The difference between someone captured on the battlefield and someone captured within the United States should be plain to everybody. Do you also think that we lost the right to trial by jury because we didn't afford it to the POWs we captured in the Civil War/Spanish-American War/WW1/WW2/Korea or Vietnam?
Why do you think they call it the Department of Homeland Security ? In this age of terror, the US is a part of the battlefield. Bush has pretty much established the right of the executive to declare anyone it feels like to be an enemy combatant. Obama, by voting for a lot of Bush's policies when he was in Senate, and by effectively declaring that he is not going to prosecute anyone for crimes (he spins it as "looking forward"), has adopted the same policies. I am not trying to minimize the threat that Islamic radicalism poses to the US, only saying that we have entrenched a policy of overreaction which needlessly tramples on the very ideas that these jokers are pretending to be fighting to save.
I opposed the Iraq War but you should at least acknowledge that it was the stated policy of our country since the 90s to change the regime in Iraq. It's not like Bush picked a random country off to map to invade and bullied Congress into letting him do it.
He did. In the aftermath of 9-11, Iraq *was* a random country to pick off the map. It was the only Arab country without an Al Qaeda presence. That makes it worse than just some random country. Invading Iraq after 9-11 was not like us invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. It was more like us invading China after Pearl Harbor.
The point is that it is perfectly possible to frighten otherwise rational people into doing stuff that is utterly braindead and self-destructive. So that 2/3rd majority blanket you are hiding behind does not exist.
Well, I oppose that too, but it's interesting that you are bringing up pork in a discussion about civil liberties. Which civil liberties do I lose if Congress decides to fight STDs? My right to keep and bear chlamydia?;)
Its an example of the modus operandi. The fact that you find it to unrelated only serves to further support my argument that a determined executive branch can do practically anything it wants, and our legislative check and balances system has long since ceased to exist.
The media has it's own agenda -- selling copy. I would dispute that you can make a blanket statement that 'the media' is part of 'the establishment'. 'The media' is a pretty broad term. Slashdot is part of the media. Is Slashdot part of the establishment? How about 2600? They part of the establishment?
I think both of us pretty much know what media I am talking about. If not, look up the examples I gave (CNN and Fox). Its the mass media, with a broad reach. Nothing on the internet, free as it is, has anything comparable. Internet tends to self-select (you are not going to find Joe Sixpack on slashdot). Cable TV addles everyone.
I disagree. The fact that several states stood up and told Washington to fuck off with regards to Real ID tells me that we are far ahead of the Brits.
Which the feds have circumvented easily with the total information awareness program. It was even commented on slashdot fairly recently. I am sure that "f*ck you" will feel pretty good pretty soon.
Eh, you may have a point there, but the 2nd amendment raises an interesting issue. Historically the right to keep and bear arms came from the Common Law. In the UK you've allowed parliamentary supremacy to take away this time honored right. If they can do it to that right then why can't they take away your right to a trial by jury, your right against self-incrimination, or any of the other rights that you hold so dear?
As an American, I find that a little misleading. The second amendment is not going to do a jot for you if the feds decide its time to SWAT you out of existence. Its at best a palliative that gives us a false sense of security. As to the right to trial by jury, there are plenty of people our government is holding, who do not even "exist", let alone are ever tried, or tried by jury.
Say what you will about the United States but at least it takes more than a majority vote in the House of Representatives to start taking away our rights. You'd also need a majority vote in the US Senate, the signature of the President (or 2/3'rds vote in the aforementioned chambers), the acquiescence of the 50 States and the Federal judiciary.
Nice in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Frighten the congressmen/women enough, fool the people enough and you can make them dance any which way you want. Even allow the President to declare war on a neutral country in the name of national security, or pay billions to fight STDs in the name of economic stimulus.
The reason is that our media is a part of the establishment. Whether its CNN's love affair with the Democrats or Fox's marriage to the Republicans, an ignorant, naturally insular populace such as ours is ripe pickings for these charlatans who call themselves our leaders. We are pretty much as scr*w*d as the Brits are. Except that most them know it. We still are living in our fantasy land.
What is the extra cost to MS for allowing users run more apps? What is the cost savings for restricting to two? Unless there is something significant here... the pricing structure is just silly.
The "reason" is obvious. They can sell this crippled version of windows 7 for $10, claim that they are as cheap as Linux in Microsoft funded TCO studies, and still make money by asking OEM's to "recommend" more expensive versions.
The question is : are you smarter than your 5th grader ?
It was a stupid idea. Funny that people at the time did it to save money. Now it costs more to prepare the shuttle for a launch than it does for a whole new rocket.
