Therefore it must not exist. Sorry to disappoint you, but the phone does store some numbers. RTFA,/. regardless.
[...]there should be some sort of confirmation of the numbers pressed.
Back in the day before they started sticking screens on everything you knew what number you were pressing by the sound it made. It was practical then and can be again.
I agree though that it should look like an old handset if it's going to act like an old handset, and it's hella overpriced.
And you're doing what? Simply not voting is stupid. I would rate people who vote for the duopoly above people who don't vote at all. Nothing is achievable through inaction. Just sitting on your ass isn't going to improve anything, and if you're waiting for collapse, you might find that a failed state is far, far worse than a broken system. If you want a failed state, why wait? Just haul yourself to Somalia and try not to get shot.
But remember, if you vote for anybody but a Republicrat or Demoblican you're throwing your vote away! So keep rubber-stamping business as usual like good sheep.
The antecedent for 'none' was 'teachers'. The real mistake which would have been damning had you pointed it out was that the pronoun 'which' should have been 'whom'.
(And before any criticism is leveled at my punctuation, I take the British approach to quotes as it is more logical.)
Is anybody valuable due to their degree? I think people either have a talent for their field or they don't. Some people can coast off of a piece of paper earned through regurgitating lecture notes, but I don't think many if any truly excel in and/or advance their field as a direct result of their degree-earning process.
You know what's ironic? (And I'm surprised nobody's called me out on it yet...) I realize after review that I put a sentence in that post without a verb. I have met the enemy, and he is me.
I only had three public school teachers before my mother became fed up with the public school system, none of which particularly impressed me. All of the good teachers I ever encountered were in private schools. Then too as you allude, the problem is systemic, not so much with individual teachers or students but the policies of school administration that are detrimental to student development.
I don't think that everybody has to be a professional grade technical writer, just be able to employ correct basic grammar and formatting. Honestly that's something that people are supposed to master in high school, but performance at the university level remains abysmal for many. (Even in exclusive humanities-focused programs. I was in the Honors Program at Seattle University which hand-picks 25 students a year, and even there I was confronted with grammar so terrible in paper reviews that I started diagramming other students' sentences on the backs of their papers. Seriously, there were long "sentences" with no verbs.)
When was the last time a person with an English Degree really had value in society?
Many people with English degrees become teachers. I've had several such teachers, some quite talented. Are you saying teachers aren't valuable?
And since when is essay writing all that valuable in say the techie world?
When you work for a small company that can't afford a technical writer. Holy fuck is it annoying to completely rewrite document after document produced by a bunch of slackers who think because they know how to ping something that means they can be practically nonfunctional at everything else including such basic things as language.
As ol' Dr. Zubrin says, put out the call and people will be lined up coast to coast. What is with people being unable to look beyond their own mindset? Saying things like "I wouldn't do it so why would anybody else?" Is like saying "I don't like onions so why would anybody else?" It's just stupidly narrow-minded and egotistical. Even if "most people" wouldn't go, you don't need millions. You just need a handful, and out of the billions on the planet I'm pretty sure you could find hundreds both willing and able (in terms of psychiatric and intellectual health) if the call were public enough, and even then you'd probably only be able to make use of a dozen (and even that would be one of the largest space-faring crews ever).
Dude, iron is everywhere. For chrissake, it's what the planet is made of, and China produces more iron ore than any other country, so I really, really don't know what kind of misinformation you and the others in this thread are smoking. Yeah, it still imports iron too, that just because China is throwing up so many skyscrapers that its need for steel is insatiable. It'll get its bauxite from South America and Australia like everybody else does, though there too it also already produces more than even Brazil. All you wankers should really do some research before you start going off about what China doesn't have.
The only thing China doesn't have is oil, and there won't be an oil economy for that much longer anyway.
In the case of the Winter War it was a draw. Obviously the Soviet Union didn't 'win' as there was still a Finland, the complete destruction of which was the goal of Soviet Union when they started the conflict. The Finns killed 5 Russians for every one of their own losses in the process.
You take a cavalier attitude toward the Second Punic War, which took Rome a decade to turn and two to finish, at an appalling human cost. After the Battle of Lake Trasimene many believed Hannibal could have destroyed Rome directly, but he counted instead upon turning the whole of Italy against Rome. Which would have been the better gamble is impossible to know, aside from the fact that fortune did not favor the endeavor as Hannibal pursued it.
"The Hundred Years' War" is a historical device invented after the fact that lumps together many different conflicts with different results. The Battle of Agincourt (1415) was specifically part of the Lancastrian War (1415-1429), which throughout was favorable to the English. The tables didn't really turn on the English until after the close of the Lancastrian War phase. To say that Agincourt was part of a lost war is like saying that the Russians ultimately won Russo-Japanese War because of their victory in WWII. It just doesn't work quite that way.
