"I'd be willing to" ban firearms | make the drunk driving limit 0.01 | submit to random searches | implement a death sentence for texting while driving | live under 24/7 surveillance | "to save tens of thousands of lives a year."
Your comment is not insightful. It is the same old nanny-state argument that turned England from the badass rulers of the world they once were into what they are now.
"2. If you had, you should be prosecuted for statutory rape and then experience the flip side of the relationship with a large man named Tyrone while serving 10-20 years."
Ever hear of the 8th Amendment?
A huge problem with the American justice system. NOBODY is supposed to be raped as a punishment, but the American public seems to think that prison rape is just fine.
Its a stupid move by Facebook for one very big reason: By monitoring user activity and then deciding to take action on what they consider suspicious behaviour, they will inevitably find themselves getting sued some day by someone who is hurt in some way that Facebook could have prevented.
Were they to refuse to monitor user activity at all, and instead only reply to valid legal requests for data from law enforcement, then they would have a much better defense against being responsible for user behaviour.
"Somebody in the FED watches Star Trek. This is TNG Season 3 Episode 10 - The Defector."
Right. Because rather than "Star Trek" being a dramatic representation of or statement about how our world operates, our world is actually driven by "Star Trek" plots.
"By only providing the binaries to donors, it looks like you are only charging nontechnical users, while more technically inclined users get it for free."
Right, you're totally not the reason for the law. You're here legally. So are the vast majority of the thousands of Canadians who own winter homes in Arizona when they come to visit. Since most Canadian visitors enter the country legally, most Canadian visitors aren't going to have any problems.
Without arguing the point of whether this law should exist or not, or whether police should or should not try to determine any person's immigration status, as a practical solution for the pragmatic brown US citizen who must travel occasionally in Arizona, but does not have an Arizona driver's license, I suggest a US Passport Card: http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt_card/ppt_card_3921.html
The passport card is the size of a driver's license and easily fits in a wallet. Only US citizens can get them. Handy-dandy for border patrol checkpoints from Texas to California, and you can even go to Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, and Bermuda and back by land or sea (but not by air) without having to carry your full-sized passport.
By the way, to further complicate matters, in the conditions I specified in my earlier post, where the local altimeter setting was 28.92, the lowest usable flight level would actually be FL 190. That's to keep traffic operating in the flight levels on altimeters set at 29.92 from bumping into traffic operating below the flight levels on local altimeter settings. Why is this a problem? Because an aircraft operating at 17,000 feet with the altimeter set at 28.92 would be at the same actual height as an aircraft operating at flight level 180 with altimeter set at 29.92.
It would be a pretty serious error for the controller to issue a clearance to a "flight level" below 180, and no pilot should accept such a clearance.
A clearance to a flight level implies changing the altimeter to 29.92. If the actual altimeter setting for the area was 28.92, and a pilot accepted a clearance to the non-existent flight level 100, then based on the standard flight level altimeter setting, he'd be flying at around 9,000 feet instead of 10,000. Assuming he was flying on a westward heading (based on an even numbered flight level), he'd now be nicely set up for a head-on collision with another aircraft traveling east at 9,000 feet, or possibly an encounter with terrain.
Its not a "flight level" until you get to 18,000 feet, so there really is no "FL 100". Flight levels are based on a standard altimeter setting of 29.92 inches of mercury at sea level. In the US, at least, you must be on an IFR clearance to fly in the flight levels, and once you're cleared to any flight level altitude, you set your altimeter to 29.92 and that's where it stays until you descend out of the flight levels. Below the flight levels -- 18,000 feet with altimeter at 29.92 -- you fly on local altimeter settings as provided by ATC or automated weather stations.
Normal cabin pressure for airliners is around 8,000 feet, not 10,000, and trans-oceanic flights routinely fly at FL 350 - 390.
Losing a cabin window at that altitude would almost certainly be a fairly dramatic experience, depending of course on your definition of "drama". Unless everyone was wearing space suits, their ears and sinuses would pop violently, and there would probably be a good bit of bleeding from ears and noses. I've seen passengers with bleeding ears for much more moderate changes of cabin altitude, like 1,000 feet per minute.
