I don't seem to recall seeing any proof provided, nor any logic.
If it was provided and I just missed it, what was the need to make the argument by "what do you have to lose"?
Let me restate my original premise more clearly: the only time I see argument by "what do you have to lose" is when the actual arguments for the proposition are empty and baseless.
As far as the "population increases, supplies don't" you need to go read some of the other threads under this article. Malthus made exactly the same argument over 100 years ago, and we all know how correct he turned out to be. See, what all this ignores is increasing efficiencies of use. Is there a limit to efficiencies? Of course. Have we reached it? Do we know what the limit is? A resounding no to both. The fact is, sounding an absolute alarm as in "we will be all dead in 50 years" is great for crying wolf. Unfortunately, we've heard it all before.
If you want to make a serious case for conservation and reduction of resource use, you'll do so with reasoned, logical, cogent arguments, not great massive alarums about how the sky is falling.
Where exactly is the form I need to respond to? I don't see anything on the second page linked that says "form here" and none of the random links I've clicked get me there. It's all well and good to be clever and say "see, they hid it", but let us know where it is so we can respond!
I had the pleasure of seeing Douglas Adams do a speaking engagement before he left us. One of his major points, one that's quoted at length in _The Salmon of Doubt_, is this: Technology is stuff we haven't figured out how to use yet.
The point being that no one needs a manual to use a phone (or at least not the general phone capabilities of a phone--some "modern" phones have gotten out of hand again). No one needs a manual to drive a car. These are technologies that have been assimilated. If you have to read a manual to use it, it's not assimilated. And therefore I'd say it's not user friendly enough (but part of being user friendly is being ubiquitous enough that certain assumptions are just given).
FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), an organization who probably does deserve the liberal label, published an interesting magazine/flyer a few years back documenting the true lack of a liberal bias in the media.
Taking the only example I can recall offhand, NPR (commonly referred to the reactionaries as National Pinko Radio) regularly cites the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, as well as interviewing the thinkers who fill their tanks. Last time I checked, the points of view expressed by these two orgs (Cato in particular) is much more liberTARIAN than liberal, and as such are closer to Republican/conservative points of view. On the other side, NPR is not typically citing Pacifica-style truly liberal anti-corporate points of view. They may be left of Newt Gingrich, but given the entire spectrum of politics, they are much more centrist than liberal in their bias.
The same goes for most other media outlets. If they were truly pursuing a leftist liberal agenda, they'd be biting the hands that feed them, and they know better.
Bah. If ONLY I used the preview button like I'm told.
Try again:
Which he says will effectively transition us from TCP/IP to Palladium/P and make it difficult if not impossible for Linux and others who
do not/cannot affort do license the stack from M$ to operate on the Internet.
Cringley's article (referenced in a couple other responses) notes that the encryption will have to apply to the networks stack as well, in order to be effective. Which he says will effectively transition us from TCP/IP to Palladium/P and make it difficult if not impossible for Linux and others who do not/cannot affort do license the stack from M$ out in the cold on the internet.
Whether this is a reasonable belief, I leave as an exercise to the reader. I am not going to endorse or refute it here.
It's not "another" MySQL book. It's a second edition of what was formerly MySQL & mSQL. Significantly revised to focus on what people are really using, and reorganized to make it a lot more clear than the first edition. I have to say I was happy to buy this edition to replace the old one because it's a much better reference.
That's ludicrous. You give it to 'the people' in a country ruled by a dictator. What the hell you think is going to happen to it? It's going to be appropriated for whatever he wants to do with it. To claim now, many years after the fact, that it's suddenly theft, is ludicrous. Let the Honduran's sue for it if they want it back.
And the point of running a webserver on my own machine, when I already have all the pictures on it, and can bring them up at will is...? I don't see that as useful at all. Oh wait, my wife should bring up a browser on her machine instead of walking the 5 feet across the room to mine. I get it.
Uh. No. Last time I checked, Windows was the most insecure OS on the planet. Even my linux box does not get connected with a server on it to the internet directly. I do not port forward incoming traffic to my machines because I don't have time to play the keeping up with the script kiddies game. I have enough work to do at work, thanks.
Hey moderators who think I'm a troll: I'm asking a reasonable question "What am I Missing" out of ignorance of aircraft design elements. If I didn't want a serious answer I wouldn't have asked the damn question. If I wanted to troll I would have said "it's obviously not going to work".
What exactly are you smoking? I could do 0 to 60 like a bat out of hell with my parents' 1972 WAGON (albeit a very SMALL wagon). There was plenty of torque in that baby, to the point where it put everything else in its class at the time to shame.
I learned to drive an RX-2 wagon from 1972, and it didn't generally have compression issues either. But my parents let the maintenance be done by a cheaper mechanic for a few years, who didn't know that he had to flush the internal engine bits on a regular basis, and it ate its seals up. Voila, no compression at all. Pretty interesting to be on a family vacation and have the engine fail completely and have to be replaced.
Military Aircraft are subject to different safety requirements than Commercial Aircraft. I have no problem with people who are already taking a significant risk adding some bit more, as long as they understand and are willing to take it. But I would be kind spooked to be relying on an aircraft for a vacation trip that there was no way it could be controlled safely without the computers. I'd be curious how many redundancies were built in, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
That saves you from YOUR bank stiffing you, but doesn't save you from the assholes who own the ATM machine stiffing you.
