I believe the point is that Jobs talked the talk, but Apple failed to produce any meaningful results-- OS X Java has been well behind the curve the entire time. Finally, Apple just started bashing Java because they failed to live up to their promises.
It smacks of sour grapes when they turn around after their failures and say, "WELL JAVA ISN'T WORTH BUILDING IN ANYWAY!"
It's not like Apple isn't already known for making bold (often inflammatory) statements and then completely reverses vision and course and pretends that they never held such a strong position in the first place.
I do think that people who are seeking out the higher-end games do know to read the box. Most users who are to the point of obtaining those experiences know that there's a difference between Windows and Mac, and if they install Linux, they'll know that it's different too.
Games that are aimed at the mainstream generally aren't particularly demanding in terms of hardware or OS version, either. This is a conscious decision on the part of the developers, because they KNOW it would cause problems if they try to appeal to the masses with something that a tenth of one percent of home computers would be able to run...so they don't go bonkers making the game awesome, they tone things down to make it highly backwards-compatible with OSes, use less memory & HDD space, and not be overly demanding in terms of processor speed or video capabilities. They're making sacrifices for the people who don't read the requirements on the box, and wouldn't understand it if they did.
Those developers who do produce bleeding-edge games generally do factor in more tech support calls and product returns due to people not reading the box, but they usually don't TRY to attract the attention of the mainstream. They advertise in computer hardware and gaming magazines, not on television. I'm sure they do budget for more tech support inquiries and product returns for the few mainstream people who see the awesome box art and buy it without reading, but most of their customers could probably rattle-off all key system specs off the tops of their heads.
Your argument is entirely invalid. The other poster was being a little more tactful in not calling you on having no clue what you're talking about, but I guess I'm just not feeling so charitable right now.
The reality is that Linux is far more ready for the desktop than ANY Windows OS out there from an installation standpoint. "Blah blah blah Joe Bob and Velma blah blah blah..." you say, well guess what-- those people would have FAR more trouble trying to reinstall Windows on those very same computers you speak of. I know, I did this quite often as a technician. Those computers sometimes have a lot of cheap, poorly-supported hardware that simply doesn't allow Windows to install cleanly either. If anything is going to install without trouble, it's a Linux distro like k/ubuntu.
Take your typical Compaq-hp laptop that's currently in production. To get all the devices working under Windows Vista, several of the drivers need to be manually installed. Almost all the device drivers have to be manually installed from the drivers disc for XP...after a fresh reimage from the Compaq-hp XP restore media that comes with the machines. Windows doesn't magically work better; clueless end users will still need professional help to reinstall it because they don't know what drivers are.
I think the easiest OS install I've ever run was Kubuntu 9.04 this past week. It was on a new low-end Thinkpad SL-400 my folks just purchased because it came with Vista (it's a "Vista Basic compatible" computer, and ran very poorly and wireless would not connect). The install was easy and extremely fast, and all the major devices just worked right off the bat, first boot. No tweaking, no failures, no confusion (though I didn't check the modem). The wireless configuration with WPA just worked, which was where I expected issues. Their printers just worked with no problems as well. I can't say I've ever installed any Windows OS on any machine where it didn't require additional drivers to be installed before sound or video would work to their capabilities. This laptop deserves some sort of "k/ubuntu-Compatible" sticker. Honestly, that was probably the only OS install I've ever done where I felt my expertise was completely unnecessary.
The only thing is to change the paradigm where people go to the store and buy Windows software. There's no "Linux Store" section in any retail establishments I've seen. Just as Mac users learned to go to the Mac section in stores, Linux users need to learn to use the repositories and other online resources for their software until Linux software finds its way to store shelves. I would tend to view that as unlikely and a throwback to the 20th century though. This is the information age, full of digital information moving at wire speed to us in our homes and businesses. The whole "go to a store and buy software" thing is terribly outmoded.
For all the other objections you're hinting at, there's ubuntu.com (or kubuntu.org) to go along with the brand recognition that those distributions have built, and there's ShipIt to get folks CDs if they want them. All that's really missing is an easy to find & use resource that identifies specific machines that have passed "compatibility" testing. Even better would just be Canonical (in that it has the most prominent and media-hyped distro currently) licensing computer manufacturers to put k/ubuntu-compatibility logos on their products. But I guess the problem is that Microsoft probably has a bullshit patent protecting the practice of putting stickers expressing the compatibility of an operating system with a computer device on said computer device.
Perhaps the state of NH should just close the entire area to the public, under threat of a lengthy stay in a re-education camp, and declare that the face did not, in fact, collapse. There are probably a bunch of people who would need to be "re-educated" regardless, and those who failed the program could either be quietly disposed of, or treated like all those kooks who claim the moon landing was actually performed in a sound stage on Earth. Nobody would believe them anyway! The masses could then rest content that the Old Man is "just fine" and that the government is doing its part to make sure he lasts forever, as a testament to god's favor to the American people.
The point being made is that the deceased girl's family felt that the CHP had obligations of privacy in regard to them. They tried to sue them for an imaginary breach of this duty. The judge determined that there was no duty owed.
I think the judge was correct-- if people do things in public places or to other people which require the authorities to get involved, whatever intervention is done is largely a matter of public record since it was done on the taxpayer nickel. Does a john picked-up for hiring a prostitute have any expectation of privacy? Absolutely not. Arrest reports and mugshots are a matter of public information, and that's the way it should be. Wealth and privilege should not be able to suppress embarrassing information.
