Funny thing is, I've been in two accidents. The first, an idiot had swevered out and in front and slammed on his breaks. I couldn't see him from the peripheral vision, and by the time he was in front, it was too damn late. The last accident, I don't think the helmet did much to impede it and as I was going 75 at highway speed, kinda glad I had it on (and haven't been on a bike in the 2 years since them -- Guy dropped a load of lumber on I80 outside Chicago, and I *STILL* don't know how I survived).
BUT...
I can name several dozen other avoided accidents because I wasn't wearing a helmet. Before I started riding, I too thought ignorantly that anyone that didn't wear their helmets were just after a home in the dirt. Statistics don't lie do they???
Statistics also don't tell you near misses...they show survivability in an accident.
Most of the near misses I've had involved idiots not looking where they were going. Full helmet? I wouldn't have heard them as clearly, nor seen them from my peripherial view. I've had plenty of them...most bikers I know have had plenty of these near misses as well. Not wearing the helmet allows one to assess the situation faster, sometimes giving you a second to change the outcome...but again, this does not get listed in any stats books.
I do wear my helmet on the highways...once I get to the city, I take it off. Too many people to pay attention to safely with it on. If you don't know where everyone is in the 360 degrees around your bike, how fast they are going, where they are intending to go, when they are intending to do, good luck with that helmet...you might be kept alive, but in what condition.
I will gladly take the risk that my head will pop like a mellon as long as I know that I've seen evidance that I am much less likely to get into an accident in to first place...and at that, much less likely to get into an accident that the helmet gives only my family the option of having an open casket or not.
Sadly, this is the type of comment I have come to expect from BOTH sides of the OS debate.
Commercial developers can't understand why anyone would ever give away hardwork and minimize anyone that would ever put forward opinions that they would.
OS Developers claim that everything is nice and rosey on the other side, you just have to join them, but once you do, you realize few pieces of software will ever do what you want...and if you ask a developer to do it, you should be kicked off the collective because its obvious that you aren't doing your fair share of the work.
OS guys don't seem to understand that not everyone is capible of programming, or that if they are, they have other skills much more useful to them and society, but again, since they aren't programmers, they are of the untouchable caste.
I use OS where it is possible, and I've contributed some back to projects I felt I could, but there have been plenty of projects where I came in from a professional POV and mentioned that if certain aspects were cleaned up, and gave very specific ideas (and minor coding examples...I try to do as little programming as I can these days), the software would be useful outside of its small community...and was told that my suggestions were not welcome (and this was on a mailing list solely for suggestions). One example, and no I'm not baseing my entire arguement on just this one example (lest some rabid OS guy comes in and accuses me of doing so).
If it were me, I'd spend the money on a decent G5, pick up Final Cut (hell, I had borrowed a friends copy of Pro, but now using Express and its pretty good for $99:P). Spend the $$$ and hope OS catches up soon...
BUT this shouldn't be something that one should have to pay fees for in the first place under standard regulations. It should have been something divided out to the phone companies dependant on how many numbers they had, and they all equally share the cost of either developing a system on their own, or having the gov't develop one for them (better to let them do it on their own under specific rules though, unless ya want to pay 10x for the pleasure of gov't intervention).
As noted, several companies don't charge a fee for this...the ones that do are the ones afraid folks are going to be moving away from them now that the right circumstances have availed themselves.
Oops...its a naughty secret, but musicians that actually read contracts and negotiate can actually do pretty damn well under the record industry without ever screaming that they are being screwed over (well...until contract renegotiation time:-)
"Everyone of us will have to pay $1.10 a month because some babies couldn't be bothered to inform people that their number changed."
Funny, I didn't know those of us with phone support businesses were babies?
How would you like it if your customers just couldn't get ahold of you one day? Folks that are not particularly tech savvy. My job is to help straighten out technical problems for musicians that might not be particularly endowed in this skill area...I can't complain, I wish I had half my worst clients skills in music.
I might not hear from someone for a year or more...2 months ago, I got a call, and was on a flight to LA within 4 hours. A client was in the middle of a session at his home studio and his local tech was too busy to hold hands that weekend (either that or he just had enough bs for one week:-P ). If my number had changed, I would have lost almost the equivelent of a months salary of my university gig. Kinda hard to just expect someone that barely knows how to start up an application to seach for your number online when your rig craps out on ya.
For the average person? I don't see a real need to keep phone numbers portable. I would have changed my cell provider a LONG time if I just had to deal with personal calls (and would have actually like changing it so distant friends and family didn't bother me so much). Now, I'm just waiting for my contract to finish out before I change phones...
At my institution, I have had to maintain a Windows environment as well. I have 5 Windows machines and other than hardware crashes (HD failing, a fan burning out and the thing dying as it overheats because my people who claimed to have done maintenance haven't taken the time to blow the sucker out...that sort of thing).
I know how to get a decent Windows install and I know how to do it right. I can also hire students to work for me without having to pay a grad student $15 an hour who barely understands the Unix environment (sadly, 15 years ago when I was just entering the university environment, most of the geek kids DID know unix and were comfortable with it...if only so they could compile their own MUDS).
Past that, we are slowly migrating towards open solutions. One of my webservers uses Apache instead of IIS, they ALL use PHP / Perl. The GNU Tools are installed to that I can to things fast and efficient for myself. MySQL has taken the place on our database server from our SQL Server.
