No, you just conveniently manage to heavily imply it:
Buying directly from Cisco, in no way, protects you from this problem. The hardware is still made overseas in some factory by a bunch of people who may not like the US very much Since "still made overseas" is presented as the reason for "Buying directly in no way protects you", you certainly make it sound like you think this is the cause of the problem.
You're the one who lacks imagination if you think that merely moving all production in-house and inside the US will completely eliminate the potential for this sort of problem.
The question this doesn't answer is this: does the LEGIT Cisco equipment contain back doors? How can Cisco be sure it doesn't? Most of the components are manufactured offshore and the assembly is done offshore. Have they examined each part with an electron microscope to verify it doesn't do anything more than what the spec says it should do? I see this sentiment expressed all over the place in these threads and I just don't get it. What is it about offshore manufacturing which somehow makes this such a problem? Why is it that you think these extreme checks are required if the equipment is made in China, but not if it's made in Kansas? Do you think that American workers are invulnerable to bribery, coercion, or just plain stupidity?
So you mean it's highly ubiquitous language with 100s of billions of lines of code written in it that spreads over innumerable applications? Pretty much. Both Java and COBOL blow great big donkey chunks, but they're both used all over the place. They both have this great property of making it difficult to shoot yourself in the foot, which makes it practical to unleash hordes of medium/low quality programmers on a code base and actually come up with something that kinda sorta works.
It's a safe bet that those paper books will last far longer than any hard drive that you store files on So what? It's a safe bet that a hard drive will last far longer than those paper books will if you light them on fire or leave them out in the rain. It's irrelevant to the question, though.
Only a fool preserves digital files by putting them on a hard drive and then hoping that the drive doesn't break. Active backup is the way to go here, and without a great deal of effort you could back up all of your ebooks in multiple redundant physical locations such that you're virtually guaranteed to have them survive any event less than the collapse of civilization. Your regular books, on the other hand, are set to vanish in any number of minor disasters such as fire, flood, dog, or meteor.
It becomes apparent that we are somehow talking past each other.
ToMuchToDo's original post linked to http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/trend.html. The phrase you quote appears nowhere on that page. Furthermore it's very explicit in discussing accident counts, not accidents per hour. If nothing else, just look at the numbers. It says that there were 1,607 general aviation accidents in 2007. If this were per 100,000 flight hours, this would be an average of one accident every 62 hours. I don't know about you, but if flying were that dangerous I think I would quit.
You, along with a whole bunch of others, are conflating the accident rate per hour with the accident rate per year.
The quoted stats only discussed the rate per year, and that's what I was talking about. You're absolutely right to expect the rate per hour to increase, and the stats show that this is precisely what is happening.
I hear you. As I mentioned in another post, applying avgas consumption to the raw accident numbers indicates that flying is going down and the accident rate is going up significantly. Which is exactly what I would expect from the situation, due to the problems with maintaining currency that you mention.
I hope you have a great trip to Oshkosh and that nobody gets anybody killed.
I wrote a nice long post with statistics, and then slashdot's fancy new commenting system ate it. Thanks a lot, slashdot!
The main point of it was that while airliners are roughly 30 times safer per passenger mile than cars, light aircraft are several times less safe. It's still an entirely reasonable activity to undertake, but it's still safer to be on the road than to be in a small plane. And note that this lower safety is achieved with vastly more rigorous training than drivers get. Expect it to become considerably worse if you were to suddenly flood the skies with flying cars.
Where does it say that? The linked page uses a raw accident count everywhere, and never gives any indication that it's comparing meaningful numbers, such as accidents per hour or accidents per mile. Nowhere does it mention a percentage of total flights.
Your second paragraph simply makes no sense. The number of flights being made is irrelevant, only the percentage change matters.
Tracking the number of GA flights being made is hard, so let's use avgas sales as a substitute. The linked page indicates that avgas sales were down 11% in 2007, so it's probably fair to assume that flying in general was down by about 11% too. (Mogas conversions and pilots switching to more efficient airplanes are unlikely to have a significant year-over-year effect.) Given this, a 2% decrease in the total number of accidents in one quarter really shows a 9% increase in accident rate. And things are worse for the total year: a 6% increase in the number of accidents combined with 11% less flying gives a 17-18% total increase in accident rate.
These numbers are meaningless without corresponding numbers on how much flying was done. With the soaring price of avgas I wouldn't be surprised if accidents were down slightly simply because people are flying less.
And to the grandparent poster: judging safety by reading the news is almost precisely backwards. The reason you hear about small planes crashing into things on the news is because it's rare enough to be newsworthy. A hundred people die on the roads in this country every day, and they almost never show up on the news because it's simply too commonplace.
Wikipedia disagrees with you. It was designed to be binary compatible with the 8080, but it added significant features such that the binary compatibility would not go in the other direction.
In any case it's utterly irrelevant because x86 is not binary compatible with the 8080, so even if the Z80 were a perfect clone of the 8080 VMWare still wouldn't be able to run it.