Yeah, just like all the other equipment the military fields. I mean really, how do they expect those tanks to be of any value when they aren't crewed EVERY HOUR of EVERY DAY by the SAME PEOPLE?! Just like how you know when one person leaves the military, the vehicle he used is decommissioned with him.
Or at least that's how it apparently works in your tiny, tiny mind (this just in! When one person stops using a piece of equipment, ANOTHER PERSON *gasp!* can then use the same equipment! HOLY FUCKING SHIT!), and stop projecting your constant recreational drug use onto others.
There's an old saying among military officers: 'amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.' Go ahead and use the money to buy more guns. Find out what happens when they run out of ammo. If the US armed forces can resupply two or three times faster than another military because of advances made in logistics (like this one), then that's a formidable real advantage.
I'm glad the Pentagon has a broader perspective than yours. Modern armies, scratch that, ALL armies can only function on the back of efficient logistical support. The more efficient and effective that support, the more advantage that army has, even in the face of superior numbers or a harsh environment.
Considering that the proposed use right now is for faster cargo handling, the power could be provided by the truck hauling the cargo. The suits don't have a battlefield purpose yet, so tethering isn't much an issue when you consider that everything these are likely to be used for is within feet of a big vehicle of some kind.
It's really just an admission that they, of course, don't produce as much light as halogen being pumped with dozens of watts. It'll cut down on light pollution because it doesn't produce much light! Hur dur! Because that's exactly what people want when they install fucking lights.
I do do not suggest that degrees are magical things that make one automatically right. I do imply that it's unlikely that some random person from the internet has outmaneuvered a team of experts with decades of combined experience in five minutes on a post on/. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. Is it so absurd as to be to some degree insulting? Yeah, that's the point.
Actually, in order to prosecute somebody on the grounds of 'intrusion of solitude and seclusion' one has to first demonstrate a reasonable 'expectation of privacy'. If I dance naked in the front window of my house in clear view of the street, I will be charged with indecent exposure, and I will not be able to charge those viewing me with any kind of voyeuristic violation, because I would have no expectation of privacy in such an event.
In order to have a real violation of an expectation of privacy, some special effort must be made by the alleged voyeur outside of casual behavior. Whether that's trespassing, or using equipment like cameras/binoculars, etc. If somebody is just walking down the street and looks in a house to (incidentally) see a person undressing that does NOT pass the threshold to make a good case. It IS the responsibility of the undresser to take reasonable care of their own privacy in order to have an expectation such that casual observers from the street don't get a show.
Where this applies to Google is quite clear. They were casual observers in transit. They acknowledged that signals were there and incidentally picked up some random traffic from those signals, but there was no effort or intent to intercept a specific activity, and no loitering was done to attempt a wide scope of capture of any given signal. Further, an open network is implicitly public. It is the responsibility of the owner of the equipment to know how to operate it to suit their interests and intents before they operate it and beam it into public places, ignorance is not an excuse. I run an open wireless network myself. I expect people to connect to it. A person looking at networks has no way of gauging a difference of intent between my deliberately open network and some dumbshit's accidentally/ignorantly open network. To the potential network user an open network *is* permission.
(I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be taken as legal advice.)
Obviously the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics needs to hear from you immediately. Clearly you have a super-human insight that surpasses teams of expert astrophysicists. I'll bet their doctorates aren't worth the paper they're printed on. What unmitigated gall, releasing these findings without considering simple limitations of algorithmical analysis. Thank you internet for saving the world once again.
The approach comes dangerously close to a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're talking about profiling people who are already on edge and classing them as enemies-of-the-state to be harassed, obstructed, and potentially arrested based on hearsay or potential. If somebody expects that they are now going to be harassed or even arrested for merely holding an opinion, that may be all the catalyst they need to go over the edge since it's essentially the same either way. If you're going to be treated like a second class citizen or even a criminal whether you act or not, why not act? It decreases the psycho-social barriers and actually encourages rather the discourages the profiled behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not mentioned in the summary.
Therefore it must not exist. Sorry to disappoint you, but the phone does store some numbers. RTFA, /. regardless.
[...]there should be some sort of confirmation of the numbers pressed.
Back in the day before they started sticking screens on everything you knew what number you were pressing by the sound it made. It was practical then and can be again.
I agree though that it should look like an old handset if it's going to act like an old handset, and it's hella overpriced.
Even in exclusive humanities-focused programs.