Its as much as I can do in the current environment I am in...I'd LOVE to be able to go with a pure Linux / BSD / OS X whatever unix based solution instead of Windows, but sometimes you do whats the best for your situation and realize the free puppy is a more of a problem than its worth sometimes. At home and my side business, I'll take the stray dog in...he guards my home and the bit of food and a warm blanket I give him is more than a fair trade.
Having a Represenative Republic ensures that the medium guys get as much attention as the smaller guys.
I might be wrong, but isn't over 50% of the population in 3 states? New York, California, Florida? In such, these 3 states COULD control the presidency, find a candidate that is willing to sell out the other 47 states and give these guys anything they want and there ya have it. The logistics of giving everything ya promised is a little tough, but it could be done with enough behind the doors deal making.
Face it, if we could elect our own presidency as a people, Gore would have won hands down. Ironically, it was said his people were preparing a legal strategy that said his presidency was legitimate even though he had a minority of votes, because the popular liberal thought was that Gore would win (8 years of great economy, nothing really bad happening except a little oral sex, technology happening at a pace thats never been seen in 100 years...that sort of thing), but that the conservative states would rise up in anger and far more would vote against him than for him.
Ironically, it happened the other way:-)
Even though I voted against Bushie, my vote meant nothing to the total votes. My state went for Bushie, and thus ALL these votes went that way. Its a small price to pay to make certain that the individual chunks of peoples get represented...remember we are the United STATES. It happens at State level and THEN nationally.
Personally, I think the way electorial votes are counted should be modified a little. Allow states to split votes. If you have 20 electorial votes to give as a state, and 45% vote one way and another 55% goes the other way, why should you give ALL your votes to the man with the winning total. As long as there is some granularity within the state, why not set it up that way. All your people are represented, your state is represented, and you suddenly become more important nationally as you can't just push it over the edge, ya gotta REALLY make certain its in your favor.
Then again, it probably goes against the idea of a unified state making its decision as a whole...
"There's probably a few common ones people could recognize, but given that you can't rely on your average person to distinguish tone and pitch reliably (ever been to a karaoke bar?)"
It could just be relative pitch.
For instance, the gregorians had, I believe, a system of writting music that simply said Up Down Same. Did it have have to be the same notes? No, just perceptible up / down from the last.
There is a music dictionary out there that was used in the 50s that did the same thing...you know the theme, and ya just look up up / down / repeat and it will tell ya the song...its a shame its not updated these days, but still works for most classical pieces (if ya know one of the themes).
I read this article this morning but I didn't pay enough attention to it to remember....
It was argued in court that the deceased had tried grabbing a gun that he had (legally) kept beside him and the two fought over it and the freak of a millionaire ended up on top.
Being a bit mentally ill, he decided that it would be best to dispose of the body because he didn't want to get caught and have to explain this. The mentally ill always seem to think others are out to get them.
Was this how this went down? No one knows. And that may be what the jury was banking on. The US style of justice is SUPPOSEDLY letting a few guilty go free occasionally to make sure that the truly not guilty are not imprisoned or worse. It still happens...mainly with folks that don't seem to get this concept. Cheney and Ashcroft seem to be pushing for the whole Kill 'Em All And Let Gawd Sort Them Out means of justice.
Again, we don't know what the jury was thinking. In our own prejudices, we DO think of the wealthier and famous as less likely to need to commit certain crimes. Why would someone like OJ want to kill his exwife? He was a great football player and could get anyone. Why would Robert Blake want to kill his then current wife? Because he did devote his life to the law (even if it was just on television). Why would an insane multimillionaire want to kill his next door neighbor? Thats just nuts?
Assigning guilt DOES take a little bit of using your own prejudices...it shouldn't be all of them or even a majority or them, but we know it happens even in professional jurists (lawyers and judges). I would rather our prejudices be used to keep folks out of prison regardless of guilt that to use it to throw folks into jail when they aren't guilty and happens to be of some group they didn't like.
Its not the American public's fault...its the american publics one saving grace...we aren't like the other countries with no sense of procedure and fairness...well, in theory:-)
"Scantron sheets for voting? That's NOT a good idea."
Its easy to deal with on Scantrons...its just too many folks try to fill this stuff in with too much information.
For instance, for my employeer, we've developed a system for our scantrons that we run them through printers BEFORE they are passed out to precode these things. That took away 90% of the problems right there. This would be in the area you are talking about Test-ID, though the User ID is still a problem:-)
Past that, you have folks that might use pen instead of pencil. Not a problem on most modern scanners that have both image and OMR capibilities. Again, fixing a good chunk of the old problems.
And then, depending on how the form is designed, you can eliminate most of the rest of the problems. Most of ours try to have 1000 questions in the space of a quarter of a standard sized piece of paper (ok, thats an exageration), BUT for a lot of the important items, they are designed where its clear where the user is to enter the data. For our surveys, things like demographics (which are actually the most important item for us), we spread the bubbles around so even if you severally scribble outside of the bubble, its not going to be referenced as something else.
I was impressed yesterday when I saw the forms that we used for voting...ours were the scantron style stuff as well, and I spent a minute or two looking at the design before filling it out. All the bubbles were well spaced apart from each other and the instructions were very clear.
Not every scantron type entry system is flawed. Maybe if folks would learn to design these things from a UI perspective instead of just taking a standard design and customizing a few fields, this technology wouldn't be as stigmatized.
Then again, I could just be saying this because I manage the research and development office for my universities testing center:-)
People get $50k to cover the skin grafts from idiot employees pouring scalding hot coffee on the legs of the elderly. Pain and suffering costs were not that much compared to paying for the medical needs.
Its a shame every ignorant dumbass likes to bring this up when they have no clue about how the system actually works.
