go so far as to say that the families of the astronauts are heroes, in a way -- they sacrifice their own piece of mind by accepting, and encouraging, their loved ones to take these risks. They may be a "lesser rank" of heroes, but their support they provided the astronauts before the disaster, the stoicism they've shown during their loss, and their united support for continuing the program all earn them a respect that most people, myself included, don't deserve. They're heroes, too, in my book.
...still do. But it looks like this is the first trek movie since #1 that I won't be seeing in the theatres, as it's about gone from my area now.
There were a lot of things going against it, for me -- a busy holiday season, a busy holiday MOVIE season (bond, potter, lotr are three I remember off the top of my head). Add to that some lackluster reviews, not a lot of strong promotion (so I wasn't as likely to remember, oh yeah, there's a ST movie out!), and a general feeling that what I had seen looked more contrived and forced than most, and I just basically forgot all about it.
I think one thing I was concerned about was that it seemed (from the previews) to be shaping up as a kick-ass action movie, which ST has never been. If they'd been offering something with more meat, storywise, then I might have been more tempted. Maybe. As it was, the main reason I wanted to see it was just because it was there.
Even if it has issues, I think any step towards integrating the vast array of personal electronics (Cel Phone, MP3 Player, PDA, Digital Camera) is a good one. And this looks like the first PDA with a real camera.
I agree, but only to a point.
Integrating an MP3 player with my Palm sounds like a cool idea, at least it did when most MP3 players were stuck at 64 or 128 MB of storage. Now that we've got many 20+ gigabyte players out there, a "real" MP3 player will never fit in a PDA (at least not until we can get HD-like capacities in flash or extremely low power drives).
Getting a cell phone integrated is good, for cool factor, but I wouldn't want one. For one, I'd be tied to whatever local providers had service for my particular model. Unless you could trade in a CDMA version for a GSM version the next time I get annoyed with my wireless carrier, then this simply won't fly for many people. Plus, I can certainly see a need to talk on the phone while looking something up -- which you can't do with an integrated unit unless you put it in speakerphone mode (or carry a plug-in earpiece/microphone).
And, finally, maybe this new Clie has a "real" digital camera, but please define "real." Compared to 640x480 2nd generation cameras, maybe it's cool, but compared to modern 4 megapixel cameras? How big is the lens opening (which helps to drive its sensitivity to low-light situations)? How quickly will you drain the batteries when using the flash?
I think it's important to remember what made PDAs, especially Palm-powered ones, so popular in the first place. They filled a need, not for a "laptop in your shirt pocket," but for a quick way to take notes, keep contact lists together, etc. I'd say that as far as PDAs take that same approach to integrated features like MP3s or photos, that's a Good Thing. The PDA approach to these should be to allow users to listen to "an album or two" and to take "an occasional photo of the whiteboard that you just filled with a world-changing idea."
But if they're trying to make a PDA into a "PowerMac in your shirt pocket," then it'll fail. And it should -- there will always be far better cameras / mp3 players / phones available than what's integrated into a PDA.
OK you don't have a generator?? I mean you should have BOTH a UPS and a generator. Especially for a data center.
True, but smaller companies, or big companies with important data in smaller facilities, might not have generators.
And, true, you're typically not wanting to get into a closet if the power's out, but there might be times. We had a terrible storm once, and water backed up into a storm drain that was somehow connected to an under floor drain in our computer room. So we had water under the floor (I only noticed 'cause it was leaking out into the hallway). If we'd had a loss of power, we couldn't have gotten into the server room without a key (okay, fine, *THAT* room at least would have had a UPS for the door, but you get the picture).
You'll always need some kind of physical backup for any room -- it's just a failsafe. But it's easy enough to keep those keyed totally differently, with no master, and to keep those keys in a safe somewhere.
Server rooms and now even wiring closets should have controlled card key access at a minimum.
Yes, except that if the power goes out, you're screwed. So all doors will still need a key lock of some sort. (or a mechanical combination, like a simplex lock, but you still need a key to use that in the event the combination is messed up or nobody who knows it is around and there's a burst pipe behind the door....)
So, really, what it boils down to is that critical doors simply shouldn't be part of ANY master key system.
Of course, if the emergency keys for these rooms are kept locked in an office protected by a master-keyed lock, then, well....
Disney is more concerned with not being able to re-release their movies every twenty years and then locking them up again.
Of course, when was the last time that Disney released any of its classic movies to theatres?
I was looking at boxofficemojo.com the other day, and I don't think I saw a major classic (Snow White, Pinocchio, etc.) released to theaters since 1993. Which is a shame, since I'd rather people take their kids to one of those than to an intern-inked sequel to The Jungle Book (or something even more dreadful). Plus, it'd cost them even less to re-release a classic than to create a new knockoff, no matter how cheap the animators.
So, I guess what I'm asking, off-topic, is why the hell is Disney not re-issuing movies that were actually very good, instead of releasing crap every 4 months?
Any transation that cannot be completed over the phone is exempt from the do-not-call list. That means most of those annoying recorded messages that end up on your answering machine -- "Sorry I missed you, but let me tell you about a great deal on clothes at..."
:( If the guy at the other end doesn't like it, then he can just get another job.