Not to nitpick or anything, but the Earth cannot have a zodiac sign, since the latter is usually defined as the constellation in the ecliptic that the Sun was present in. Which presumes that the observer was located on the Earth. Ergo...
My point is your objections are trivial to overcome if you think about it for more that 5 minutes. But if you insist on having 2 cars with 300+ mile range for your 50 mile daily drive, go ahead.
Heck, I would accept a car with a 40 mile driving range, if only it would do one of the things that cars are made for - carry family groceries/shopping home. As to triviality of groceries, try convincing your wife about that and let us know how you get on.
Because the EV is cheaper to operate, or because the EV is better for the environment. Pick whichever motivation is more important to you.
Cheaper operation is always important. Its the reason why I bought a Prius and sold my old Civic. But my Prius does not tell me "Oh, I am sorry. You can't do this, and that, and that, because I am too trendy to be a car."
No, you're supposed to drive the regular car, and the other driver in the house will drive the EV. Unless, of course, your only goal here is to object to EVs instead of actually think about the "shopping" problem.
Spoken like a true "genius". So, I should force the other driver to accept lower capabilities (than a normal no-frills car) so that I can tell myself every night that at least I am helping the environment ? I have a better suggestion - maybe I could just sell the other car and walk to work. It would be radically friendly to the environment, no not even the extra emissions from the production of the other car.
You must have been on a focus group where such dumb design decisions are made.
Then why wouldn't I just keep the two cars I have instead of replacing one with an EV ? If it can't do what the car it is replacing can, then it is useless. I usually shop on my way back from work. Am I supposed to drive an extra 5 miles (back and forth) to drop off the white elephant and pick up a normal car and then go shopping ??
Drag, from what I remember of my fluid dynamics, is a rapidly increasing function of speed. Don't make an EV with a top speed of 120 mph. Make it a top speed of 75 mph (which will do fine for most normal people). Your design requirements will relax immediately. Further, have an idea of how long a typical driver will drive at what speed. If it is being driven for 20 minutes at 70 mph and 1 hour at 30 mph or less, it just seems stupid to design it for maximal efficiency at 70 mph.
We do not disagree. Looks are important. Except that different looks matter to different people. And its more than looks. How am I supposed to stuff a week's worth of groceries from Costco into one of these ??
That is my point - these designs, while aerodynamic and Hollywood friendly, do not take into account the real needs for real people in real life. Make it a 40 mile range car that goes from 0 to 60 in 7 seconds. I do not mind that. Its just my hunch (and I have not taken fluid dynamics since undergrad) that that is doable with a design that will fit me.
A car is primarily a transportation vehicle. Not a fashion statement primarily. The issue with the argument with early adoption is that it remains just that - there are never enough early adopters for whom cost is no object. Look at the history of the gas fueled auto. Yes, the cost is high initially, but make something that will catch fire with the general public. Changing designs later does not work because by then you already have a reputation for poor ergonomics.
I do not understand why these cutting edge car designers can't make a conventional looking car (something as boring looking like a Corolla). Your friendly neighborhood soccer mom or PTA dad is not going to want get caught driving this.
I am not saying they should copy Corolla's body style but for heaven's sake, make something that looks like its meant for this planet. I am betting that these people probably spent a good deal of money on the shape designer. This car will appeal to teenage nerds, extreme yuppies and the Hollywood set. How many of them are there anyways ??
If they are really serious about addressing the actual gas problem, they should make something that looks a little more common (oh horrors !). This car looks like a rich man's gimmick. Don't be surprised if the middle class gives it a miss.
I know it is fashionable to take it out on foreigners when times are tough, but I really think you should stop peddling this fiction. Its become an urban legend on slashdot, perhaps because so many people here are techies, and affected by competition from countries like China and India. To hire someone on an H-1B visa, regardless of the industry, the employer has to do two things :
1. He/she has to put up an ad for the position.
2. He/she has to get department of labor certification from the state the position is located in, which requires that the H-1B worker be paid more than what a US employee would get. Sometimes, this is merely $100 more, and sometimes it is more than that.
How do I know ? I work with some H-1B people at my univ. They are postdocs (they actually have it easier than the ones you are ranting about since there is no limit on number of H-1Bs for non-profits - unlike companies like Microsoft who have to meet the 60,000 per issue limit) who are paid slightly more than the measly salary that local postdocs get. These are foreigners who have even done their Ph. D.'s here in the US, but the process of application for Green Cards is so hard, and so few employers in academia are willing to sponsor them, that H-1B/J-1 etc. are the only ways in which they can work here.