I know a LOT of musicians that if given the opportunity to do a world class album for free, would do so. That needs resources...one that requires the services of others (human factors such as decent engineers) and folks willing to take a risk hoping they will see a return on their cash.
Its not any cheaper from the human end of things. A few weeks ago, one of the guys in my forum was talking about how when they did they newest Bowie album, they used a computer with all off the shelf technologies to record it. Logic Audio, Apogee Preamps / AudioInterfaces and things like that. Stuff you or I could easily afford.
Then I looked at the line up of the people on the gig. Yeah, the hardware was MUCH cheaper, but the human factors were probably as high or higher than before.
Just like Linux, just because something is free, that doesn't make it a good value.
If people rip off what I do to make a buck, I'm going to complain about it. I don't think companies should pay their support geeks. After all, Linux is free, why shouldn't the support staff do this for free too? Why can't the support staff just make their money from doing live performances of their administration skills? Why oh why can't they?
Its moronic to expect that because folks are breaking the law that we should expect to change our jobs. If we were getting our asses kicked by folks releasing FREE music and people doing a better job of what we are doing and not charging for it, I'd agree with you...but I can't name one band that doesn't depend on hired help to get decent sound. Lots of punk music, but I and 99% of the world do not get into punk / garage / bedroom music. It sounds amaturish to me and more importantly, its not my cup of tea. Again, neither is it for most people. If you like it, cool, I'm not insulting it other than its NOT what I want in my cd player...I'm sick of people bringing up this stuff as the reason music can go non commercial...
IceT has people working for him that depend on his works being protected in some way.
As for the world changing, if you were a shop owner where everyone came in a stole from you, how would you feel about the snot nosed kid that tells him if he can't figure out how to make money from this shoplifting, he needs to get out of the game, because legislation can't prevent shoplifters.
Fortunately, the law does prevent most illegal physical activity. Just because you can steal at home in your underware does not make it any less of a crime.
Even the folks that work for the musicians that you see on TV don't get that much.
In my side employment, which in all honesty DOES pay more than my university research position (but not by much...and I have to buy my equipment from this, but I would have done that anyways, so it comes up almost as a nul sum).
Too many ignorant fucks think of the people on stage as the only ones that should get paid. I've worked with several popular artists over the years as I was lucky enough to get my foot in the door with newer technologies before the geek crowd started realizing they could do the same.
Unfortunately, these days it doesn't pay as well as it once did. Not because the demand is not there anymore, but because economically it isn't good anywhere in the industry. A lot of times, folks like me will work on a project for points...which means we get paid before the artist does BUT we are still dependant on sales.
The last album I worked on for points, I saw very little over what I got upfront. Its not like the artist wasn't well received or played, its just folks weren't buying his stuff. The concerts all pretty much packed the house, and the few shows I worked live (I have a day job the precludes going out on the road for 5 weeks at a stretch) actually paid as much as the album, but over all, it wasn't much.
So who gets screwed on these ventures? Its the people that work in the background. Its the little people that get fucked over. The people that are on the album and the video are not the only ones that matter here. I was at a movie the other night and they had one of those infamous 'propoganda' commercials at the beginning stating what one of the stuntmen did and all that -- trying to show that not only the big stars are at risk because of piracy. I'd like to see more of this on the music end. Ya have producers (ok, no one likes producers:P), songwriters, engineers, techs, backline staff, cooks, wardrobe and dozens of other postions...most of which you never hear about -- because I guess these dumbass musicians grab their outta tune guitars and worn out drums and build something that is as much of a production as any slick piece of work you see from Disney...all on their own.
The minute dumbasses like Cowboy Neal have a forum of followers (and I thought it was just Michael and Timothy that pissed me off with their bullshit rhetoric...I can't believe people are actually paid to take someone elses words and attach uninformed rhetoric to it...can I have your job CN? I do have the hat...)
"Drives are defragged to allow the OS to access the files faster."
Are you so sure?
I have talked with a senior OS designer (one of the non-free ones) and his view is that these days, defragging does more damage than it saves.
Why? Drives generally have large caches on them and multiple platters / read heads.
Noting this, the fastest way to get data off a drive might not be a straight line. Its looks pretty when you run the different utilities and makes the home makers of whom believe everything should be put away neat and tidy, but the engineer had mentioned that being defragged means you loose a lot of advantages of those multiple readheads and cache. He claimed that it was actually better to leave your drive to its own devices, allowing for about 30% free space at all times, and you will see a speedup over a defragged drive.
I didn't believe it at first, but his arguments did make a lot of sense even though it went against everything I had learned before. He actually mentioned if he had his choice, he'd make certain defraggers would NEVER work, but the market believes that these are necessary so its easier to have these things included as well as supporting third parties, so its there.
Heh! Only when the dumbasses credit Cage with the composition or allude to a derivative work based on it.
Yeah, this was a haw-haw post, but if you took a song I wrote and made it sound ANYWHERE near similar (even if just marginal) and then claimed I was a co-writer, I'd sue yer ass too (well, not until ya got famous though...don't want to shoot myself in the foot too soon).
I have a friend that was involved in something similar. My company designs and publishes sound design works for synths and otherwise. My friend decided he'd make an accurate Prepared Piano -- another Cagian creation. Unfortunately, he designed it to the exact specifications of Cages notes and proceeded to tell everyone that this was what it was intended for and in the liner notes stated that if Cage were alive, he'd endorse it...but it was for creating your own works.