This girl happened to die during the commission of the crimes of reckless driving, driving under the influence of a controlled substance, and a host of other offenses that resulted in destruction of both public and private property and a death-- her own. Just because a dead person can't be prosecuted doesn't mean there weren't crimes committed, and the police were obligated to investigate and document those crimes. Once documented, except under certain conditions, the body of those investigations becomes part of the public domain. This is why sites like The Smoking Gun and Rotten.com are able to publish the sorts of things they do. Too bad it's embarrassing. Too bad it hurts your feelings. I'm going to hazard a guess that the ShamWow guy isn't happy that TSG and others have posted all those photos of both him and the hooker he beat-up as they assaulted each other. Same precedent applies there to the photos that were taken of them laying on hospital gurneys, as apply to the photos taken of an accident investigation.
Actually, in the same vein as ASCII art, other approaches that rely on human perception might work very well too. While the bots are capable of optical character recognition and even some limited pattern recognition, would they ever be able to handle some of the more bizarre elements of biological perception such as optical illusions? The sort of thing I'm thinking about here are usually found in psychology textbooks, like the one where you stare at a green, yellow, and black American flag for several seconds and then stare at a blank page and see a "ghost" of the flag in the correct colors. That particular one relies on the way photoreceptors become fatigued so as to produce an afterimage. There's also a good deal of processing the biological brain does with the visual information it receives, it seems like finding a method of exploiting that would be the surest way to separate the fleshies from the bots.
Actually, the book of Ecclesiastes (in the freakin' Holy Bible) is about as nihilist as it gets. It puts things into perspective. It doesn't take much to wipe-out all the creative accomplishments of a civilization. Natural disasters do this all the time on a smaller scale. And it doesn't have to be complete obliteration either, it took a fortuitous discovery of a relic before any modern scholars had the slightest clue about much of ANYTHING the ancient Egyptian civilization left behind. And they provided quite a wealth of inscriptions and tangible ruins. With our ephemeral, technology-depended media in this Digital Age, we're one not-so-great calamity away from leaving no trace of what we've accomplished as a civilization, aside from concrete missile bunkers, toxic waste, and plastic "artifacts". We could lose a wealth of knowledge even if some group of religious nuts or other barbarians went on a rampage and started destroying repositories of knowledge as happened with the pillaging, iconoclastic rampages, book burnings, and other destruction that heralded the Dark Ages.
If your father considers his quality of life to be high enough that he still relishes the experience of waking up in the morning and just being alive, then he has far more wisdom than you. If he justifies his existence more in the way you do, by his accomplishments and productivity, trying to do more in his "3 good hours a day" than everyone else does with theirs, he's just another miserable, deluded wretch who thinks his Earthly accomplishments even matter. Life alone is worth living for, for its own sake.
There's a MicroCenter in Denver too. It's a haul for me since I live near Boulder, but if I need something unusual, it's worth the drive. Not only do they have an amazing selection, but the clearance/open box section often has some pretty good deals. But most importantly, they got retail right. Their prices are reasonable. Their employees are professional, knowledgeable, don't badger you to buy PSPs, and are just generally around when you need to ask about something. The door attendant usually seems to be watching the registers so unless someone sets off the theft alarm, he or she will usually just smile and nod as you walk out the door. I honestly can't say I've had a better experience anywhere else.
From what I've heard of Fry's, it's about the same only with often unprofessional staff, prices that aren't great but aren't bad either, and door nazis who pat shoppers down on exit. Some of that is probably hyperbole, I first heard of Fry's via a parody employment application for their store on the intarwebs and also through some amusing narratives of shopping experiences folks had there upwards of 10 years ago. My friends who live in CA seem to think it's better than all that.
And, also, when the police search his house, they found weapons ammo. This is presumably relevant somehow.
That only had to do with the fact that he was a convicted felon and therefore can't legally own firearms. It sounds like the prosecution is trying to build the legally tenuous case on the principle of "where there's smoke, there's fire"; surely nobody just has ammo laying around, so Childs must've hidden guns somewhere that the cops didn't find and he should be prosecuted on the assumption that they indeed exist. So they might as well just hang him now, clearly everything related to doing his job is more proverbial smoke, and the prosecution will roll out the mirrors, and his guilt will be plain as day!
The idiocity displayed by the investigators is stunning.
I know in some places, people who are too stupid or inept to do their jobs are the ones who wind up with the management promotions, simply because it's almost impossible to fire anyone. Those who can do their jobs and do them well wind up staying where they're at, because things usually just get done. This is particularly the case in the public sector.
I noticed in the TFA that the author claimed that some folks were claiming this didn't meet the definition of 'virus'. It's funny how the definition seems to have changed. I'd have to say this sort of exploit is technically an old-school virus, the sort that is pretty much dependent on a gullible end user to do something stupid, at which point it could dig-in its tentacles. Most modern Windows viruses, including the fake-anti-malware malware that seems to be going around lately, don't require any user interaction whatsoever to get infected.
When I think of a "virus", well, that's just malicious code, it's something designed to do some form of damage. It's malware-- software that's up to no good. That doesn't describe the delivery method.