Anyone who didn't get a mask on in a hurry would be unconscious in about 15 - 30 seconds, as the rapid decompression would result in a forced exhalation of air from the lungs, and without a mask, there would be insufficient ambient pressure to get a breath. Assuming that flying objects going out the hole didn't kill anyone or make the hole bigger, and that the crew responded appropriately with an emergency descent, you'd probably still end up with a dead passenger or two, as the strain might be too much for anyone with heart or lung problems.
"the U.S. will face a shortage of 224,000 tech workers by 2018 unless immigration rules are loosened" -- OR unless we start training our own people right now, maybe.
Interesting points, and it makes me wonder why "The test is of-course nonsense". One need not be racist to acknowledge that there are genetic differences between groups of people.
I don't see anything here about trying to shut down porn sites or filter what anyone else sees. Looks like this group is trying to tailor their own Internet usage experience based on their own values, and do so in a way that does not in any way threaten your freedom to download anything you want.
So chill out, Sparky -- you'll still be able to download "Two Girls One Cup" even if all the Orthodox Jews in the world install filtering software.
I don't think you're actually reading beyond the first couple lines of my posts, but my point has never been that everyone needs to switch to Scientific Linux.
Anyway, I've put way more time into this thread than I ever intended, so I'm done now.
Actually, on my personal laptop, which is a pretty cheap (like $650) Dell Inspiron quad-core about six months old, I'm running Scientific Linux 6.1. I have no trouble with it. But then I've been using Linux for 17 years now, so the typical non-techie user will probably have a different experience. And yeah, I had to install the wireless driver by hand. But it runs really well, supports hardware virtualization, and I'm able to do all the fun KVM stuff with it without any issues.
The >100 servers that I manage all run fairly recent versions of one Redhat rebuild or another, and they're pretty solid. Here's an example:
Anyway, I'm not on here saying that everyone should use Linux on their desktops, even if it does work perfectly well for me. I know that there's a big difference between me and Suzy the checkout girl. What I *am* saying is that Suzy the checkout girl would be much better off with a Mac than with Windows, and so would pretty much anyone else who wants a computer for something other than dicking around trying to keep their OS patched and running and not getting hijacked.
Not really sure why you think I'm gonna get worked up over who has a larger share of the desktop market. If everyone started using Linux on the desktop, it really wouldn't be l334 any more, now would it? Having said that, I think there are some distros out there, like Ubuntu and Mint, that are easier to install and keep running safely than any version of Windows. But hey, its a (mostly) free world. Run what you want. Pay instead of learn -- no skin off my nose.
Wow, that's awesome: Someone who runs a PC repair shop and knows a lot about computers is able to run a consumer operating system without getting cracked or blown up, as long as he runs an eight-year-old version and doesn't follow the MS upgrade path. Congratulations!
I'm so happy to know that you're doing so well with XP. But what about the other 99.5% of Windows users who aren't computing experts like yourself?
Me, I have to run "yum update" a couple of times a month and keep my systems patched. Its so much bother! I wish there was an automatic way to keep my systems up2date. Oh, wait... never mind.
Anyway, its hardly "railing" against Windows when I ask how you people deal with this nonsense of having garbage crammed into your installations and all the trouble you have to go through to remove it, but do you seriously think Windows is the easiest OS to run? Have you ever even seen a Mac? I can understand why someone might not want to run Linux on a desktop. But I can't think of any good reason why anyone would prefer Windows over Mac OS unless he's a masochist.
I guess you didn't notice that my question was directed to Windows users. If you don't install Windows in the first place, then I guess you don't have to deal with it at all, and you don't fall under the category "windoze people", now do you?
Slashdot Mirror
"I'd be willing to" ban firearms | make the drunk driving limit 0.01 | submit to random searches | implement a death sentence for texting while driving | live under 24/7 surveillance | "to save tens of thousands of lives a year."
Your comment is not insightful. It is the same old nanny-state argument that turned England from the badass rulers of the world they once were into what they are now.
"2. If you had, you should be prosecuted for statutory rape and then experience the flip side of the relationship with a large man named Tyrone while serving 10-20 years."
Ever hear of the 8th Amendment?