His estate didn't like that and sued him. If he would have just left the descriptions as a more generic term and didn't reference this as THE definitive Cage Piano, then he would have been cool. I think the estate were assholes for doing it, but it was very clear noting their past actions what would happen, and thus he should have stayed away from that mine field altogether. I understand it from both ends, he was using Cage's works for his own profit, but he was also paying tribute to the man...:-)
Doncha hate when someone takes a perfectly good joke post and posts something half serious along with it.
"Watson v.s. Sherlock was much more obviously a rip off of a 3rd party piece of sofware."
From what I understand, the functionality of Watson was something Apple had been developing and had given betas out to select individuals for a few years BEFORE Watson had come out.
I don't know the entire story behind it except what my friends at Apple have said, but doesn't that sound possible that the third party developer heard about it and decided that either Apple wasn't going to bring it to market (long time to develop something this small) for one reason or another and decided to make the implementation herself.
Apple IS a little more open with new technologies than they should be and they are a little too picky about how and when these should be introduced. I've heard of a few new features that I thought were supposed to have been in Panther, but for some reason never even made it to the betas, but you can still find plist entries for them if you look (even if they make no sense in their current context).
I don't know who to believe with any of this...Apple is very good about admitting they like others technologies and paying folks that they do aquire them from -- to the point of buying developers out of their companies and paying both well. Its definately not microsoftian in nature, nor is it the former NIH (Not Invented Here) that use to be prevalent in the company.
Again, I don't know...just pointing out something I see referenced time and time again with the Watson when I had heard of such features as being possible and probably far before I heard of Watson...
"Although why they would go to Amazon instead of Google to find that information is beyond me."
Because as noted in Wired, accurate reference material is just not as prevelant on the internet as it is in hard cold paper...something Amazon and others would like to eventually see changed.
You are right -- Clinton made $35k as Gov'r...not the mere $30k I had stated.
Had to look it up:-)
As for teachers, police officers and fire fighters -- I F'N KNOW!!! That was my point. They SHOULD be paid a lot more than they are!!! There should be no volunteer fire fighters. When I lived in Arkansas, that was the way things were done -- volunteer only (at least in my county)...if you didn't pay the volunteer fees, they'd sweep the burning home for residents, and then make sure the fire didn't spread to other homes. I agree with the tactics as it was necessary to keep it funded, BUT no public officer should have to work for nothing.
Back to the point, by keeping salary low, you end up with folks that are financially well off whether that is the intent or not. John Kerry wasn't rich -- he ended up with a little money because he married well (after her former politician husband was killed in a plane accident a few years back). I'd like to see more commoners like you and I as senator...make it possible for this to happen. Give them the money they need so they aren't looking at backend deals like some politicians we have right now (need I say Haliburton).
True -- I live off a little love $30k a year from my public employer.
Then again, I don't have to maintain 2 residences -- one in my home state and one where I am required to work.
Are you arguing that senators shouldn't get retirement packages? And are you also arguing that one should be rich before they join public office? I think Clinton was saying that he never made more than $30k a year until he became president. Kinda sad...then again, our current president had money thrown at him from birth and he acts like EVERYONE has too...no wonder he isn't in touch with the common man.
These are important positions...they should be treated well...just like our teachers, police officers and fire fighters should be. I would never argue those guys should get less, but I would argue the others in public service should definately get more.
1. This is done every year. Thats why its a cost of living increase. I don't care how much you are making, if you don't get this each and every year, you are technically loosing money.
2. Thats not a lot of money. I know a lot of geeks living in California that make that much. My mother made $68k last year in LA after only working half the year as a temp. Sounds like a lot of money from my hillbilly Indiana lifestyle, but then again, I don't have to pay $2k a month for a one bedroom apartment.
3. No shit. The gov't workers however both serve the gov't as well as are employed by it.
4. Minimum wage is just that -- the minimum wage that one should be paid. Minimum wage is not something that someone trying to support a family should be after. Even when I was 15 and had to get my parents to sign a waiver allowing me to work, I never make anything less than $2 more than minimum wage. That was at a burger joint. If a 15 year old can do the job and make that kind of money, maybe these people depending on minimum wage jobs are taking jobs meant for a 15 year old.
5. What the fuck? I have a side business in addition to what I make at my day job. It pays better than the other, but I have no security (hence the fact I haven't ditched out of this place -- that and I feel like I'm making a difference here). What you make outside of your job is entirely different.
Everyone employed should get a cost of living increase. If Congress expects this, then so should everyone else...
Each and every one of us. We select these people. Its our job to make sure they do it well or find the appropriate replacements. You can't blame anyone else.
It was a cost of living increase. I work for a public institution and we got shafted this year. We don't get merit increases and promotions are generally out of the question because every year more and more crap is shoved at you so that in all actuality, you are doing far more work than your job description asks for, as is everyone else, so its not in anyones best interest to do so.
So, we get cost of living increases. This year was a 2%. Our work load went up probably 20 - 30% more than last year.
I applaud the senate for taking their cost of living increases. They took a 2.2% raise. Is a shitty raise if you ask me.
I don't care what the rest of the economy is doing, public service SUCKS. Given that each and everyone of us from elected officials down to the janitors that work in the conditions we do, I think a 2.2% increase is the least they could do. It sets an example and if we can't afford that as a country, something is wrong.
I'm going to call my congressperson and ask that they take a 5% next year and vote that the rest of us get one too.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny thing is, I've been in two accidents. The first, an idiot had swevered out and in front and slammed on his breaks. I couldn't see him from the peripheral vision, and by the time he was in front, it was too damn late. The last accident, I don't think the helmet did much to impede it and as I was going 75 at highway speed, kinda glad I had it on (and haven't been on a bike in the 2 years since them -- Guy dropped a load of lumber on I80 outside Chicago, and I *STILL* don't know how I survived).