I can see how folks want to draw a distinction based on the severity of the exploit (namely the extent of the potential damage to the system and the level of user interaction), but claiming this isn't a real virus is just silly. Maybe a new definition for the more severe sorts of malware is needed.
Personally I would call parents that are fighting against vaccinations as irresponsible and a danger to society.
I don't think it's reasonable to make a blanket statement like this as far as all vaccines go. Different vaccines pose different risks, and different diseases also have different risks. Once you get to a point where more people or animals are injured or killed by a vaccine than the disease it's combating, it's probably time to weigh those risks and consider ditching the immunization program.
That said, I'll add that I fully agree with teh sentiment of your statement, in the sense that many immunizations pose negligible risk when administered, while they combat diseases that can be rather dangerous. The MMR vaccine is one of those that EVEN IF THERE WAS A DEFINITE LINK (which of course there is no evidence of), it would STILL be worthwhile. The anti-MMR kooks are no better than any other religious acolytes. Nothing anyone says, no hard science is ever going to dissuade them. They believe, on faith, that autism is caused by the MMR vaccine, and it's impossible to prove a negative in this case, any more than it's possible to prove conclusively that God doesn't exist.
So what is society to do about them? Prosecute the "conscientious objectors" for the harm they cause. If they're making educated decisions, surely they know the risks that the diseases pose to not only their own kids, but also everyone who their kids are around. Having that vaccination paper would absolve them of liability in the event of an outbreak, but those without proof could and should be held liable for everyone's medical bills, parents' lost work, and pain and suffering of everyone involved. If we can hold those religious kooks who let their kids die of trivial conditions because they believe prayer is more powerful than medical attention, surely this is feasible.
I'll just add that I do understand these sorts of risks and liabilities. For example, after research and careful consideration of all the risk factors and so on, I chose to cease vaccinating my animals, which are as much my family as the humans. With the horses, their risk factors are extremely low with no legal repercussions. With my dog, however...rabies is a mandatory vaccination. It's also one of the more dangerous vaccines out there from an adverse reaction standpoint (anaphylaxis resulting in death isn't exactly rare with it). However, in my home state, rabies is a virtually nonexistent threat. It's extremely rare even in non-vaccinated wildlife (aside from bats). There have been maybe a couple dozen documented cases of rabies (in non-bat species) here since 1910 or whenever the records started being kept. That includes wildlife, humans, and domestic animals. The odds of any dog in this state, even that come into contact with wildlife, contracting rabies are negligible. It's a statistic quoted by the animal control people with the large municipalities that compliance with the vaccination/license laws is less than 30%, so it's a bit of a stretch to argue that the vaccinations are keeping the virus in-check (again, consider all the unvaccinated wildlife that don't have rabies, too).
Even in light of all that though, I'm painfully aware that if my dog was to ever bite a human, it would be her death sentence since I don't have her rabies papers, since law enforcement quarantines all non-vaccinated dogs who bite humans for a week or two to see if they manifest symptoms, and then kills them regardless and has their brains shipped off for rabies testing. It's barbaric, but that's the greedy veterinary lobby at work. I choose that risk because the health risks of the vaccine, coupled with the needless expense, just seem so ridiculous in comparison. And I will do everything in my power to make sure it never comes to a test.
I think you may be missing the point the OP was attempting to make, which was the assertion that climbing Everest is not terribly technical and could probably be done by scramblers if not for the treacherous lack of oxygen due to its altitude, whereas Cerro Torre is a more technical climb.
Clearly, though, the altitude presents a different set of technical challenges, even if the actual climbing component doesn't require much mountaineering skill. It seems like judgment and preparation are the major skill areas required on Everest.
Good point! We do have some sequencing software and keyboards and electronic drums in scattered music classrooms, I was thinking more the old-school orchestra classes. Even those teachers often do use some software to help the kids keep time and hear what they're supposed to play. Wasn't there a game for the WII that rated a player's singing, along the lines of Guitar Hero measured playing a fake guitar?
Okay, I follow what you're saying. Even though it is never an objection I've heard to powering-down a PC, and frankly makes even less sense than the outlet-melting power surge nonsense. I was interpreting the whole thing as being compound ignorance leading the author on a fantastic trip of wild delusions.
"Help students by becoming teachers or mentors, not by attacking them."
Ken *was* playing a teacher/mentor to the kids. It was an ignorant teacher who attacked the kids who were excited to learn something new, and then went and attacked Ken too, threatening him with a lawsuit. There's a big difference between telling the kids what they were doing was inappropriate and that if they didn't put the software away and get back on-task that she'd take it away, and immediately seizing the kids' discs, accusing them of illegal activity, and threatening to have the mentor who provided Linux to the kids "investigated" as a criminal.
"People hate *nix" because they're ignorant of it, and ignorance breeds distrust, fear, and loathing. If you read the original email the author quoted, the teacher went-off on him in a rather strongly-worded tirade. He wasn't in the class creating a disruption. He wasn't even involved in what happened. She got his name from the kids, and contacted him out of the blue making threats of a criminal investigation. Can you honestly blame him for being so defensive and upset, after someone accused him of hurting the children he's mentoring?
"Teachers are incredibly uneducated when it comes to technology.