In case you have illusions, postdocs are the indentured servants of academic life. They have great qualifications, work long and hard, and make about 1.5 times more than I make as a grad student (stipend). I personally could not imagine doing some of the work I have done without help from some of these people. It has always been this way. If anything, postdocs salaries have gone up slightly in the last 5 years.
While Lou Dobbs makes great points in his crusade against illegal aliens (you know - the ones that actually break our laws and violate our sovereignty and often commit a lot of crime), he has increasingly gone off the rails when it comes to H-1Bs. Three weeks ago, I watched him rant about low postdoc salaries (he used an average of ($30-40K)) and how it was the fault of H-1B postdoc workers. I was appalled. I asked my uncle who was a postdoc in late 70s at an ivy league school. He told me that you had to be lucky to make as much in those days. As we all know, H-1B program wasn't even around then.
... is the result of the faulty assumption by people who use tools like Word and Framemaker, etc., that their small scale toys are scalable to real needs of publishing.
The reality is that one of the very few tools that can (so far) handle documents of indefinite size, is LaTeX/ConTeXt. Publishers provide the class and bst files, the lazy bums who want to be authors invest a day or so learning it (unless you write complicated documents with lots of line-broken equations, tikz type graphics, etc., it should not take a person of average intelligence more than about 1-2 hours to learn the way to do things). There is absolutely nothing, not Endnote, not anything else, that beats the robustness, ease, simplicity and elegance of the BibTeX system.
But we have commercial companies who obviously have a vested interest in continuing the popular myth of GUI-dependent authoring tools. And mentally incurious people who continue to make life hard for the rest of us because of their personal delusions / laziness.
... that successful open source companies direct their efforts primarily at support, not software as such. If Sun is ignoring this, its doing it to its own detriment.
Can't speak for him obviously, but I don't think he wants / needs any gold diggers in his life. No normal woman would want to live with his settled quirky personal habits.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between someone captured on the battlefield and someone captured within the United States should be plain to everybody. Do you also think that we lost the right to trial by jury because we didn't afford it to the POWs we captured in the Civil War/Spanish-American War/WW1/WW2/Korea or Vietnam?
Why do you think they call it the Department of Homeland Security ? In this age of terror, the US is a part of the battlefield. Bush has pretty much established the right of the executive to declare anyone it feels like to be an enemy combatant. Obama, by voting for a lot of Bush's policies when he was in Senate, and by effectively declaring that he is not going to prosecute anyone for crimes (he spins it as "looking forward"), has adopted the same policies. I am not trying to minimize the threat that Islamic radicalism poses to the US, only saying that we have entrenched a policy of overreaction which needlessly tramples on the very ideas that these jokers are pretending to be fighting to save.
I opposed the Iraq War but you should at least acknowledge that it was the stated policy of our country since the 90s to change the regime in Iraq. It's not like Bush picked a random country off to map to invade and bullied Congress into letting him do it.
He did. In the aftermath of 9-11, Iraq *was* a random country to pick off the map. It was the only Arab country without an Al Qaeda presence. That makes it worse than just some random country. Invading Iraq after 9-11 was not like us invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. It was more like us invading China after Pearl Harbor.
The point is that it is perfectly possible to frighten otherwise rational people into doing stuff that is utterly braindead and self-destructive. So that 2/3rd majority blanket you are hiding behind does not exist.
Well, I oppose that too, but it's interesting that you are bringing up pork in a discussion about civil liberties. Which civil liberties do I lose if Congress decides to fight STDs? My right to keep and bear chlamydia? ;)
Its an example of the modus operandi. The fact that you find it to unrelated only serves to further support my argument that a determined executive branch can do practically anything it wants, and our legislative check and balances system has long since ceased to exist.
The media has it's own agenda -- selling copy. I would dispute that you can make a blanket statement that 'the media' is part of 'the establishment'. 'The media' is a pretty broad term. Slashdot is part of the media. Is Slashdot part of the establishment? How about 2600? They part of the establishment?
I think both of us pretty much know what media I am talking about. If not, look up the examples I gave (CNN and Fox). Its the mass media, with a broad reach. Nothing on the internet, free as it is, has anything comparable. Internet tends to self-select (you are not going to find Joe Sixpack on slashdot). Cable TV addles everyone.
I disagree. The fact that several states stood up and told Washington to fuck off with regards to Real ID tells me that we are far ahead of the Brits.
Which the feds have circumvented easily with the total information awareness program. It was even commented on slashdot fairly recently. I am sure that "f*ck you" will feel pretty good pretty soon.
I wonder if the requirement by Apple that OSX be installed only on Apple produced hardware is guilty of violating the Sherman act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act.