Yes, because VMWare will totally help you run a system that originally ran on a Z80, and used utterly non-standard disks which no other drive will accept.
If you could convince the board to bring in competitors then that would even out the playing field right quick. The telcos may suck, but when forced to compete they all like to kick each other's asses.
Barring that, the threat of bringing in competitors will also help, although not nearly as much as actually having them.
If the private airlines want to decide that I have to submit to a search before I fly with them, that is fully within their rights, of course.
But that is not what is happening. What actually happens is that the federal government forces us to do that. If I think that these searches are overbearing and I could make a lot of money by starting an airline that doesn't have any, I cannot legally do this.
Thus, the feds are violating the 4th amendment by searching everyone who rides an airline.
If Spore is the only game you play then perhaps it's simpler to remember to activate it before you travel, or before you have incompetent techs bring down your internet connection for the weekend. If this idea catches on and you end up with several such games, it's going to get massively inconvenient to go through every single one of them (and forget some) before you ever go anywhere, or before thick-headed DSL installers unplug your connection while installing someone else's. CDs on the other hand are pretty small and there are these nifty cases you can buy for not a whole lot of money which will store a score or so of them in a space about the size of a paperback novel.
Even in the "I only play Spore" case, I personally am without internet connectivity more frequently due to ISP uselessness than due to travel. In this case CDs are vastly more convenient and easier to have your shelves carry around.
Rationalize that you are more likely to die in a car accident, so take no action? Sorry, this is the wrong verb. The proper verb is "realize", as in "realize that terrorism is one of the least likely causes of death in existence, and allocate your resources/effort/worry accordingly".
What makes terrorism more special than, say, lightning strikes or shark attacks? Why should it get billions in government spending while no attention is given to serious killers like slipping in the shower or falling down while putting on pants in a standing position?
You know what scares me? Alzheimer's disease. Rots your brain, and you become a complete mental case years before it finally manages to kill you. After that come the real killers. Heart disease. Cancer. Maniacs driving oversized SUVs. Terrorism only scares me in that it's a pretext for a whole lot of powerful people to behave in an absolutely irrational and destructive manner.
Check out the tenth amendment sometime. If the Constitution doesn't say the government can do it, then they can't. You have it the other way around. The right to fly on planes does exist along with all of the others we have because this document doesn't say that we don't have this right.
As for the courts, that is simply ridiculous. It's possible to disagree with court decisions without being automatically wrong. I happen to think that a great many court decisions on the constitutionality of government actions have been wrong over the years. I certainly could be wrong, but your rebuttal of my opinion needs to go beyond "the courts disagree with you, so you lose" if you want it to have any credibility.
Content already has a whole bunch of meanings, ranging from "physical makeup" to "proportion" to "satisfied". One of those meanings it already has is the one I quoted, that is the constituent material of a work.
"Content", meaning terms of the topics or facts which make up a work, is indeed not protected. "Content", meaning the constituent material of a work, is protected. "Content", meaning to make satisfied, is irrelevant. Context here is key.
It's a lot simpler to carry around a case of CDs than it is to run every single game you have and make sure that each one actually checks in with the server, as opposed to only pretending to and then cutting you off the next day because your last authorization was nine days ago.
And of course it goes without saying that if you end up being offline for, say, eleven days then you lose.
However, if you're going to be offline, just run it and have it check, and you're good for 10 days. Personally, I don't meticulously plan all of my game playing or internet disconnections in advance.
Slashdot Mirror
You're the one who lacks imagination if you think that merely moving all production in-house and inside the US will completely eliminate the potential for this sort of problem.
Only a fool preserves digital files by putting them on a hard drive and then hoping that the drive doesn't break. Active backup is the way to go here, and without a great deal of effort you could back up all of your ebooks in multiple redundant physical locations such that you're virtually guaranteed to have them survive any event less than the collapse of civilization. Your regular books, on the other hand, are set to vanish in any number of minor disasters such as fire, flood, dog, or meteor.
That clears it up, thanks.
It becomes apparent that we are somehow talking past each other.
ToMuchToDo's original post linked to http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/trend.html. The phrase you quote appears nowhere on that page. Furthermore it's very explicit in discussing accident counts, not accidents per hour. If nothing else, just look at the numbers. It says that there were 1,607 general aviation accidents in 2007. If this were per 100,000 flight hours, this would be an average of one accident every 62 hours. I don't know about you, but if flying were that dangerous I think I would quit.
You, along with a whole bunch of others, are conflating the accident rate per hour with the accident rate per year.
The quoted stats only discussed the rate per year, and that's what I was talking about. You're absolutely right to expect the rate per hour to increase, and the stats show that this is precisely what is happening.
IAAP too.
I hear you. As I mentioned in another post, applying avgas consumption to the raw accident numbers indicates that flying is going down and the accident rate is going up significantly. Which is exactly what I would expect from the situation, due to the problems with maintaining currency that you mention.
I hope you have a great trip to Oshkosh and that nobody gets anybody killed.
I wrote a nice long post with statistics, and then slashdot's fancy new commenting system ate it. Thanks a lot, slashdot!
