Nice job evaluating historic events via modern biases. You are allowed to bullshit if you are spouting opinion, but if you are going to talk history, get your facts straight.
Modern warfighting values and decisions regarding civilian casualties cannot be applied to WW2, even though it was a mere 60 years ago. The firebombings of London, Dresden, Tokyo, and other cities during the time demonstrate that striking civilian populations were indeed seen as a legitimate use of military force by both Allied and Axis powers. Civilian losses in the Soviet Union may have been as high as 13.7 million in the Axis-occupied areas. In China alone, the civilian deaths due to the Japanese invasion is estimated to be over 9 million. Non-fatal Chinese civilian casualties were more than another 8 million.
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed up to about 140,000 and 80,000 people, respectively. More died later from cancers, but that number varies in its estimates, and in any case is much smaller that the primary death figures. Total deaths are well under a quarter million. While that number itself may be staggering, your "millions of people" is a fallacy, to say the least. In fact, your statement would be more accurate if you were attacking the use of conventional weapons rather than nuclear.
WW2 in the Pacific theater was a horrific picture of destruction. The tenacity with which the Japanese defended every inch of every island indicated that the invasion of the mainland would have gone extremely badly, both for the attackers and the defenders. The Japanese military were training the civilian population to defend the Emperor in the case of an American invasion. Realistic projections of casualties for each side reached the millions easily, and the time frame for ending the war with conventional weapons and strategies was long.
The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not out of line with how the war was actually being fought by both sides. By avoiding a mainland invasion, it certainly avoided civilian and military casualties at least an order of magnitude greater than the actual bombings.
You're "knowledge" appears to come from nothing more than biases and stereotypes. You don't sound qualified or informed enough to operate anything more sophisticated than the buttons on a soda vending machine, much less make enterprise platform decisions.
IANAL, but to sum up, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution grants the US government the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In practice, it has been used to regulate things that go well beyond its original intent, such as non-navigable waterways and homegrown (non-commercial, intra-state) marijuana.
In the words of Clarence Thomas, "If Congress can regulate this [homegrown marijuana] under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
a) Networks have finite bandwidth for calls and data.
b) Networks are oversubscribed, because building a network that can give each of its subscribers truly unlimited voice & data is cost prohibitive.
c) Knowing the above, network providers nonetheless offer some form of "unlimited" plan, and often lead with this in their advertising. Thus, the "hype".
The gamble that the providers make is simple. They know that even the most resource-intensive customers they have:
a) shut up sooner or later, and
b) are relatively rare compared to the run-of-the-mill subscriber who actually uses far less of the network than they actually pay for or need.
The devices on the network are becoming far more powerful and capable, and the network providers likely see these new capabilities:
a) as untapped revenue streams, unless they can be controlled, ie crippled until the subscriber pays more, and
b) a potential threat to their oversubscription model.
Of the carriers I briefly surveyed, all have some sort of "unlimited" voice or data plan, whether it is Sprint's unlimited 4g data plan, or one of the others' unlimited mobile-to-mobile plans. Paradoxically for the literal-minded, but nonetheless unsurprisingly, all of them have limits.
Isn't that what slashdot has been ripping into the cable ISPs for? Throttling certain services, and charging for "excessive" use (bandwidth caps)? AT&T and Verizon are always bragging about their networks... why don't we make them live up to the hype?
Even those with sight can benefit from a properly designed site. Color schemes that look fine to you or I can be a nightmare for someone with color blindness.
Even though the web may primarily be a visual medium, it can be navigated without relying only on eyes. People with more severe visual impairments regularly surf the web with text-to-speech software assisting them. Poor design, such as misusing tables in place of [div], [span] and other proper formatting makes things tough, as does the practice of using a jpeg as a link button, and not tagging it with the appropriate text to indicate what it is for.
The government has an obligation to be as open as possible to all its citizens.
He's either a truly deluded technophobe fanatic or he's using the large numbers of truly deluded technophobe fanatics to lead a movement and make money.
My sentiments exactly. Likely both, although I suspect it is more of the latter. After all, he can't practice law anymore, so he probably needs to make a living somehow. Large masses of scared, impressionable sheeple are easily guided and fleeced (pun fully intended) by an angry person with a strident voice. I'm sure that whether or not he extracts a dime from Facebook, he will bring in stacks of money from those who think like him.