:)
This is the example I always bring up to show that simply prohibiting any kind of SPAM won't work.
These calls are already explicitly illegal -- and have been for years (though, again, political calls like "Tom Jones wants to remind you to vote for him!" are exempt, dammit.) But try to make them stop. We've tried many times, but they ignore our requests and keep calling anyway.
Every now and then I consider starting a log, but:
1. I'd have to keep a log by EVERY phone in the house
2. I'd have to call their numbers, do extensive searching on the web, etc., to figure out who they are
3. Many of these companies are very well "cloaked" so #2 becomes quite difficult
4. When I have enough information, I'd have to try suing them (since nobody else seems willing to take the necessary measures to put them out of business)
5. They could always say "it was a real human leaving a message," and it'd be difficult to prove otherwise, unless I happened to have 5 different copies of exactly the same message (with the same inflection, etc.).
When it comes down to it, I just don't have the time. My life's busy enough without doing the government's job of catching lawbreakers for them.
Now, if I could simply forward a copy of the telemarketer's messages directly to the FTC and expect a real response, and an automatic check for damages from the company in question, then we'd have it. But in this era of tax cuts and expensive wars, I don't expect the government to be able to do something so helpful for "normal people."
I've considered just starting to get abusive with them -- I can always say that I've got a EULA published on my website that says I can yell, cuss, and generally abuse anyone who calls me. At least I could vent my anger that way, rather than doing something personally destructive like kicking the cat.
Anyway, the point is, people who are ignoring current laws will simply ignore new ones. Until we have a way to quickly and decisively prosecute these companies (without putting the burden on the victims, as it currently is), no amount of opt-out lists will solve the problem.
That's my rant for this iteration of this topic. Feel free to search the archives for other, better-worded ones.
We in the US take water for granted. It's basically free -- cheaper than all other utilities, our water bill is about $15 a month, tops.
Not only do we take it for granted, we tend to take it at the expense of the environment or others downstream. The Colorado River, for example, is only a trickle of a dried-up stream where it used to dump into the ocean, and many Mexican communities have been lost, all because people keep moving to LA and, well, needing water.
We need to be much more aware of how we use water in this country, and most importantly, start looking for alternative sources whenever local demands start to affect the ecology or overall flow levels of major rivers.
Desalinization is a great step -- but the next big step would be builidng the huge pipelines (or canals, which'd be much cheaper) to bring water from the coasts to interior cities (though, since most of the population, and thus, most of the worst of the water problems, are near the coast, this isn't as bad as it might be). (yes, I'm ignoring cyclical dust-bowl problems or interior water-starved cities like San Antonio).
Of course, if this current effort flops, then it'll be much tougher to get other cities interested in the program.
It'd be, obviously, preferable of they could use some kind of distillation system, rather than permeable membranes, to arrive at "pure" water with disposable solids (that might themselves be mineable for things like table salt or other chemicals). On the other hand, it might be possible to pipe the very salty "leftover" water back into the ocean, but through a wide-ranging diffusion network over several hundred square miles.
At any rate, I really hope this works!
I'm already using The Brain [thebrain.com]. It's *really* unique, and it works. It works very well.
Various people have tried to get me interested in The Brain, but I've never quite warmed up to it. Maybe I'm just using it wrong.
What's the great deal about The Brain? Is there any easy way to describe an initial "project" or organizational need I should tackle with The Brain to really understand its utility? Or a good fan/FAQ site? (not just marketing-speak)
How is this any different from the "simulator" rides that already exist at theme parks and in Dave & Buster's locations? Basically, those just move you up and down, and tilt and shake you until you wish you had never gotten on the ride.
The problem I have with these sorts of rides is that they don't even come close to a roller coaster experience, for me. No wind (okay, they could solve that with clever ducted fans), but most importantly, no real G-forces. When you go down a steep hill, you feel lighter. When you go around a tight turn, you're glued to your seat. When you go upside down, you're glued to your seat.
Somehow, I suspect that if RoboCoaster turned the car upside down, you'd fall out. Unless they've created a gravity generator.
I've had good luck with four Rio / SonicBlue items -- three Rio Receivers (MP3/ethernet/stereo components) and a Rio Riot (20G portable MP3 player).
Plus, a lot of what they do is linux based, so this might be hackable. If so, and if this avoids a noisy fan, it might be a great set-top box "terminal" for a centralized PVR system. Maybe. (I haven't read the article yet).
Has anyone been able to convert a DirecTV TiVo unit (the Phillips units) to access the live MPEG stream (after decryption?) I'm interested not in getting free service, but in paying for it for a registered DirecTV unit, then slurping the MPEG data out an ethernet port to a central server. From there, I can send it to slimline, fan-less set-top boxes (yet to be built), so I'll have a centralized, networked, ubertivo.
It's difficult to search for this sort of information, as on most hacking sites they're either talking about adding a webserver to your TiVo unit (and any talk about getting streams is verboten as "piracy"), or they're talking about stealing the stream altogether (with emulation or whatever).
It probably has different sets of codes for each remote.
:)
A perfectly reasonable and extremely obvious solution. So, naturally, I missed it.
Though this doesn't address what happens when a transmission gets missed (from interference or distance), but another reply covered that one pretty well...