There, fixed that for you...:)
I make this observation firsthand. The teacher's union is viciously opposed to holding teachers to any sort of standards, including proficiency in computers and other technology. Staff meetings and inservice days are generally reserved for curriculum and policy discussions. And honestly, I'm downright shocked over the unwillingness of many teachers to learn on their own about the tools they're REQUIRED to use. I like my end users. I try to help them improve their proficiency by teaching them what I can. But I'd honestly have to rate at least 35% of the teachers who are my end users as "poor-unsatisfactory" when it comes to computer proficiency. They do not even grasp the basics of "dragging and dropping" or "cutting and pasting" to copy and move files. It seems like every week, I have to explain this sort of fundamental operation to at least one person.
I'd rate the next 50% to be "competent", which means they can at least use their computers as their jobs require at a bare minimum (entering grades, taking attendance, using email), but folks in this group rarely seem to use technology effectively in teaching.
Finally, I'd have to say around 15% of my end users are power users who are able to effectively use computers and technology in their classrooms and instruct their students in the use of technology. Aside from those content areas where the use of technology isn't really much of a factor (such as PE and music), I guess I'd consider this group to be the only ones I'd give a passing grade to in terms of technology.
Not only is it obviously not a typo, but the hysterics the author attempts to incite are rather laughable.
"Power surge"?
"The average US wall outlet (can only provide) about one-tenth of what the power surge would require"?
What on Earth is this guy babbling about? Does he (or the "researcher") think that all the power the PC requires to run all night must be transmitted at once?
I disagree. At those times in my life where I've forgone insurance but found myself needing medical attention, cash-only practices gave me what I needed at a reasonable price, much like a community doctor would've rendered in centuries past.
All too often, the typical US physician charges the inflated insured-patient rates to everyone. Since they don't have to worry as much about claims being denied and don't have to spend more time justifying their work to the insurance companies, shuffling paperwork, and waiting for payment, they don't charge patients for the costs of those hassles. It's a sorry state of affairs if you have to be on insurance or welfare to obtain medical treatment.
An excellent example: I had a sebaceous gland or something that became encysted and formed a small (about a cm) lump on my scalp. It wasn't on the surface and lancing it did nothing, so I wanted someone to deal with it. Mainstream physicians all wanted at least $500 (most of the ones I described the lump to wanted over $1000). For something that was almost certainly not malignant, it really didn't bother me enough to spend that kind of money, especially since it frankly disgusted me how exorbitant that price was if I was paying cash, which I told the physicians I planned to do up-front. A smaller cash-only family practice quoted me around $80. For a procedure that took about 20 minutes of the doctor's time, an alcohol prep pad, a disposable scalpel blade, and a suture packet, I felt that was highly reasonable. The benefit was that not only was that nuisance lump gone, but she also confirmed it was non-malignant as I was rather certain was the case anyway, but what if I had been wrong?
There are also the community clinic practices that take walk-in cash patients as well as insured patients, they sometimes have reasonable prices. The only thing I didn't like about them is that they tend to charge me (a cash-paying) customer more to defray the costs they incur as they offer their services at lower prices on a sliding scale to poorer uninsured patients. That sort of "robbing Peter to cover Paul's bills" charity doesn't set all that well with me, I just prefer to pay an honest price for an honest service. If providing affordable care to the willingly uninsured is "boutique", then I think we need a lot more boutique medicine out there!
My point is there are cash practice options. You don't have to cater to only the more affluent patients if you choose to snub insurance, nor do you have to open a free clinic in the inner city. You can just offer your services to the uninsured, and under-insured a population that seems to be growing more by the month, for whatever you value your time at in addition to your overhead expenses.
I think the judge is maybe just realizing that the copywrong system is very broken. If the defendant chooses to fight the allegations the RIAA makes, they're likely to be bankrupted before they reach the end of the trial, and if they don't prevail, they'll be bankrupted at that time regardless. The punishment should fit the alleged crime. It's an intolerable situation where an act that doesn't cause quantifiable harm to the plaintiff can utterly ruin the defendant. Court cases also shouldn't be decided on who runs out of money to pay attorneys first, either.
In the case of a broken contract, the damages generally seem to have some basis in reality, often some punitive damages thrown in. In RIAA copywrong cases, the damages are just an arbitrary and exorbitant number that was established with a whole different sort of offense in mind: redistribution of a published work, motivated by profit. The damages assured that if someone was in it for the profit, they'd stand to be bankrupted if convicted.
This whole mess would be pretty well solved if the RIAA's defendants were only liable for treble damages on commercial work they infringed upon (i.e., were found to have in their possession, but didn't pay a license fee for), and punitive damages based on the profits they may have made from distributing a published work. That means they might have to pay a few dollars for each song they infringed the copyright on, but if they didn't make a penny from distributing it via a P2P network, the RIAA would receive an additional punitive fine of $0 for each work shared. Not the $9k or so damages per work they currently angle for and typically receive.
Motorcycles and scooters have smaller engines, transmissions, and axles than most industrial robots and automobiles, since they only need to move a few hundred pounds of machine-and-rider. A lot of the parts are very lightweight too.
What's the betting Microsoft starts slashing its prices in Russia?
It's hard to compete with free. In light of M$ slashing their prices in China to compete with pirated-retail versions of their software, would they be desperate enough in a bid to hold onto market share to practically give away software in order to compete with FOSS?