For the record, I'm still running my same old copy of win98SE. Works great, no nasty privacy invasions that I have to disable.
- I don't seem to recall seeing any proof provided, nor any logic.
- If it was provided and I just missed it, what was the need to make the argument by "what do you have to lose"?
Let me restate my original premise more clearly: the only time I see argument by "what do you have to lose" is when the actual arguments for the proposition are empty and baseless.As far as the "population increases, supplies don't" you need to go read some of the other threads under this article. Malthus made exactly the same argument over 100 years ago, and we all know how correct he turned out to be. See, what all this ignores is increasing efficiencies of use. Is there a limit to efficiencies? Of course. Have we reached it? Do we know what the limit is? A resounding no to both. The fact is, sounding an absolute alarm as in "we will be all dead in 50 years" is great for crying wolf. Unfortunately, we've heard it all before.
If you want to make a serious case for conservation and reduction of resource use, you'll do so with reasoned, logical, cogent arguments, not great massive alarums about how the sky is falling.
Gee, I usually only see this approach to convincing people in religion. I think that gives you some idea of how reasonable I think it is....
Where exactly is the form I need to respond to? I don't see anything on the second page linked that says "form here" and none of the random links I've clicked get me there. It's all well and good to be clever and say "see, they hid it", but let us know where it is so we can respond!
The point being that no one needs a manual to use a phone (or at least not the general phone capabilities of a phone--some "modern" phones have gotten out of hand again). No one needs a manual to drive a car. These are technologies that have been assimilated. If you have to read a manual to use it, it's not assimilated. And therefore I'd say it's not user friendly enough (but part of being user friendly is being ubiquitous enough that certain assumptions are just given).
It's not a matter of the spelling I was worried about it was the loss of words....Cut & paste doesn't fix spelling mistakes.
Taking the only example I can recall offhand, NPR (commonly referred to the reactionaries as National Pinko Radio) regularly cites the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, as well as interviewing the thinkers who fill their tanks. Last time I checked, the points of view expressed by these two orgs (Cato in particular) is much more liberTARIAN than liberal, and as such are closer to Republican/conservative points of view. On the other side, NPR is not typically citing Pacifica-style truly liberal anti-corporate points of view. They may be left of Newt Gingrich, but given the entire spectrum of politics, they are much more centrist than liberal in their bias.
The same goes for most other media outlets. If they were truly pursuing a leftist liberal agenda, they'd be biting the hands that feed them, and they know better.
Try again:
Which he says will effectively transition us from TCP/IP to Palladium/P and make it difficult if not impossible for Linux and others who do not/cannot affort do license the stack from M$ to operate on the Internet.
Whether this is a reasonable belief, I leave as an exercise to the reader. I am not going to endorse or refute it here.
It's not "another" MySQL book. It's a second edition of what was formerly MySQL & mSQL. Significantly revised to focus on what people are really using, and reorganized to make it a lot more clear than the first edition. I have to say I was happy to buy this edition to replace the old one because it's a much better reference.
It's Minas Tirith.
I was replying to the previous post; if they had their facts wrong, complain to them.
That's ludicrous. You give it to 'the people' in a country ruled by a dictator. What the hell you think is going to happen to it? It's going to be appropriated for whatever he wants to do with it. To claim now, many years after the fact, that it's suddenly theft, is ludicrous. Let the Honduran's sue for it if they want it back.
Cool. Thanks for a useful link!
And the point of running a webserver on my own machine, when I already have all the pictures on it, and can bring them up at will is...? I don't see that as useful at all. Oh wait, my wife should bring up a browser on her machine instead of walking the 5 feet across the room to mine. I get it.
So obviously it's not possible to have your machine secure, because it won't be if you give MS free reign on your machine.
Uh. No. Last time I checked, Windows was the most insecure OS on the planet. Even my linux box does not get connected with a server on it to the internet directly. I do not port forward incoming traffic to my machines because I don't have time to play the keeping up with the script kiddies game. I have enough work to do at work, thanks.
Assuming you have a web server you have control over.....and for those of us who don't?
So how long before we see Open Source and/or windows clones of iPhoto?
Hey moderators who think I'm a troll: I'm asking a reasonable question "What am I Missing" out of ignorance of aircraft design elements. If I didn't want a serious answer I wouldn't have asked the damn question. If I wanted to troll I would have said "it's obviously not going to work".
What exactly are you smoking? I could do 0 to 60 like a bat out of hell with my parents' 1972 WAGON (albeit a very SMALL wagon). There was plenty of torque in that baby, to the point where it put everything else in its class at the time to shame.
I learned to drive an RX-2 wagon from 1972, and it didn't generally have compression issues either. But my parents let the maintenance be done by a cheaper mechanic for a few years, who didn't know that he had to flush the internal engine bits on a regular basis, and it ate its seals up. Voila, no compression at all. Pretty interesting to be on a family vacation and have the engine fail completely and have to be replaced.
Military Aircraft are subject to different safety requirements than Commercial Aircraft. I have no problem with people who are already taking a significant risk adding some bit more, as long as they understand and are willing to take it. But I would be kind spooked to be relying on an aircraft for a vacation trip that there was no way it could be controlled safely without the computers. I'd be curious how many redundancies were built in, etc.
As one of the people asking "what's the beef?" I would like to thank you very much for a very clear explanation. Thanks!