Eh, you may have a point there, but the 2nd amendment raises an interesting issue. Historically the right to keep and bear arms came from the Common Law. In the UK you've allowed parliamentary supremacy to take away this time honored right. If they can do it to that right then why can't they take away your right to a trial by jury, your right against self-incrimination, or any of the other rights that you hold so dear?
As an American, I find that a little misleading. The second amendment is not going to do a jot for you if the feds decide its time to SWAT you out of existence. Its at best a palliative that gives us a false sense of security. As to the right to trial by jury, there are plenty of people our government is holding, who do not even "exist", let alone are ever tried, or tried by jury.
Say what you will about the United States but at least it takes more than a majority vote in the House of Representatives to start taking away our rights. You'd also need a majority vote in the US Senate, the signature of the President (or 2/3'rds vote in the aforementioned chambers), the acquiescence of the 50 States and the Federal judiciary.
Nice in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Frighten the congressmen/women enough, fool the people enough and you can make them dance any which way you want. Even allow the President to declare war on a neutral country in the name of national security, or pay billions to fight STDs in the name of economic stimulus.
The reason is that our media is a part of the establishment. Whether its CNN's love affair with the Democrats or Fox's marriage to the Republicans, an ignorant, naturally insular populace such as ours is ripe pickings for these charlatans who call themselves our leaders. We are pretty much as scr*w*d as the Brits are. Except that most them know it. We still are living in our fantasy land.
What is the extra cost to MS for allowing users run more apps? What is the cost savings for restricting to two? Unless there is something significant here... the pricing structure is just silly.
The "reason" is obvious. They can sell this crippled version of windows 7 for $10, claim that they are as cheap as Linux in Microsoft funded TCO studies, and still make money by asking OEM's to "recommend" more expensive versions.
The question is : are you smarter than your 5th grader ?
"Many of us in CCP use Linux and are convinced of its merits as an operating system."
In fact we are so convinced that we release crippled versions of our software for Linux, hoping that the OS would magically fill in the gaps.
Doesn't affect me, but that is one company I would avoid for any and all products going forward.
And did I miss the transition to a multi-tasking OS somewhere ?
I did not climb Olympus Mons. But at least my Robby did :)
It was a stupid idea. Funny that people at the time did it to save money. Now it costs more to prepare the shuttle for a launch than it does for a whole new rocket.
For a coffee break, that is.
(In case anyone was wondering, Earth is a Libra.)
Not to nitpick or anything, but the Earth cannot have a zodiac sign, since the latter is usually defined as the constellation in the ecliptic that the Sun was present in. Which presumes that the observer was located on the Earth. Ergo ...
My point is your objections are trivial to overcome if you think about it for more that 5 minutes. But if you insist on having 2 cars with 300+ mile range for your 50 mile daily drive, go ahead.
Heck, I would accept a car with a 40 mile driving range, if only it would do one of the things that cars are made for - carry family groceries/shopping home. As to triviality of groceries, try convincing your wife about that and let us know how you get on.
Because the EV is cheaper to operate, or because the EV is better for the environment. Pick whichever motivation is more important to you.
Cheaper operation is always important. Its the reason why I bought a Prius and sold my old Civic. But my Prius does not tell me "Oh, I am sorry. You can't do this, and that, and that, because I am too trendy to be a car."
No, you're supposed to drive the regular car, and the other driver in the house will drive the EV. Unless, of course, your only goal here is to object to EVs instead of actually think about the "shopping" problem.
Spoken like a true "genius". So, I should force the other driver to accept lower capabilities (than a normal no-frills car) so that I can tell myself every night that at least I am helping the environment ? I have a better suggestion - maybe I could just sell the other car and walk to work. It would be radically friendly to the environment, no not even the extra emissions from the production of the other car.
You must have been on a focus group where such dumb design decisions are made.
Then why wouldn't I just keep the two cars I have instead of replacing one with an EV ? If it can't do what the car it is replacing can, then it is useless. I usually shop on my way back from work. Am I supposed to drive an extra 5 miles (back and forth) to drop off the white elephant and pick up a normal car and then go shopping ??
Drag, from what I remember of my fluid dynamics, is a rapidly increasing function of speed. Don't make an EV with a top speed of 120 mph. Make it a top speed of 75 mph (which will do fine for most normal people). Your design requirements will relax immediately. Further, have an idea of how long a typical driver will drive at what speed. If it is being driven for 20 minutes at 70 mph and 1 hour at 30 mph or less, it just seems stupid to design it for maximal efficiency at 70 mph.
We do not disagree. Looks are important. Except that different looks matter to different people. And its more than looks. How am I supposed to stuff a week's worth of groceries from Costco into one of these ??