Moreover, they claim piracy of their products around the world costs them "billions of dollars". I assume that's calculated on the basis of US-retail prices translated into foreign exchange rates, and they seem to have a hard-and-fast notion of exactly what each copy of their software is worth in terms of intellectual property, profit margin, cost of materials, and so forth when they make such statements. I wonder, since they're so sure of what their product is worth, if they could be accused of illegally dumping their products in foreign markets. They'd obviously be selling them for less than they know/believe they're worth in able to compete.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the point is that Jobs talked the talk, but Apple failed to produce any meaningful results-- OS X Java has been well behind the curve the entire time. Finally, Apple just started bashing Java because they failed to live up to their promises.
It smacks of sour grapes when they turn around after their failures and say, "WELL JAVA ISN'T WORTH BUILDING IN ANYWAY!"
It's not like Apple isn't already known for making bold (often inflammatory) statements and then completely reverses vision and course and pretends that they never held such a strong position in the first place.
Security by annoyance?
I do think that people who are seeking out the higher-end games do know to read the box. Most users who are to the point of obtaining those experiences know that there's a difference between Windows and Mac, and if they install Linux, they'll know that it's different too.
Games that are aimed at the mainstream generally aren't particularly demanding in terms of hardware or OS version, either. This is a conscious decision on the part of the developers, because they KNOW it would cause problems if they try to appeal to the masses with something that a tenth of one percent of home computers would be able to run...so they don't go bonkers making the game awesome, they tone things down to make it highly backwards-compatible with OSes, use less memory & HDD space, and not be overly demanding in terms of processor speed or video capabilities. They're making sacrifices for the people who don't read the requirements on the box, and wouldn't understand it if they did.
Those developers who do produce bleeding-edge games generally do factor in more tech support calls and product returns due to people not reading the box, but they usually don't TRY to attract the attention of the mainstream. They advertise in computer hardware and gaming magazines, not on television. I'm sure they do budget for more tech support inquiries and product returns for the few mainstream people who see the awesome box art and buy it without reading, but most of their customers could probably rattle-off all key system specs off the tops of their heads.
Your argument is entirely invalid. The other poster was being a little more tactful in not calling you on having no clue what you're talking about, but I guess I'm just not feeling so charitable right now.
The reality is that Linux is far more ready for the desktop than ANY Windows OS out there from an installation standpoint. "Blah blah blah Joe Bob and Velma blah blah blah..." you say, well guess what-- those people would have FAR more trouble trying to reinstall Windows on those very same computers you speak of. I know, I did this quite often as a technician. Those computers sometimes have a lot of cheap, poorly-supported hardware that simply doesn't allow Windows to install cleanly either. If anything is going to install without trouble, it's a Linux distro like k/ubuntu.
Take your typical Compaq-hp laptop that's currently in production. To get all the devices working under Windows Vista, several of the drivers need to be manually installed. Almost all the device drivers have to be manually installed from the drivers disc for XP...after a fresh reimage from the Compaq-hp XP restore media that comes with the machines. Windows doesn't magically work better; clueless end users will still need professional help to reinstall it because they don't know what drivers are.
I think the easiest OS install I've ever run was Kubuntu 9.04 this past week. It was on a new low-end Thinkpad SL-400 my folks just purchased because it came with Vista (it's a "Vista Basic compatible" computer, and ran very poorly and wireless would not connect). The install was easy and extremely fast, and all the major devices just worked right off the bat, first boot. No tweaking, no failures, no confusion (though I didn't check the modem). The wireless configuration with WPA just worked, which was where I expected issues. Their printers just worked with no problems as well. I can't say I've ever installed any Windows OS on any machine where it didn't require additional drivers to be installed before sound or video would work to their capabilities. This laptop deserves some sort of "k/ubuntu-Compatible" sticker. Honestly, that was probably the only OS install I've ever done where I felt my expertise was completely unnecessary.
The only thing is to change the paradigm where people go to the store and buy Windows software. There's no "Linux Store" section in any retail establishments I've seen. Just as Mac users learned to go to the Mac section in stores, Linux users need to learn to use the repositories and other online resources for their software until Linux software finds its way to store shelves. I would tend to view that as unlikely and a throwback to the 20th century though. This is the information age, full of digital information moving at wire speed to us in our homes and businesses. The whole "go to a store and buy software" thing is terribly outmoded.
For all the other objections you're hinting at, there's ubuntu.com (or kubuntu.org) to go along with the brand recognition that those distributions have built, and there's ShipIt to get folks CDs if they want them. All that's really missing is an easy to find & use resource that identifies specific machines that have passed "compatibility" testing. Even better would just be Canonical (in that it has the most prominent and media-hyped distro currently) licensing computer manufacturers to put k/ubuntu-compatibility logos on their products. But I guess the problem is that Microsoft probably has a bullshit patent protecting the practice of putting stickers expressing the compatibility of an operating system with a computer device on said computer device.
Perhaps the state of NH should just close the entire area to the public, under threat of a lengthy stay in a re-education camp, and declare that the face did not, in fact, collapse. There are probably a bunch of people who would need to be "re-educated" regardless, and those who failed the program could either be quietly disposed of, or treated like all those kooks who claim the moon landing was actually performed in a sound stage on Earth. Nobody would believe them anyway! The masses could then rest content that the Old Man is "just fine" and that the government is doing its part to make sure he lasts forever, as a testament to god's favor to the American people.