It also behooves Slashdot, et al., to be mindful of his actions. Attention may stroke his ego, but inattention might let him get something done that would be more difficult in the harsh light of criticism.
Stuff like that transfers to other projects. Same principles, different application: wind your own pickups for an electric guitar. Play around and learn how to vary wire thickness, number of coils, and even magnet type for a hotter or mellower sound, etc.
Sure. The V8 on my weed whacker is only 5.7 liters. It's tiny.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
True, but toxicity is in the dosage. Moderate exposure to sunlight, which our bodies are essentially built for, is healthy. Overexposure is obviously (by definition) bad for you. I recently went through a couple scares recently myself (no actual skin cancer, but a couple strange spots, one of which was apparently pre-cancerous). I never was into tanning, but I got a lot of minor sunburns when I was younger. Man, do they add up...
"I'd like to die like my father died... My father died fucking. My father was 57 when he died. The woman was 18. My father came and went at the same time. "
- Richard Pryor
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
Well said and good luck.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
Currently smokers are paying anywhere from 400-800% more for their product of choice thanks to taxes that are usually spent on anything and everything BUT what they were originally sold to the public for...
Consider it payback for close to a century of subsidies the government fed the tobacco industry, the healthcare costs that for smokers that come out of non-smokers' pockets, and the basic disparity that comes from smoke breaks for smokers, compared to a steaming pile of "get back to work" for those who don't.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
Some exposure to sunlight is beneficial, for example so our bodies can use it to generate vitamin D, or to help elevate our mood. I suppose you could go on vitamin supplements and avoid it altogether, but that's not the point. Sun is something we can and should be exposed to in moderate amounts. Cigarette smoke, not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice job evaluating historic events via modern biases. You are allowed to bullshit if you are spouting opinion, but if you are going to talk history, get your facts straight.
Modern warfighting values and decisions regarding civilian casualties cannot be applied to WW2, even though it was a mere 60 years ago. The firebombings of London, Dresden, Tokyo, and other cities during the time demonstrate that striking civilian populations were indeed seen as a legitimate use of military force by both Allied and Axis powers. Civilian losses in the Soviet Union may have been as high as 13.7 million in the Axis-occupied areas. In China alone, the civilian deaths due to the Japanese invasion is estimated to be over 9 million. Non-fatal Chinese civilian casualties were more than another 8 million.
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed up to about 140,000 and 80,000 people, respectively. More died later from cancers, but that number varies in its estimates, and in any case is much smaller that the primary death figures. Total deaths are well under a quarter million. While that number itself may be staggering, your "millions of people" is a fallacy, to say the least. In fact, your statement would be more accurate if you were attacking the use of conventional weapons rather than nuclear.
WW2 in the Pacific theater was a horrific picture of destruction. The tenacity with which the Japanese defended every inch of every island indicated that the invasion of the mainland would have gone extremely badly, both for the attackers and the defenders. The Japanese military were training the civilian population to defend the Emperor in the case of an American invasion. Realistic projections of casualties for each side reached the millions easily, and the time frame for ending the war with conventional weapons and strategies was long.
The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not out of line with how the war was actually being fought by both sides. By avoiding a mainland invasion, it certainly avoided civilian and military casualties at least an order of magnitude greater than the actual bombings.
Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but implying that Unix rests on a older, massive foundation that Windows laid down is wrongity wrong.
You're "knowledge" appears to come from nothing more than biases and stereotypes. You don't sound qualified or informed enough to operate anything more sophisticated than the buttons on a soda vending machine, much less make enterprise platform decisions.
don't beg me to switch to the Linux
Who's begging? None of us give a rat's ass what you use. Seriously.
Many may disagree with him , but I'm pretty sure he's got a point there.
IANAL, but to sum up, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution grants the US government the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In practice, it has been used to regulate things that go well beyond its original intent, such as non-navigable waterways and homegrown (non-commercial, intra-state) marijuana.
In the words of Clarence Thomas, "If Congress can regulate this [homegrown marijuana] under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
Okay, so here's how I see it:
a) Networks have finite bandwidth for calls and data.
b) Networks are oversubscribed, because building a network that can give each of its subscribers truly unlimited voice & data is cost prohibitive.
c) Knowing the above, network providers nonetheless offer some form of "unlimited" plan, and often lead with this in their advertising. Thus, the "hype".
