The reason for laws like that is to make life easier on prosecutors. This way, they don't have to take the time to prove to a jury that driving while yacking on a cellphone is driving without due care and attention every time someone does that. The legislature simply states the obvious: that if you are driving while on a cell phone, then you are not paying enough attention to the road.
So is this, as the OP is saying, some sort of controversy? If most teams are doing this whats the big deal and how does it somewhat mark a controversy in this sport..
No, I've never heard of any controversy regarding it. Like you said, every team does it. There's just no other way to win a race that difficult -- to have any hope of winning, you need the undivided support of your team. And if everybody on the team is racing for themselves, that's not much support.
The only controversy I heard was Americans complaining that the tour organizers were attempting to make the race harder for Lance to win with a couple changes to the race this year. Most notably:
The rules for the team time trial were changed so that the 2nd place team could lose a maximum of 10 seconds, the 3rd place team a maximum of 20 seconds, etc. The old rule was that if you finished 3 minutes back and that was second place, you lost 3 minutes. Sure, this was obviously directed towards Lance, because he has hands-down the best team time trialing team in the race. Most people who aren't blinded by Lance fanboy-ism realize that it's a good rule, however. If a guy has a bad time-trialing team, why should that automatically preclude him from any chance to win the tour? This is what the old rule effectively did. And at the same time, the Postal Service is dropping sponsorship of the team after this season. What if they had done it before this season, and Lance had gotten onto a much weaker time-trialing team? All the Americans that are now bitching about the new rule would have been all in favor of the new rule. (I'm an American, and I support it for the sake of the race).
A time trial was added up L'Alpe D'Huez. Lance has said in the past that he prefers to race mountain stages by following in the slipstream of his teammates most of the way up, then passing them at the top to grab the stage win. So, the tour organizers figured they'd make him do the entire climb by himself. With the benefit of hindsight, it just allowed him to solidify his lead. But there was certainly concern prior to the tour that he could lose some time. As far as controversy goes, I don't know that there was much except, again, from the Lance fan-boys. Apparently some people think he should've just been handed his 6th victory. Anyways, although the time trial on that particular mountain was unprecendented, mountain time trials are not. Sure, it was directed towards him (he's known to be an excellent flat time-trialist, so taking away a flat time trial could've cost him), but I don't see the big deal.
Then of course there's the perennial doping witch-hunt. Somebody will always accuse the best rider of using drugs. The truth is, Lance has never failed a drug test. He was under intense investigation by the French authorities for years, and they never found anything. So give it up folks. Maybe he's just that good, and if you want to beat him, try harder, but don't claim he's cheating unless you've got some evidence more solid than "he kicked my ass".
So on a team where you get 1st, 6th, and 9th place youre saying the following is true..
Yes, I am. The place they finish is irrelevant to them being "in the competition". They are racing to help Lance win, as opposed to racing to win. Therefore they are not in the competition to win.
Sometimes, if someone on a team is doing better than the team's leader, the team will ride for that person instead of the leader. But nowadays there is often wording in a team leader's contract that says that no matter how poorly he's doing, the team will ride for him. Again, look at Ullrich and Kloden. Kloden was doing better, but was still riding for Ullrich.
Armstrong is the leader, yes. There is no controversy about it, despite what the post you are replying to said. All teams are set up like that. Kloden came in 2nd, ahead of his teammate Ullrich (the team leader), who came in 4th. Kloden was still riding for Ullrich, even to the end. Read Armstrong's book "It's Not About the Bike"; he describes the team setup pretty well. Or look online.
THE USPS placed 1st, 6th, and 9th.. Very respectable.
True. A lot of that has to do with the fact that they have some good climbers on the team, and their job is to tow Lance in their slipstream to the top of the climbs so that he can "rest" on the way up. As such, they place pretty well too, being at the front of the pack leading out Armstrong. Obviously Armstrong is a good climber on his own (evidenced by L'Alpe d'Huez), but without a team he'd be nowhere. Cycling, far more than most people realize, is a team sport.
Of 29 winners, only 2 didn't have (known) problems of doping one day or another (and that includes none the winners who won 5 times).