A huge problem with the American justice system. NOBODY is supposed to be raped as a punishment, but the American public seems to think that prison rape is just fine.
Its a stupid move by Facebook for one very big reason: By monitoring user activity and then deciding to take action on what they consider suspicious behaviour, they will inevitably find themselves getting sued some day by someone who is hurt in some way that Facebook could have prevented.
Were they to refuse to monitor user activity at all, and instead only reply to valid legal requests for data from law enforcement, then they would have a much better defense against being responsible for user behaviour.
"Somebody in the FED watches Star Trek. This is TNG Season 3 Episode 10 - The Defector."
Right. Because rather than "Star Trek" being a dramatic representation of or statement about how our world operates, our world is actually driven by "Star Trek" plots.
Quite possibly the stupidest article ever on Slashdot.
"The GPL stipulates that the source code (with build instructions) must be available." It does?? Where exactly?
None of these words appear in the GPL: "build", "instruction", "makefile"
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
The fact that you *wish* the GPL required build instructions does not mean that it does.
I don't believe the GPL requires anyone to provide build instructions.
"By only providing the binaries to donors, it looks like you are only charging nontechnical users, while more technically inclined users get it for free."
Sounds like Utopia!
Right, you're totally not the reason for the law. You're here legally. So are the vast majority of the thousands of Canadians who own winter homes in Arizona when they come to visit. Since most Canadian visitors enter the country legally, most Canadian visitors aren't going to have any problems.
Without arguing the point of whether this law should exist or not, or whether police should or should not try to determine any person's immigration status, as a practical solution for the pragmatic brown US citizen who must travel occasionally in Arizona, but does not have an Arizona driver's license, I suggest a US Passport Card: http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt_card/ppt_card_3921.html
The passport card is the size of a driver's license and easily fits in a wallet. Only US citizens can get them. Handy-dandy for border patrol checkpoints from Texas to California, and you can even go to Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, and Bermuda and back by land or sea (but not by air) without having to carry your full-sized passport.
By the way, to further complicate matters, in the conditions I specified in my earlier post, where the local altimeter setting was 28.92, the lowest usable flight level would actually be FL 190. That's to keep traffic operating in the flight levels on altimeters set at 29.92 from bumping into traffic operating below the flight levels on local altimeter settings. Why is this a problem? Because an aircraft operating at 17,000 feet with the altimeter set at 28.92 would be at the same actual height as an aircraft operating at flight level 180 with altimeter set at 29.92.
It would be a pretty serious error for the controller to issue a clearance to a "flight level" below 180, and no pilot should accept such a clearance.
A clearance to a flight level implies changing the altimeter to 29.92. If the actual altimeter setting for the area was 28.92, and a pilot accepted a clearance to the non-existent flight level 100, then based on the standard flight level altimeter setting, he'd be flying at around 9,000 feet instead of 10,000. Assuming he was flying on a westward heading (based on an even numbered flight level), he'd now be nicely set up for a head-on collision with another aircraft traveling east at 9,000 feet, or possibly an encounter with terrain.
On that flight, on that airplane, on that day, that's what you saw. Normally, around 8,000 feet.
Well, I'm a former airline pilot. I still have a commercial license, multi-engine, and instrument ratings. So, I'm pretty damned sure.
I've *never* heard ATC clear anyone to a flight level below 180, but I guess any controller could slip up.
Its not a "flight level" until you get to 18,000 feet, so there really is no "FL 100". Flight levels are based on a standard altimeter setting of 29.92 inches of mercury at sea level. In the US, at least, you must be on an IFR clearance to fly in the flight levels, and once you're cleared to any flight level altitude, you set your altimeter to 29.92 and that's where it stays until you descend out of the flight levels. Below the flight levels -- 18,000 feet with altimeter at 29.92 -- you fly on local altimeter settings as provided by ATC or automated weather stations.
Normal cabin pressure for airliners is around 8,000 feet, not 10,000, and trans-oceanic flights routinely fly at FL 350 - 390.
Losing a cabin window at that altitude would almost certainly be a fairly dramatic experience, depending of course on your definition of "drama". Unless everyone was wearing space suits, their ears and sinuses would pop violently, and there would probably be a good bit of bleeding from ears and noses. I've seen passengers with bleeding ears for much more moderate changes of cabin altitude, like 1,000 feet per minute.