The main point of it was that while airliners are roughly 30 times safer per passenger mile than cars, light aircraft are several times less safe. It's still an entirely reasonable activity to undertake, but it's still safer to be on the road than to be in a small plane. And note that this lower safety is achieved with vastly more rigorous training than drivers get. Expect it to become considerably worse if you were to suddenly flood the skies with flying cars.
Where does it say that? The linked page uses a raw accident count everywhere, and never gives any indication that it's comparing meaningful numbers, such as accidents per hour or accidents per mile. Nowhere does it mention a percentage of total flights.
Your second paragraph simply makes no sense. The number of flights being made is irrelevant, only the percentage change matters.
Tracking the number of GA flights being made is hard, so let's use avgas sales as a substitute. The linked page indicates that avgas sales were down 11% in 2007, so it's probably fair to assume that flying in general was down by about 11% too. (Mogas conversions and pilots switching to more efficient airplanes are unlikely to have a significant year-over-year effect.) Given this, a 2% decrease in the total number of accidents in one quarter really shows a 9% increase in accident rate. And things are worse for the total year: a 6% increase in the number of accidents combined with 11% less flying gives a 17-18% total increase in accident rate.
These numbers are meaningless without corresponding numbers on how much flying was done. With the soaring price of avgas I wouldn't be surprised if accidents were down slightly simply because people are flying less.
And to the grandparent poster: judging safety by reading the news is almost precisely backwards. The reason you hear about small planes crashing into things on the news is because it's rare enough to be newsworthy. A hundred people die on the roads in this country every day, and they almost never show up on the news because it's simply too commonplace.
Wikipedia disagrees with you. It was designed to be binary compatible with the 8080, but it added significant features such that the binary compatibility would not go in the other direction.
In any case it's utterly irrelevant because x86 is not binary compatible with the 8080, so even if the Z80 were a perfect clone of the 8080 VMWare still wouldn't be able to run it.
Yes, because VMWare will totally help you run a system that originally ran on a Z80, and used utterly non-standard disks which no other drive will accept.
If you could convince the board to bring in competitors then that would even out the playing field right quick. The telcos may suck, but when forced to compete they all like to kick each other's asses.
Barring that, the threat of bringing in competitors will also help, although not nearly as much as actually having them.
If the private airlines want to decide that I have to submit to a search before I fly with them, that is fully within their rights, of course.
But that is not what is happening. What actually happens is that the federal government forces us to do that. If I think that these searches are overbearing and I could make a lot of money by starting an airline that doesn't have any, I cannot legally do this.
Thus, the feds are violating the 4th amendment by searching everyone who rides an airline.
If Spore is the only game you play then perhaps it's simpler to remember to activate it before you travel, or before you have incompetent techs bring down your internet connection for the weekend. If this idea catches on and you end up with several such games, it's going to get massively inconvenient to go through every single one of them (and forget some) before you ever go anywhere, or before thick-headed DSL installers unplug your connection while installing someone else's. CDs on the other hand are pretty small and there are these nifty cases you can buy for not a whole lot of money which will store a score or so of them in a space about the size of a paperback novel.
Even in the "I only play Spore" case, I personally am without internet connectivity more frequently due to ISP uselessness than due to travel. In this case CDs are vastly more convenient and easier to have your shelves carry around.
What makes terrorism more special than, say, lightning strikes or shark attacks? Why should it get billions in government spending while no attention is given to serious killers like slipping in the shower or falling down while putting on pants in a standing position?
You know what scares me? Alzheimer's disease. Rots your brain, and you become a complete mental case years before it finally manages to kill you. After that come the real killers. Heart disease. Cancer. Maniacs driving oversized SUVs. Terrorism only scares me in that it's a pretext for a whole lot of powerful people to behave in an absolutely irrational and destructive manner.
Check out the tenth amendment sometime. If the Constitution doesn't say the government can do it, then they can't. You have it the other way around. The right to fly on planes does exist along with all of the others we have because this document doesn't say that we don't have this right.
As for the courts, that is simply ridiculous. It's possible to disagree with court decisions without being automatically wrong. I happen to think that a great many court decisions on the constitutionality of government actions have been wrong over the years. I certainly could be wrong, but your rebuttal of my opinion needs to go beyond "the courts disagree with you, so you lose" if you want it to have any credibility.
Content already has a whole bunch of meanings, ranging from "physical makeup" to "proportion" to "satisfied". One of those meanings it already has is the one I quoted, that is the constituent material of a work.
"Content", meaning terms of the topics or facts which make up a work, is indeed not protected. "Content", meaning the constituent material of a work, is protected. "Content", meaning to make satisfied, is irrelevant. Context here is key.
1. Words can have more than one meaning.
2. Words can acquire new meanings over time.
It's a lot simpler to carry around a case of CDs than it is to run every single game you have and make sure that each one actually checks in with the server, as opposed to only pretending to and then cutting you off the next day because your last authorization was nine days ago.
And of course it goes without saying that if you end up being offline for, say, eleven days then you lose.