No verb in that (or this)! Now, slag off AC.
And you're doing what? Simply not voting is stupid. I would rate people who vote for the duopoly above people who don't vote at all. Nothing is achievable through inaction. Just sitting on your ass isn't going to improve anything, and if you're waiting for collapse, you might find that a failed state is far, far worse than a broken system. If you want a failed state, why wait? Just haul yourself to Somalia and try not to get shot.
But remember, if you vote for anybody but a Republicrat or Demoblican you're throwing your vote away! So keep rubber-stamping business as usual like good sheep.
The antecedent for 'none' was 'teachers'. The real mistake which would have been damning had you pointed it out was that the pronoun 'which' should have been 'whom'.
(And before any criticism is leveled at my punctuation, I take the British approach to quotes as it is more logical.)
Is anybody valuable due to their degree? I think people either have a talent for their field or they don't. Some people can coast off of a piece of paper earned through regurgitating lecture notes, but I don't think many if any truly excel in and/or advance their field as a direct result of their degree-earning process.
You know what's ironic? (And I'm surprised nobody's called me out on it yet...) I realize after review that I put a sentence in that post without a verb. I have met the enemy, and he is me.
I only had three public school teachers before my mother became fed up with the public school system, none of which particularly impressed me. All of the good teachers I ever encountered were in private schools. Then too as you allude, the problem is systemic, not so much with individual teachers or students but the policies of school administration that are detrimental to student development.
I don't think that everybody has to be a professional grade technical writer, just be able to employ correct basic grammar and formatting. Honestly that's something that people are supposed to master in high school, but performance at the university level remains abysmal for many. (Even in exclusive humanities-focused programs. I was in the Honors Program at Seattle University which hand-picks 25 students a year, and even there I was confronted with grammar so terrible in paper reviews that I started diagramming other students' sentences on the backs of their papers. Seriously, there were long "sentences" with no verbs.)
When was the last time a person with an English Degree really had value in society?
Many people with English degrees become teachers. I've had several such teachers, some quite talented. Are you saying teachers aren't valuable?
And since when is essay writing all that valuable in say the techie world?
When you work for a small company that can't afford a technical writer. Holy fuck is it annoying to completely rewrite document after document produced by a bunch of slackers who think because they know how to ping something that means they can be practically nonfunctional at everything else including such basic things as language.
I too get the error in Chrome. I'd try another browser, but this honestly isn't worth that much effort. Their test fails itself.
As ol' Dr. Zubrin says, put out the call and people will be lined up coast to coast. What is with people being unable to look beyond their own mindset? Saying things like "I wouldn't do it so why would anybody else?" Is like saying "I don't like onions so why would anybody else?" It's just stupidly narrow-minded and egotistical. Even if "most people" wouldn't go, you don't need millions. You just need a handful, and out of the billions on the planet I'm pretty sure you could find hundreds both willing and able (in terms of psychiatric and intellectual health) if the call were public enough, and even then you'd probably only be able to make use of a dozen (and even that would be one of the largest space-faring crews ever).
Dude, iron is everywhere. For chrissake, it's what the planet is made of, and China produces more iron ore than any other country, so I really, really don't know what kind of misinformation you and the others in this thread are smoking. Yeah, it still imports iron too, that just because China is throwing up so many skyscrapers that its need for steel is insatiable. It'll get its bauxite from South America and Australia like everybody else does, though there too it also already produces more than even Brazil. All you wankers should really do some research before you start going off about what China doesn't have.
The only thing China doesn't have is oil, and there won't be an oil economy for that much longer anyway.
In the case of the Winter War it was a draw. Obviously the Soviet Union didn't 'win' as there was still a Finland, the complete destruction of which was the goal of Soviet Union when they started the conflict. The Finns killed 5 Russians for every one of their own losses in the process.
You take a cavalier attitude toward the Second Punic War, which took Rome a decade to turn and two to finish, at an appalling human cost. After the Battle of Lake Trasimene many believed Hannibal could have destroyed Rome directly, but he counted instead upon turning the whole of Italy against Rome. Which would have been the better gamble is impossible to know, aside from the fact that fortune did not favor the endeavor as Hannibal pursued it.
"The Hundred Years' War" is a historical device invented after the fact that lumps together many different conflicts with different results. The Battle of Agincourt (1415) was specifically part of the Lancastrian War (1415-1429), which throughout was favorable to the English. The tables didn't really turn on the English until after the close of the Lancastrian War phase. To say that Agincourt was part of a lost war is like saying that the Russians ultimately won Russo-Japanese War because of their victory in WWII. It just doesn't work quite that way.