The point being made is that the deceased girl's family felt that the CHP had obligations of privacy in regard to them. They tried to sue them for an imaginary breach of this duty. The judge determined that there was no duty owed.
I think the judge was correct-- if people do things in public places or to other people which require the authorities to get involved, whatever intervention is done is largely a matter of public record since it was done on the taxpayer nickel. Does a john picked-up for hiring a prostitute have any expectation of privacy? Absolutely not. Arrest reports and mugshots are a matter of public information, and that's the way it should be. Wealth and privilege should not be able to suppress embarrassing information.
This girl happened to die during the commission of the crimes of reckless driving, driving under the influence of a controlled substance, and a host of other offenses that resulted in destruction of both public and private property and a death-- her own. Just because a dead person can't be prosecuted doesn't mean there weren't crimes committed, and the police were obligated to investigate and document those crimes. Once documented, except under certain conditions, the body of those investigations becomes part of the public domain. This is why sites like The Smoking Gun and Rotten.com are able to publish the sorts of things they do. Too bad it's embarrassing. Too bad it hurts your feelings. I'm going to hazard a guess that the ShamWow guy isn't happy that TSG and others have posted all those photos of both him and the hooker he beat-up as they assaulted each other. Same precedent applies there to the photos that were taken of them laying on hospital gurneys, as apply to the photos taken of an accident investigation.
Actually, in the same vein as ASCII art, other approaches that rely on human perception might work very well too. While the bots are capable of optical character recognition and even some limited pattern recognition, would they ever be able to handle some of the more bizarre elements of biological perception such as optical illusions? The sort of thing I'm thinking about here are usually found in psychology textbooks, like the one where you stare at a green, yellow, and black American flag for several seconds and then stare at a blank page and see a "ghost" of the flag in the correct colors. That particular one relies on the way photoreceptors become fatigued so as to produce an afterimage. There's also a good deal of processing the biological brain does with the visual information it receives, it seems like finding a method of exploiting that would be the surest way to separate the fleshies from the bots.
Actually, the book of Ecclesiastes (in the freakin' Holy Bible) is about as nihilist as it gets. It puts things into perspective. It doesn't take much to wipe-out all the creative accomplishments of a civilization. Natural disasters do this all the time on a smaller scale. And it doesn't have to be complete obliteration either, it took a fortuitous discovery of a relic before any modern scholars had the slightest clue about much of ANYTHING the ancient Egyptian civilization left behind. And they provided quite a wealth of inscriptions and tangible ruins. With our ephemeral, technology-depended media in this Digital Age, we're one not-so-great calamity away from leaving no trace of what we've accomplished as a civilization, aside from concrete missile bunkers, toxic waste, and plastic "artifacts". We could lose a wealth of knowledge even if some group of religious nuts or other barbarians went on a rampage and started destroying repositories of knowledge as happened with the pillaging, iconoclastic rampages, book burnings, and other destruction that heralded the Dark Ages.
Vanitas uanitatum, omnia uanitas.
If your father considers his quality of life to be high enough that he still relishes the experience of waking up in the morning and just being alive, then he has far more wisdom than you. If he justifies his existence more in the way you do, by his accomplishments and productivity, trying to do more in his "3 good hours a day" than everyone else does with theirs, he's just another miserable, deluded wretch who thinks his Earthly accomplishments even matter. Life alone is worth living for, for its own sake.
From what I've heard of Fry's, it's about the same only with often unprofessional staff, prices that aren't great but aren't bad either, and door nazis who pat shoppers down on exit. Some of that is probably hyperbole, I first heard of Fry's via a parody employment application for their store on the intarwebs and also through some amusing narratives of shopping experiences folks had there upwards of 10 years ago. My friends who live in CA seem to think it's better than all that.
And, also, when the police search his house, they found weapons ammo. This is presumably relevant somehow.
That only had to do with the fact that he was a convicted felon and therefore can't legally own firearms. It sounds like the prosecution is trying to build the legally tenuous case on the principle of "where there's smoke, there's fire"; surely nobody just has ammo laying around, so Childs must've hidden guns somewhere that the cops didn't find and he should be prosecuted on the assumption that they indeed exist. So they might as well just hang him now, clearly everything related to doing his job is more proverbial smoke, and the prosecution will roll out the mirrors, and his guilt will be plain as day!
The idiocity displayed by the investigators is stunning.
Incompetent managers? Isn't that a bit redundant?
I know in some places, people who are too stupid or inept to do their jobs are the ones who wind up with the management promotions, simply because it's almost impossible to fire anyone. Those who can do their jobs and do them well wind up staying where they're at, because things usually just get done. This is particularly the case in the public sector.
When I think of a "virus", well, that's just malicious code, it's something designed to do some form of damage. It's malware-- software that's up to no good. That doesn't describe the delivery method.
I can see how folks want to draw a distinction based on the severity of the exploit (namely the extent of the potential damage to the system and the level of user interaction), but claiming this isn't a real virus is just silly. Maybe a new definition for the more severe sorts of malware is needed.
Personally I would call parents that are fighting against vaccinations as irresponsible and a danger to society.
I don't think it's reasonable to make a blanket statement like this as far as all vaccines go. Different vaccines pose different risks, and different diseases also have different risks. Once you get to a point where more people or animals are injured or killed by a vaccine than the disease it's combating, it's probably time to weigh those risks and consider ditching the immunization program.