BUT...
I can name several dozen other avoided accidents because I wasn't wearing a helmet. Before I started riding, I too thought ignorantly that anyone that didn't wear their helmets were just after a home in the dirt. Statistics don't lie do they???
Statistics also don't tell you near misses...they show survivability in an accident.
Most of the near misses I've had involved idiots not looking where they were going. Full helmet? I wouldn't have heard them as clearly, nor seen them from my peripherial view. I've had plenty of them...most bikers I know have had plenty of these near misses as well. Not wearing the helmet allows one to assess the situation faster, sometimes giving you a second to change the outcome...but again, this does not get listed in any stats books.
I do wear my helmet on the highways...once I get to the city, I take it off. Too many people to pay attention to safely with it on. If you don't know where everyone is in the 360 degrees around your bike, how fast they are going, where they are intending to go, when they are intending to do, good luck with that helmet...you might be kept alive, but in what condition.
I will gladly take the risk that my head will pop like a mellon as long as I know that I've seen evidance that I am much less likely to get into an accident in to first place...and at that, much less likely to get into an accident that the helmet gives only my family the option of having an open casket or not.
Sadly, this is the type of comment I have come to expect from BOTH sides of the OS debate.
:P). Spend the $$$ and hope OS catches up soon...
Commercial developers can't understand why anyone would ever give away hardwork and minimize anyone that would ever put forward opinions that they would.
OS Developers claim that everything is nice and rosey on the other side, you just have to join them, but once you do, you realize few pieces of software will ever do what you want...and if you ask a developer to do it, you should be kicked off the collective because its obvious that you aren't doing your fair share of the work.
OS guys don't seem to understand that not everyone is capible of programming, or that if they are, they have other skills much more useful to them and society, but again, since they aren't programmers, they are of the untouchable caste.
I use OS where it is possible, and I've contributed some back to projects I felt I could, but there have been plenty of projects where I came in from a professional POV and mentioned that if certain aspects were cleaned up, and gave very specific ideas (and minor coding examples...I try to do as little programming as I can these days), the software would be useful outside of its small community...and was told that my suggestions were not welcome (and this was on a mailing list solely for suggestions). One example, and no I'm not baseing my entire arguement on just this one example (lest some rabid OS guy comes in and accuses me of doing so).
If it were me, I'd spend the money on a decent G5, pick up Final Cut (hell, I had borrowed a friends copy of Pro, but now using Express and its pretty good for $99
You are right.
BUT this shouldn't be something that one should have to pay fees for in the first place under standard regulations. It should have been something divided out to the phone companies dependant on how many numbers they had, and they all equally share the cost of either developing a system on their own, or having the gov't develop one for them (better to let them do it on their own under specific rules though, unless ya want to pay 10x for the pleasure of gov't intervention).
As noted, several companies don't charge a fee for this...the ones that do are the ones afraid folks are going to be moving away from them now that the right circumstances have availed themselves.
Ones on the RIAA's dime :-)
:-)
Oops...its a naughty secret, but musicians that actually read contracts and negotiate can actually do pretty damn well under the record industry without ever screaming that they are being screwed over (well...until contract renegotiation time
"Everyone of us will have to pay $1.10 a month because some babies couldn't be bothered to inform people that their number changed."
:-P ). If my number had changed, I would have lost almost the equivelent of a months salary of my university gig. Kinda hard to just expect someone that barely knows how to start up an application to seach for your number online when your rig craps out on ya.
Funny, I didn't know those of us with phone support businesses were babies?
How would you like it if your customers just couldn't get ahold of you one day? Folks that are not particularly tech savvy. My job is to help straighten out technical problems for musicians that might not be particularly endowed in this skill area...I can't complain, I wish I had half my worst clients skills in music.
I might not hear from someone for a year or more...2 months ago, I got a call, and was on a flight to LA within 4 hours. A client was in the middle of a session at his home studio and his local tech was too busy to hold hands that weekend (either that or he just had enough bs for one week
For the average person? I don't see a real need to keep phone numbers portable. I would have changed my cell provider a LONG time if I just had to deal with personal calls (and would have actually like changing it so distant friends and family didn't bother me so much). Now, I'm just waiting for my contract to finish out before I change phones...
I agree with this sentiment.
At my institution, I have had to maintain a Windows environment as well. I have 5 Windows machines and other than hardware crashes (HD failing, a fan burning out and the thing dying as it overheats because my people who claimed to have done maintenance haven't taken the time to blow the sucker out...that sort of thing).
I know how to get a decent Windows install and I know how to do it right. I can also hire students to work for me without having to pay a grad student $15 an hour who barely understands the Unix environment (sadly, 15 years ago when I was just entering the university environment, most of the geek kids DID know unix and were comfortable with it...if only so they could compile their own MUDS).
Past that, we are slowly migrating towards open solutions. One of my webservers uses Apache instead of IIS, they ALL use PHP / Perl. The GNU Tools are installed to that I can to things fast and efficient for myself. MySQL has taken the place on our database server from our SQL Server.
Its as much as I can do in the current environment I am in...I'd LOVE to be able to go with a pure Linux / BSD / OS X whatever unix based solution instead of Windows, but sometimes you do whats the best for your situation and realize the free puppy is a more of a problem than its worth sometimes. At home and my side business, I'll take the stray dog in...he guards my home and the bit of food and a warm blanket I give him is more than a fair trade.