Anyone who didn't get a mask on in a hurry would be unconscious in about 15 - 30 seconds, as the rapid decompression would result in a forced exhalation of air from the lungs, and without a mask, there would be insufficient ambient pressure to get a breath. Assuming that flying objects going out the hole didn't kill anyone or make the hole bigger, and that the crew responded appropriately with an emergency descent, you'd probably still end up with a dead passenger or two, as the strain might be too much for anyone with heart or lung problems.
Amen.
"the U.S. will face a shortage of 224,000 tech workers by 2018 unless immigration rules are loosened" -- OR unless we start training our own people right now, maybe.
Every H1B worker I've ever dealt with was provided by an outsourcing company. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
Whether the outsourcing company provided benefits, I have no idea.
Interesting points, and it makes me wonder why "The test is of-course nonsense". One need not be racist to acknowledge that there are genetic differences between groups of people.
Subject says it all.
I don't see anything here about trying to shut down porn sites or filter what anyone else sees. Looks like this group is trying to tailor their own Internet usage experience based on their own values, and do so in a way that does not in any way threaten your freedom to download anything you want.
So chill out, Sparky -- you'll still be able to download "Two Girls One Cup" even if all the Orthodox Jews in the world install filtering software.
I don't think you're actually reading beyond the first couple lines of my posts, but my point has never been that everyone needs to switch to Scientific Linux.
Anyway, I've put way more time into this thread than I ever intended, so I'm done now.
Actually, on my personal laptop, which is a pretty cheap (like $650) Dell Inspiron quad-core about six months old, I'm running Scientific Linux 6.1. I have no trouble with it. But then I've been using Linux for 17 years now, so the typical non-techie user will probably have a different experience. And yeah, I had to install the wireless driver by hand. But it runs really well, supports hardware virtualization, and I'm able to do all the fun KVM stuff with it without any issues.
The >100 servers that I manage all run fairly recent versions of one Redhat rebuild or another, and they're pretty solid. Here's an example:
# uptime
18:30:09 up 606 days, 23:25, 2 users, load average: 0.52, 0.41, 0.37
Anyway, I'm not on here saying that everyone should use Linux on their desktops, even if it does work perfectly well for me. I know that there's a big difference between me and Suzy the checkout girl. What I *am* saying is that Suzy the checkout girl would be much better off with a Mac than with Windows, and so would pretty much anyone else who wants a computer for something other than dicking around trying to keep their OS patched and running and not getting hijacked.
Not really sure why you think I'm gonna get worked up over who has a larger share of the desktop market. If everyone started using Linux on the desktop, it really wouldn't be l334 any more, now would it? Having said that, I think there are some distros out there, like Ubuntu and Mint, that are easier to install and keep running safely than any version of Windows. But hey, its a (mostly) free world. Run what you want. Pay instead of learn -- no skin off my nose.
Wow, that's awesome: Someone who runs a PC repair shop and knows a lot about computers is able to run a consumer operating system without getting cracked or blown up, as long as he runs an eight-year-old version and doesn't follow the MS upgrade path. Congratulations!
I'm so happy to know that you're doing so well with XP. But what about the other 99.5% of Windows users who aren't computing experts like yourself?
Me, I have to run "yum update" a couple of times a month and keep my systems patched. Its so much bother! I wish there was an automatic way to keep my systems up2date. Oh, wait... never mind.
Anyway, its hardly "railing" against Windows when I ask how you people deal with this nonsense of having garbage crammed into your installations and all the trouble you have to go through to remove it, but do you seriously think Windows is the easiest OS to run? Have you ever even seen a Mac? I can understand why someone might not want to run Linux on a desktop. But I can't think of any good reason why anyone would prefer Windows over Mac OS unless he's a masochist.
I guess you didn't notice that my question was directed to Windows users. If you don't install Windows in the first place, then I guess you don't have to deal with it at all, and you don't fall under the category "windoze people", now do you?
...and yet another Slashdot conversation goes straight into the tank because of the grammar police.