That said, I'll add that I fully agree with teh sentiment of your statement, in the sense that many immunizations pose negligible risk when administered, while they combat diseases that can be rather dangerous. The MMR vaccine is one of those that EVEN IF THERE WAS A DEFINITE LINK (which of course there is no evidence of), it would STILL be worthwhile. The anti-MMR kooks are no better than any other religious acolytes. Nothing anyone says, no hard science is ever going to dissuade them. They believe, on faith, that autism is caused by the MMR vaccine, and it's impossible to prove a negative in this case, any more than it's possible to prove conclusively that God doesn't exist.
So what is society to do about them? Prosecute the "conscientious objectors" for the harm they cause. If they're making educated decisions, surely they know the risks that the diseases pose to not only their own kids, but also everyone who their kids are around. Having that vaccination paper would absolve them of liability in the event of an outbreak, but those without proof could and should be held liable for everyone's medical bills, parents' lost work, and pain and suffering of everyone involved. If we can hold those religious kooks who let their kids die of trivial conditions because they believe prayer is more powerful than medical attention, surely this is feasible.
I'll just add that I do understand these sorts of risks and liabilities. For example, after research and careful consideration of all the risk factors and so on, I chose to cease vaccinating my animals, which are as much my family as the humans. With the horses, their risk factors are extremely low with no legal repercussions. With my dog, however...rabies is a mandatory vaccination. It's also one of the more dangerous vaccines out there from an adverse reaction standpoint (anaphylaxis resulting in death isn't exactly rare with it). However, in my home state, rabies is a virtually nonexistent threat. It's extremely rare even in non-vaccinated wildlife (aside from bats). There have been maybe a couple dozen documented cases of rabies (in non-bat species) here since 1910 or whenever the records started being kept. That includes wildlife, humans, and domestic animals. The odds of any dog in this state, even that come into contact with wildlife, contracting rabies are negligible. It's a statistic quoted by the animal control people with the large municipalities that compliance with the vaccination/license laws is less than 30%, so it's a bit of a stretch to argue that the vaccinations are keeping the virus in-check (again, consider all the unvaccinated wildlife that don't have rabies, too).
Even in light of all that though, I'm painfully aware that if my dog was to ever bite a human, it would be her death sentence since I don't have her rabies papers, since law enforcement quarantines all non-vaccinated dogs who bite humans for a week or two to see if they manifest symptoms, and then kills them regardless and has their brains shipped off for rabies testing. It's barbaric, but that's the greedy veterinary lobby at work. I choose that risk because the health risks of the vaccine, coupled with the needless expense, just seem so ridiculous in comparison. And I will do everything in my power to make sure it never comes to a test.
I think you may be missing the point the OP was attempting to make, which was the assertion that climbing Everest is not terribly technical and could probably be done by scramblers if not for the treacherous lack of oxygen due to its altitude, whereas Cerro Torre is a more technical climb.
Clearly, though, the altitude presents a different set of technical challenges, even if the actual climbing component doesn't require much mountaineering skill. It seems like judgment and preparation are the major skill areas required on Everest.
Good point! We do have some sequencing software and keyboards and electronic drums in scattered music classrooms, I was thinking more the old-school orchestra classes. Even those teachers often do use some software to help the kids keep time and hear what they're supposed to play. Wasn't there a game for the WII that rated a player's singing, along the lines of Guitar Hero measured playing a fake guitar?
Okay, I follow what you're saying. Even though it is never an objection I've heard to powering-down a PC, and frankly makes even less sense than the outlet-melting power surge nonsense. I was interpreting the whole thing as being compound ignorance leading the author on a fantastic trip of wild delusions.
"Help students by becoming teachers or mentors, not by attacking them."
Ken *was* playing a teacher/mentor to the kids. It was an ignorant teacher who attacked the kids who were excited to learn something new, and then went and attacked Ken too, threatening him with a lawsuit. There's a big difference between telling the kids what they were doing was inappropriate and that if they didn't put the software away and get back on-task that she'd take it away, and immediately seizing the kids' discs, accusing them of illegal activity, and threatening to have the mentor who provided Linux to the kids "investigated" as a criminal.
"People hate *nix" because they're ignorant of it, and ignorance breeds distrust, fear, and loathing. If you read the original email the author quoted, the teacher went-off on him in a rather strongly-worded tirade. He wasn't in the class creating a disruption. He wasn't even involved in what happened. She got his name from the kids, and contacted him out of the blue making threats of a criminal investigation. Can you honestly blame him for being so defensive and upset, after someone accused him of hurting the children he's mentoring?
"Teachers are incredibly uneducated when it comes to technology.
There, fixed that for you... :)
I make this observation firsthand. The teacher's union is viciously opposed to holding teachers to any sort of standards, including proficiency in computers and other technology. Staff meetings and inservice days are generally reserved for curriculum and policy discussions. And honestly, I'm downright shocked over the unwillingness of many teachers to learn on their own about the tools they're REQUIRED to use. I like my end users. I try to help them improve their proficiency by teaching them what I can. But I'd honestly have to rate at least 35% of the teachers who are my end users as "poor-unsatisfactory" when it comes to computer proficiency. They do not even grasp the basics of "dragging and dropping" or "cutting and pasting" to copy and move files. It seems like every week, I have to explain this sort of fundamental operation to at least one person.