Its a little more than that.
:-)
Having a Represenative Republic ensures that the medium guys get as much attention as the smaller guys.
I might be wrong, but isn't over 50% of the population in 3 states? New York, California, Florida? In such, these 3 states COULD control the presidency, find a candidate that is willing to sell out the other 47 states and give these guys anything they want and there ya have it. The logistics of giving everything ya promised is a little tough, but it could be done with enough behind the doors deal making.
Face it, if we could elect our own presidency as a people, Gore would have won hands down. Ironically, it was said his people were preparing a legal strategy that said his presidency was legitimate even though he had a minority of votes, because the popular liberal thought was that Gore would win (8 years of great economy, nothing really bad happening except a little oral sex, technology happening at a pace thats never been seen in 100 years...that sort of thing), but that the conservative states would rise up in anger and far more would vote against him than for him.
Ironically, it happened the other way
Even though I voted against Bushie, my vote meant nothing to the total votes. My state went for Bushie, and thus ALL these votes went that way. Its a small price to pay to make certain that the individual chunks of peoples get represented...remember we are the United STATES. It happens at State level and THEN nationally.
Personally, I think the way electorial votes are counted should be modified a little. Allow states to split votes. If you have 20 electorial votes to give as a state, and 45% vote one way and another 55% goes the other way, why should you give ALL your votes to the man with the winning total. As long as there is some granularity within the state, why not set it up that way. All your people are represented, your state is represented, and you suddenly become more important nationally as you can't just push it over the edge, ya gotta REALLY make certain its in your favor.
Then again, it probably goes against the idea of a unified state making its decision as a whole...
"There's probably a few common ones people could recognize, but given that you can't rely on your average person to distinguish tone and pitch reliably (ever been to a karaoke bar?)"
It could just be relative pitch.
For instance, the gregorians had, I believe, a system of writting music that simply said Up Down Same. Did it have have to be the same notes? No, just perceptible up / down from the last.
There is a music dictionary out there that was used in the 50s that did the same thing...you know the theme, and ya just look up up / down / repeat and it will tell ya the song...its a shame its not updated these days, but still works for most classical pieces (if ya know one of the themes).
I read this article this morning but I didn't pay enough attention to it to remember....
Actually,
:-)
It was argued in court that the deceased had tried grabbing a gun that he had (legally) kept beside him and the two fought over it and the freak of a millionaire ended up on top.
Being a bit mentally ill, he decided that it would be best to dispose of the body because he didn't want to get caught and have to explain this. The mentally ill always seem to think others are out to get them.
Was this how this went down? No one knows. And that may be what the jury was banking on. The US style of justice is SUPPOSEDLY letting a few guilty go free occasionally to make sure that the truly not guilty are not imprisoned or worse. It still happens...mainly with folks that don't seem to get this concept. Cheney and Ashcroft seem to be pushing for the whole Kill 'Em All And Let Gawd Sort Them Out means of justice.
Again, we don't know what the jury was thinking. In our own prejudices, we DO think of the wealthier and famous as less likely to need to commit certain crimes. Why would someone like OJ want to kill his exwife? He was a great football player and could get anyone. Why would Robert Blake want to kill his then current wife? Because he did devote his life to the law (even if it was just on television). Why would an insane multimillionaire want to kill his next door neighbor? Thats just nuts?
Assigning guilt DOES take a little bit of using your own prejudices...it shouldn't be all of them or even a majority or them, but we know it happens even in professional jurists (lawyers and judges). I would rather our prejudices be used to keep folks out of prison regardless of guilt that to use it to throw folks into jail when they aren't guilty and happens to be of some group they didn't like.
Its not the American public's fault...its the american publics one saving grace...we aren't like the other countries with no sense of procedure and fairness...well, in theory
"Scantron sheets for voting? That's NOT a good idea."
:-)
:-)
Its easy to deal with on Scantrons...its just too many folks try to fill this stuff in with too much information.
For instance, for my employeer, we've developed a system for our scantrons that we run them through printers BEFORE they are passed out to precode these things. That took away 90% of the problems right there. This would be in the area you are talking about Test-ID, though the User ID is still a problem
Past that, you have folks that might use pen instead of pencil. Not a problem on most modern scanners that have both image and OMR capibilities. Again, fixing a good chunk of the old problems.
And then, depending on how the form is designed, you can eliminate most of the rest of the problems. Most of ours try to have 1000 questions in the space of a quarter of a standard sized piece of paper (ok, thats an exageration), BUT for a lot of the important items, they are designed where its clear where the user is to enter the data. For our surveys, things like demographics (which are actually the most important item for us), we spread the bubbles around so even if you severally scribble outside of the bubble, its not going to be referenced as something else.
I was impressed yesterday when I saw the forms that we used for voting...ours were the scantron style stuff as well, and I spent a minute or two looking at the design before filling it out. All the bubbles were well spaced apart from each other and the instructions were very clear.
Not every scantron type entry system is flawed. Maybe if folks would learn to design these things from a UI perspective instead of just taking a standard design and customizing a few fields, this technology wouldn't be as stigmatized.
Then again, I could just be saying this because I manage the research and development office for my universities testing center
Here in America that doesn't happen either.
People get $50k to cover the skin grafts from idiot employees pouring scalding hot coffee on the legs of the elderly. Pain and suffering costs were not that much compared to paying for the medical needs.
Its a shame every ignorant dumbass likes to bring this up when they have no clue about how the system actually works.
AND given the resources to do their music.