As for quantity vs quality, history shows that industrial capacity and manpower are the two deciding factors.
Heh, sorry, swing and a miss (of many examples):
The Winter War
The Six Day War & The Yom Kippur War
The Battle of Cannae
The Battle of Agincourt
Etc. etc.
Sheer numbers, even sheer numbers with better equipment, are not enough against superior training, resolve, and strategy.
(BTW, I consider myself a historian, and saying something like 'history shows' (especially with NO examples) is like a red cloth in front of a bull.)
Yeah, just like all the other equipment the military fields. I mean really, how do they expect those tanks to be of any value when they aren't crewed EVERY HOUR of EVERY DAY by the SAME PEOPLE?! Just like how you know when one person leaves the military, the vehicle he used is decommissioned with him.
Or at least that's how it apparently works in your tiny, tiny mind (this just in! When one person stops using a piece of equipment, ANOTHER PERSON *gasp!* can then use the same equipment! HOLY FUCKING SHIT!), and stop projecting your constant recreational drug use onto others.
There's an old saying among military officers: 'amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.' Go ahead and use the money to buy more guns. Find out what happens when they run out of ammo. If the US armed forces can resupply two or three times faster than another military because of advances made in logistics (like this one), then that's a formidable real advantage.
I'm glad the Pentagon has a broader perspective than yours. Modern armies, scratch that, ALL armies can only function on the back of efficient logistical support. The more efficient and effective that support, the more advantage that army has, even in the face of superior numbers or a harsh environment.
Considering that the proposed use right now is for faster cargo handling, the power could be provided by the truck hauling the cargo. The suits don't have a battlefield purpose yet, so tethering isn't much an issue when you consider that everything these are likely to be used for is within feet of a big vehicle of some kind.
It's really just an admission that they, of course, don't produce as much light as halogen being pumped with dozens of watts. It'll cut down on light pollution because it doesn't produce much light! Hur dur! Because that's exactly what people want when they install fucking lights.
This green bullshit is out of control.
I will not have my fwiends widiculed by the common soldiewy!
I do do not suggest that degrees are magical things that make one automatically right. I do imply that it's unlikely that some random person from the internet has outmaneuvered a team of experts with decades of combined experience in five minutes on a post on /. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. Is it so absurd as to be to some degree insulting? Yeah, that's the point.
Actually, in order to prosecute somebody on the grounds of 'intrusion of solitude and seclusion' one has to first demonstrate a reasonable 'expectation of privacy'. If I dance naked in the front window of my house in clear view of the street, I will be charged with indecent exposure, and I will not be able to charge those viewing me with any kind of voyeuristic violation, because I would have no expectation of privacy in such an event.
In order to have a real violation of an expectation of privacy, some special effort must be made by the alleged voyeur outside of casual behavior. Whether that's trespassing, or using equipment like cameras/binoculars, etc. If somebody is just walking down the street and looks in a house to (incidentally) see a person undressing that does NOT pass the threshold to make a good case. It IS the responsibility of the undresser to take reasonable care of their own privacy in order to have an expectation such that casual observers from the street don't get a show.
Where this applies to Google is quite clear. They were casual observers in transit. They acknowledged that signals were there and incidentally picked up some random traffic from those signals, but there was no effort or intent to intercept a specific activity, and no loitering was done to attempt a wide scope of capture of any given signal. Further, an open network is implicitly public. It is the responsibility of the owner of the equipment to know how to operate it to suit their interests and intents before they operate it and beam it into public places, ignorance is not an excuse. I run an open wireless network myself. I expect people to connect to it. A person looking at networks has no way of gauging a difference of intent between my deliberately open network and some dumbshit's accidentally/ignorantly open network. To the potential network user an open network *is* permission.
(I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be taken as legal advice.)
Obviously the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics needs to hear from you immediately. Clearly you have a super-human insight that surpasses teams of expert astrophysicists. I'll bet their doctorates aren't worth the paper they're printed on. What unmitigated gall, releasing these findings without considering simple limitations of algorithmical analysis. Thank you internet for saving the world once again.
Fifty centers must be moderating today to rate up such poorly written fluff.
The approach comes dangerously close to a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're talking about profiling people who are already on edge and classing them as enemies-of-the-state to be harassed, obstructed, and potentially arrested based on hearsay or potential. If somebody expects that they are now going to be harassed or even arrested for merely holding an opinion, that may be all the catalyst they need to go over the edge since it's essentially the same either way. If you're going to be treated like a second class citizen or even a criminal whether you act or not, why not act? It decreases the psycho-social barriers and actually encourages rather the discourages the profiled behavior.