The gamble that the providers make is simple. They know that even the most resource-intensive customers they have:
a) shut up sooner or later, and
b) are relatively rare compared to the run-of-the-mill subscriber who actually uses far less of the network than they actually pay for or need.
The devices on the network are becoming far more powerful and capable, and the network providers likely see these new capabilities:
a) as untapped revenue streams, unless they can be controlled, ie crippled until the subscriber pays more, and
b) a potential threat to their oversubscription model.
Of the carriers I briefly surveyed, all have some sort of "unlimited" voice or data plan, whether it is Sprint's unlimited 4g data plan, or one of the others' unlimited mobile-to-mobile plans. Paradoxically for the literal-minded, but nonetheless unsurprisingly, all of them have limits.
Isn't that what slashdot has been ripping into the cable ISPs for? Throttling certain services, and charging for "excessive" use (bandwidth caps)? AT&T and Verizon are always bragging about their networks ... why don't we make them live up to the hype?
...
Oh, yeah, because it's hype
Even those with sight can benefit from a properly designed site. Color schemes that look fine to you or I can be a nightmare for someone with color blindness.
Even though the web may primarily be a visual medium, it can be navigated without relying only on eyes. People with more severe visual impairments regularly surf the web with text-to-speech software assisting them. Poor design, such as misusing tables in place of [div], [span] and other proper formatting makes things tough, as does the practice of using a jpeg as a link button, and not tagging it with the appropriate text to indicate what it is for.
The government has an obligation to be as open as possible to all its citizens.
I don't know if you noticed, but brain matter doesn't fossilize particularly well.
Of course it does. That's how you make congresscritters.
Joke? How dare you blaspheme the benevolent FSM!
I dunno ... about as many as those who "waste" their bandwidth seeding torrents?
Can we please get a +1, Insightful over here? I gave all my points away yesterday.
He's either a truly deluded technophobe fanatic or he's using the large numbers of truly deluded technophobe fanatics to lead a movement and make money.
My sentiments exactly. Likely both, although I suspect it is more of the latter. After all, he can't practice law anymore, so he probably needs to make a living somehow. Large masses of scared, impressionable sheeple are easily guided and fleeced (pun fully intended) by an angry person with a strident voice. I'm sure that whether or not he extracts a dime from Facebook, he will bring in stacks of money from those who think like him.
It also behooves Slashdot, et al., to be mindful of his actions. Attention may stroke his ego, but inattention might let him get something done that would be more difficult in the harsh light of criticism.
If your damaged inner tie rod end breaks while you pass me, you just might inflict a lot of damage on my car.
...
I get your point, but I'm just sayin
I've long said that piracy was one of the big reasons for widespread MS adoption in the '80s and '90s, and therefore why they are successful today.
Stuff like that transfers to other projects. Same principles, different application: wind your own pickups for an electric guitar. Play around and learn how to vary wire thickness, number of coils, and even magnet type for a hotter or mellower sound, etc.
5. Wardriving.
Sure. The V8 on my weed whacker is only 5.7 liters. It's tiny.
True, but toxicity is in the dosage. Moderate exposure to sunlight, which our bodies are essentially built for, is healthy. Overexposure is obviously (by definition) bad for you. I recently went through a couple scares recently myself (no actual skin cancer, but a couple strange spots, one of which was apparently pre-cancerous). I never was into tanning, but I got a lot of minor sunburns when I was younger. Man, do they add up ...
"I'd like to die like my father died... My father died fucking. My father was 57 when he died. The woman was 18. My father came and went at the same time. "
- Richard Pryor
Well said and good luck.
Currently smokers are paying anywhere from 400-800% more for their product of choice thanks to taxes that are usually spent on anything and everything BUT what they were originally sold to the public for ...
Consider it payback for close to a century of subsidies the government fed the tobacco industry, the healthcare costs that for smokers that come out of non-smokers' pockets, and the basic disparity that comes from smoke breaks for smokers, compared to a steaming pile of "get back to work" for those who don't.
Some exposure to sunlight is beneficial, for example so our bodies can use it to generate vitamin D, or to help elevate our mood. I suppose you could go on vitamin supplements and avoid it altogether, but that's not the point. Sun is something we can and should be exposed to in moderate amounts. Cigarette smoke, not so much.