I know a LOT of musicians that if given the opportunity to do a world class album for free, would do so. That needs resources...one that requires the services of others (human factors such as decent engineers) and folks willing to take a risk hoping they will see a return on their cash.
Its much cheaper to own the hardware / software.
Its not any cheaper from the human end of things. A few weeks ago, one of the guys in my forum was talking about how when they did they newest Bowie album, they used a computer with all off the shelf technologies to record it. Logic Audio, Apogee Preamps / AudioInterfaces and things like that. Stuff you or I could easily afford.
Then I looked at the line up of the people on the gig. Yeah, the hardware was MUCH cheaper, but the human factors were probably as high or higher than before.
Just like Linux, just because something is free, that doesn't make it a good value.
If people rip off what I do to make a buck, I'm going to complain about it. I don't think companies should pay their support geeks. After all, Linux is free, why shouldn't the support staff do this for free too? Why can't the support staff just make their money from doing live performances of their administration skills? Why oh why can't they?
Its moronic to expect that because folks are breaking the law that we should expect to change our jobs. If we were getting our asses kicked by folks releasing FREE music and people doing a better job of what we are doing and not charging for it, I'd agree with you...but I can't name one band that doesn't depend on hired help to get decent sound. Lots of punk music, but I and 99% of the world do not get into punk / garage / bedroom music. It sounds amaturish to me and more importantly, its not my cup of tea. Again, neither is it for most people. If you like it, cool, I'm not insulting it other than its NOT what I want in my cd player...I'm sick of people bringing up this stuff as the reason music can go non commercial...
Again, I'm NOT talking about the end artist.
IceT has people working for him that depend on his works being protected in some way.
As for the world changing, if you were a shop owner where everyone came in a stole from you, how would you feel about the snot nosed kid that tells him if he can't figure out how to make money from this shoplifting, he needs to get out of the game, because legislation can't prevent shoplifters.
Fortunately, the law does prevent most illegal physical activity. Just because you can steal at home in your underware does not make it any less of a crime.
Even the folks that work for the musicians that you see on TV don't get that much.
:P), songwriters, engineers, techs, backline staff, cooks, wardrobe and dozens of other postions...most of which you never hear about -- because I guess these dumbass musicians grab their outta tune guitars and worn out drums and build something that is as much of a production as any slick piece of work you see from Disney...all on their own.
In my side employment, which in all honesty DOES pay more than my university research position (but not by much...and I have to buy my equipment from this, but I would have done that anyways, so it comes up almost as a nul sum).
Too many ignorant fucks think of the people on stage as the only ones that should get paid. I've worked with several popular artists over the years as I was lucky enough to get my foot in the door with newer technologies before the geek crowd started realizing they could do the same.
Unfortunately, these days it doesn't pay as well as it once did. Not because the demand is not there anymore, but because economically it isn't good anywhere in the industry. A lot of times, folks like me will work on a project for points...which means we get paid before the artist does BUT we are still dependant on sales.
The last album I worked on for points, I saw very little over what I got upfront. Its not like the artist wasn't well received or played, its just folks weren't buying his stuff. The concerts all pretty much packed the house, and the few shows I worked live (I have a day job the precludes going out on the road for 5 weeks at a stretch) actually paid as much as the album, but over all, it wasn't much.
So who gets screwed on these ventures? Its the people that work in the background. Its the little people that get fucked over. The people that are on the album and the video are not the only ones that matter here. I was at a movie the other night and they had one of those infamous 'propoganda' commercials at the beginning stating what one of the stuntmen did and all that -- trying to show that not only the big stars are at risk because of piracy. I'd like to see more of this on the music end. Ya have producers (ok, no one likes producers
The minute dumbasses like Cowboy Neal have a forum of followers (and I thought it was just Michael and Timothy that pissed me off with their bullshit rhetoric...I can't believe people are actually paid to take someone elses words and attach uninformed rhetoric to it...can I have your job CN? I do have the hat...)
Clif Marsiglio
Sonikmatter, LLC
"Drives are defragged to allow the OS to access the files faster."
Are you so sure?
I have talked with a senior OS designer (one of the non-free ones) and his view is that these days, defragging does more damage than it saves.
Why? Drives generally have large caches on them and multiple platters / read heads.
Noting this, the fastest way to get data off a drive might not be a straight line. Its looks pretty when you run the different utilities and makes the home makers of whom believe everything should be put away neat and tidy, but the engineer had mentioned that being defragged means you loose a lot of advantages of those multiple readheads and cache. He claimed that it was actually better to leave your drive to its own devices, allowing for about 30% free space at all times, and you will see a speedup over a defragged drive.
I didn't believe it at first, but his arguments did make a lot of sense even though it went against everything I had learned before. He actually mentioned if he had his choice, he'd make certain defraggers would NEVER work, but the market believes that these are necessary so its easier to have these things included as well as supporting third parties, so its there.
Heh! Only when the dumbasses credit Cage with the composition or allude to a derivative work based on it.
:-)
Yeah, this was a haw-haw post, but if you took a song I wrote and made it sound ANYWHERE near similar (even if just marginal) and then claimed I was a co-writer, I'd sue yer ass too (well, not until ya got famous though...don't want to shoot myself in the foot too soon).
I have a friend that was involved in something similar. My company designs and publishes sound design works for synths and otherwise. My friend decided he'd make an accurate Prepared Piano -- another Cagian creation. Unfortunately, he designed it to the exact specifications of Cages notes and proceeded to tell everyone that this was what it was intended for and in the liner notes stated that if Cage were alive, he'd endorse it...but it was for creating your own works.