That is my point - these designs, while aerodynamic and Hollywood friendly, do not take into account the real needs for real people in real life. Make it a 40 mile range car that goes from 0 to 60 in 7 seconds. I do not mind that. Its just my hunch (and I have not taken fluid dynamics since undergrad) that that is doable with a design that will fit me.
A car is primarily a transportation vehicle. Not a fashion statement primarily. The issue with the argument with early adoption is that it remains just that - there are never enough early adopters for whom cost is no object. Look at the history of the gas fueled auto. Yes, the cost is high initially, but make something that will catch fire with the general public. Changing designs later does not work because by then you already have a reputation for poor ergonomics.
I do not understand why these cutting edge car designers can't make a conventional looking car (something as boring looking like a Corolla). Your friendly neighborhood soccer mom or PTA dad is not going to want get caught driving this.
I am not saying they should copy Corolla's body style but for heaven's sake, make something that looks like its meant for this planet. I am betting that these people probably spent a good deal of money on the shape designer. This car will appeal to teenage nerds, extreme yuppies and the Hollywood set. How many of them are there anyways ??
If they are really serious about addressing the actual gas problem, they should make something that looks a little more common (oh horrors !). This car looks like a rich man's gimmick. Don't be surprised if the middle class gives it a miss.
I know it is fashionable to take it out on foreigners when times are tough, but I really think you should stop peddling this fiction. Its become an urban legend on slashdot, perhaps because so many people here are techies, and affected by competition from countries like China and India. To hire someone on an H-1B visa, regardless of the industry, the employer has to do two things :
1. He/she has to put up an ad for the position.
2. He/she has to get department of labor certification from the state the position is located in, which requires that the H-1B worker be paid more than what a US employee would get. Sometimes, this is merely $100 more, and sometimes it is more than that.
How do I know ? I work with some H-1B people at my univ. They are postdocs (they actually have it easier than the ones you are ranting about since there is no limit on number of H-1Bs for non-profits - unlike companies like Microsoft who have to meet the 60,000 per issue limit) who are paid slightly more than the measly salary that local postdocs get. These are foreigners who have even done their Ph. D.'s here in the US, but the process of application for Green Cards is so hard, and so few employers in academia are willing to sponsor them, that H-1B/J-1 etc. are the only ways in which they can work here.
In case you have illusions, postdocs are the indentured servants of academic life. They have great qualifications, work long and hard, and make about 1.5 times more than I make as a grad student (stipend). I personally could not imagine doing some of the work I have done without help from some of these people. It has always been this way. If anything, postdocs salaries have gone up slightly in the last 5 years.
While Lou Dobbs makes great points in his crusade against illegal aliens (you know - the ones that actually break our laws and violate our sovereignty and often commit a lot of crime), he has increasingly gone off the rails when it comes to H-1Bs. Three weeks ago, I watched him rant about low postdoc salaries (he used an average of ($30-40K)) and how it was the fault of H-1B postdoc workers. I was appalled. I asked my uncle who was a postdoc in late 70s at an ivy league school. He told me that you had to be lucky to make as much in those days. As we all know, H-1B program wasn't even around then.
End Program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_in_a_Bottle_(TNG_episode)
... is the result of the faulty assumption by people who use tools like Word and Framemaker, etc., that their small scale toys are scalable to real needs of publishing. The reality is that one of the very few tools that can (so far) handle documents of indefinite size, is LaTeX/ConTeXt. Publishers provide the class and bst files, the lazy bums who want to be authors invest a day or so learning it (unless you write complicated documents with lots of line-broken equations, tikz type graphics, etc., it should not take a person of average intelligence more than about 1-2 hours to learn the way to do things). There is absolutely nothing, not Endnote, not anything else, that beats the robustness, ease, simplicity and elegance of the BibTeX system.
But we have commercial companies who obviously have a vested interest in continuing the popular myth of GUI-dependent authoring tools. And mentally incurious people who continue to make life hard for the rest of us because of their personal delusions / laziness.
... a metallic ball the size of the Earth would have a capacitance of 1 F. If the claim is true, we are truly in for a treat.
What about the heat produced by the equipment that does the spraying ?
You are right. The courts are just "grabbing" back the power that was given to them by one of those pesky Bill of Rights thingies.
... that successful open source companies direct their efforts primarily at support, not software as such. If Sun is ignoring this, its doing it to its own detriment.
Can't speak for him obviously, but I don't think he wants / needs any gold diggers in his life. No normal woman would want to live with his settled quirky personal habits.
You cannot possibly freeload off history. That is like benefiting from a reputation. Apple freeloads off the actual BSD codebase. Very very different.