I'd rate the next 50% to be "competent", which means they can at least use their computers as their jobs require at a bare minimum (entering grades, taking attendance, using email), but folks in this group rarely seem to use technology effectively in teaching.
Finally, I'd have to say around 15% of my end users are power users who are able to effectively use computers and technology in their classrooms and instruct their students in the use of technology. Aside from those content areas where the use of technology isn't really much of a factor (such as PE and music), I guess I'd consider this group to be the only ones I'd give a passing grade to in terms of technology.
Not only is it obviously not a typo, but the hysterics the author attempts to incite are rather laughable.
"Power surge"?
"The average US wall outlet (can only provide) about one-tenth of what the power surge would require"?
What on Earth is this guy babbling about? Does he (or the "researcher") think that all the power the PC requires to run all night must be transmitted at once?
I disagree. At those times in my life where I've forgone insurance but found myself needing medical attention, cash-only practices gave me what I needed at a reasonable price, much like a community doctor would've rendered in centuries past.
All too often, the typical US physician charges the inflated insured-patient rates to everyone. Since they don't have to worry as much about claims being denied and don't have to spend more time justifying their work to the insurance companies, shuffling paperwork, and waiting for payment, they don't charge patients for the costs of those hassles. It's a sorry state of affairs if you have to be on insurance or welfare to obtain medical treatment.
An excellent example: I had a sebaceous gland or something that became encysted and formed a small (about a cm) lump on my scalp. It wasn't on the surface and lancing it did nothing, so I wanted someone to deal with it. Mainstream physicians all wanted at least $500 (most of the ones I described the lump to wanted over $1000). For something that was almost certainly not malignant, it really didn't bother me enough to spend that kind of money, especially since it frankly disgusted me how exorbitant that price was if I was paying cash, which I told the physicians I planned to do up-front. A smaller cash-only family practice quoted me around $80. For a procedure that took about 20 minutes of the doctor's time, an alcohol prep pad, a disposable scalpel blade, and a suture packet, I felt that was highly reasonable. The benefit was that not only was that nuisance lump gone, but she also confirmed it was non-malignant as I was rather certain was the case anyway, but what if I had been wrong?
There are also the community clinic practices that take walk-in cash patients as well as insured patients, they sometimes have reasonable prices. The only thing I didn't like about them is that they tend to charge me (a cash-paying) customer more to defray the costs they incur as they offer their services at lower prices on a sliding scale to poorer uninsured patients. That sort of "robbing Peter to cover Paul's bills" charity doesn't set all that well with me, I just prefer to pay an honest price for an honest service. If providing affordable care to the willingly uninsured is "boutique", then I think we need a lot more boutique medicine out there!
My point is there are cash practice options. You don't have to cater to only the more affluent patients if you choose to snub insurance, nor do you have to open a free clinic in the inner city. You can just offer your services to the uninsured, and under-insured a population that seems to be growing more by the month, for whatever you value your time at in addition to your overhead expenses.
I think the judge is maybe just realizing that the copywrong system is very broken. If the defendant chooses to fight the allegations the RIAA makes, they're likely to be bankrupted before they reach the end of the trial, and if they don't prevail, they'll be bankrupted at that time regardless. The punishment should fit the alleged crime. It's an intolerable situation where an act that doesn't cause quantifiable harm to the plaintiff can utterly ruin the defendant. Court cases also shouldn't be decided on who runs out of money to pay attorneys first, either.
In the case of a broken contract, the damages generally seem to have some basis in reality, often some punitive damages thrown in. In RIAA copywrong cases, the damages are just an arbitrary and exorbitant number that was established with a whole different sort of offense in mind: redistribution of a published work, motivated by profit. The damages assured that if someone was in it for the profit, they'd stand to be bankrupted if convicted.
This whole mess would be pretty well solved if the RIAA's defendants were only liable for treble damages on commercial work they infringed upon (i.e., were found to have in their possession, but didn't pay a license fee for), and punitive damages based on the profits they may have made from distributing a published work. That means they might have to pay a few dollars for each song they infringed the copyright on, but if they didn't make a penny from distributing it via a P2P network, the RIAA would receive an additional punitive fine of $0 for each work shared. Not the $9k or so damages per work they currently angle for and typically receive.
Motorcycles and scooters have smaller engines, transmissions, and axles than most industrial robots and automobiles, since they only need to move a few hundred pounds of machine-and-rider. A lot of the parts are very lightweight too.
What's the betting Microsoft starts slashing its prices in Russia?
It's hard to compete with free. In light of M$ slashing their prices in China to compete with pirated-retail versions of their software, would they be desperate enough in a bid to hold onto market share to practically give away software in order to compete with FOSS?
Moreover, they claim piracy of their products around the world costs them "billions of dollars". I assume that's calculated on the basis of US-retail prices translated into foreign exchange rates, and they seem to have a hard-and-fast notion of exactly what each copy of their software is worth in terms of intellectual property, profit margin, cost of materials, and so forth when they make such statements. I wonder, since they're so sure of what their product is worth, if they could be accused of illegally dumping their products in foreign markets. They'd obviously be selling them for less than they know/believe they're worth in able to compete.
Hah. That was my first thought too!