His estate didn't like that and sued him. If he would have just left the descriptions as a more generic term and didn't reference this as THE definitive Cage Piano, then he would have been cool. I think the estate were assholes for doing it, but it was very clear noting their past actions what would happen, and thus he should have stayed away from that mine field altogether. I understand it from both ends, he was using Cage's works for his own profit, but he was also paying tribute to the man...
Doncha hate when someone takes a perfectly good joke post and posts something half serious along with it.
"Watson v.s. Sherlock was much more obviously a rip off of a 3rd party piece of sofware."
From what I understand, the functionality of Watson was something Apple had been developing and had given betas out to select individuals for a few years BEFORE Watson had come out.
I don't know the entire story behind it except what my friends at Apple have said, but doesn't that sound possible that the third party developer heard about it and decided that either Apple wasn't going to bring it to market (long time to develop something this small) for one reason or another and decided to make the implementation herself.
Apple IS a little more open with new technologies than they should be and they are a little too picky about how and when these should be introduced. I've heard of a few new features that I thought were supposed to have been in Panther, but for some reason never even made it to the betas, but you can still find plist entries for them if you look (even if they make no sense in their current context).
I don't know who to believe with any of this...Apple is very good about admitting they like others technologies and paying folks that they do aquire them from -- to the point of buying developers out of their companies and paying both well. Its definately not microsoftian in nature, nor is it the former NIH (Not Invented Here) that use to be prevalent in the company.
Again, I don't know...just pointing out something I see referenced time and time again with the Watson when I had heard of such features as being possible and probably far before I heard of Watson...
"Although why they would go to Amazon instead of Google to find that information is beyond me."
Because as noted in Wired, accurate reference material is just not as prevelant on the internet as it is in hard cold paper...something Amazon and others would like to eventually see changed.
You are right -- Clinton made $35k as Gov'r...not the mere $30k I had stated.
:-)
Had to look it up
As for teachers, police officers and fire fighters -- I F'N KNOW!!! That was my point. They SHOULD be paid a lot more than they are!!! There should be no volunteer fire fighters. When I lived in Arkansas, that was the way things were done -- volunteer only (at least in my county)...if you didn't pay the volunteer fees, they'd sweep the burning home for residents, and then make sure the fire didn't spread to other homes. I agree with the tactics as it was necessary to keep it funded, BUT no public officer should have to work for nothing.
Back to the point, by keeping salary low, you end up with folks that are financially well off whether that is the intent or not. John Kerry wasn't rich -- he ended up with a little money because he married well (after her former politician husband was killed in a plane accident a few years back). I'd like to see more commoners like you and I as senator...make it possible for this to happen. Give them the money they need so they aren't looking at backend deals like some politicians we have right now (need I say Haliburton).
True -- I live off a little love $30k a year from my public employer.
Then again, I don't have to maintain 2 residences -- one in my home state and one where I am required to work.
Are you arguing that senators shouldn't get retirement packages? And are you also arguing that one should be rich before they join public office? I think Clinton was saying that he never made more than $30k a year until he became president. Kinda sad...then again, our current president had money thrown at him from birth and he acts like EVERYONE has too...no wonder he isn't in touch with the common man.
These are important positions...they should be treated well...just like our teachers, police officers and fire fighters should be. I would never argue those guys should get less, but I would argue the others in public service should definately get more.
Ok, you are officially a clueless fuck.
Anyone that does this should be impeached and jailed. Several have in the past.
1. This is done every year. Thats why its a cost of living increase. I don't care how much you are making, if you don't get this each and every year, you are technically loosing money.
2. Thats not a lot of money. I know a lot of geeks living in California that make that much. My mother made $68k last year in LA after only working half the year as a temp. Sounds like a lot of money from my hillbilly Indiana lifestyle, but then again, I don't have to pay $2k a month for a one bedroom apartment.
3. No shit. The gov't workers however both serve the gov't as well as are employed by it.
4. Minimum wage is just that -- the minimum wage that one should be paid. Minimum wage is not something that someone trying to support a family should be after. Even when I was 15 and had to get my parents to sign a waiver allowing me to work, I never make anything less than $2 more than minimum wage. That was at a burger joint. If a 15 year old can do the job and make that kind of money, maybe these people depending on minimum wage jobs are taking jobs meant for a 15 year old.
5. What the fuck? I have a side business in addition to what I make at my day job. It pays better than the other, but I have no security (hence the fact I haven't ditched out of this place -- that and I feel like I'm making a difference here). What you make outside of your job is entirely different.
Everyone employed should get a cost of living increase. If Congress expects this, then so should everyone else...
Each and every one of us. We select these people. Its our job to make sure they do it well or find the appropriate replacements. You can't blame anyone else.
So what?
It was a cost of living increase. I work for a public institution and we got shafted this year. We don't get merit increases and promotions are generally out of the question because every year more and more crap is shoved at you so that in all actuality, you are doing far more work than your job description asks for, as is everyone else, so its not in anyones best interest to do so.
So, we get cost of living increases. This year was a 2%. Our work load went up probably 20 - 30% more than last year.
I applaud the senate for taking their cost of living increases. They took a 2.2% raise. Is a shitty raise if you ask me.
I don't care what the rest of the economy is doing, public service SUCKS. Given that each and everyone of us from elected officials down to the janitors that work in the conditions we do, I think a 2.2% increase is the least they could do. It sets an example and if we can't afford that as a country, something is wrong.
I'm going to call my congressperson and ask that they take a 5% next year and vote that the rest of us get one too.