29 winners? There have been a lot more than 29 winner in the history of the tour. Where are you pulling this number from? And would you care to back up this assertion with a link?
In the 1960s, the racers of the TdF went even on strike to protest an anti-doping regulation (on the ground that people should be free to what they want with their body - which is what they could indeed do before the regulation).
Cyclists of the 60's getting pissed at an anti-doping regulation has absolutely ZERO relevance to any supposed doping that's happening today. You know that saying in the stock market, right? Past performance does not guarantee future results?
When you see sanctions of only "3 month suspension" for doping, something is very wrong indeed.
As opposed to Major League Baseball, which refuses to test players?
I ride somewhere with lots of hills, and I've never yet had to push.
Define "lots of hills". Length? Average grade? The hills that are covered in the Tour are not your average hill. We're talking mountains here. You know, like climbing 3000+ feet over a 10 mile climb. I've ridden up the highway on Whiteface Mt in New York, which is an 8 mile climb at an 8% grade. Coincidentally, it's almost exactly the same as L'Alpe D'Huez. I thought I'd ridden hills before. Haha. And the guys in the Tour sometimes have to make a climb like this two or three or four or five times in a stage, while covering 100+ miles to boot.
I'm certainly slower going uphill than I was on an 'upright' but it's not really a big difference
It may not be a big difference to you, but since the margin of victory in the Tour this year was 6 minutes over the course of 83 hours (and this was considered a blowout), every little bit is VERY important to the pros.
Help prevent dilution of the term FUD before it ends up meaning "anything I disagree with".
That's what it already means here on/. Anything and everything Microsoft ever says about Linux is FUD, but Linux fanboys on/. can say "Windows crashes every hour" till they're blue in the face, and it's not FUD. It doesn't matter that Windows has been much more robust since Win2K; some people will still repeat it like it's dogma. I run both Linux and XP on my Dell laptop, and both crash equally as often (which is to say rare; probably once a month or so). The cause of every crash I've experienced on this machine? Nvidia drivers.
Anyone who had money in Red hat to begin with was a moron. It's a bad stock, period.
I generally will not disagree with you there. However, the post I originally responded did not say that it was stupid to invest in RedHat. If it had, I would not have argued the point. It said that if you sell a stock for a lower price than you buy it for, you are stupid. This, on the other hand, is a ridiculous statement.
Investing in companies with profit potential: GOOD [emphasis mine]
And that's why the original poster's statement is ridiculous. Profit is never guaranteed, it's only a potential. As such, even the best-looking investments can result in a loss.
So after looking at RedHat's stock profile you think that it's RedHat's fault that anyone lost money in their stock during the period in question?
Please point to where in my post I said anything even closely resembling this.
Yup. Or not. That's your choice. But to say that RedHat forced anyone to sell stock during that period is......
Nope, I still didn't say that...
RedHat obviously didn't force anyone to sell. But from looking at the chart, the stock stayed in the basement without moving for about two and a half years. Some would say that not making a profit off a stock for two and a half years, with minimal expectations for growth, would be a pretty bad investment. A lot like stuffing money under your mattress. And I know my financial advisor has never suggested that as a good investment strategy.
And when faced with that situation, I think a lot of people would (wisely) accept the loss and sell, and pursue more profitable ventures. Besides, there's always the real risk that the company goes belly-up and then you lose all your money. But, from looking at the.sig of your original post, you probably think that any suggestion of RH going bankrupt is sheer blasphemy.
It's stupid to sell it for less than you purchased it for, and then blame anyone but yourself for doing so. Nobody is forcing anyone to sell stock (or for that matter, to buy it in the first place). Suing over stock losses (which don't become losses until you sell) is even more stupid.
I never said that attempting to blame someone else for stock losses wasn't stupid. In fact, I would agree with you that blaming someone else is stupid. I think there's a very sore lack of people in the U.S. (and in other parts of the world, from what I understand, though I can only speak of that with which I am familiar) who will accept responsibility for their actions.
If you were stupid enough to sell for less than what you purchased the stock for, that's your own problem.
This is insightful? Give me a friggin break moderators. Have you ever invested in the stock market before? If you buy the stock and the price starts to go down, you have a choice -- if you think it's going to go down more, you can limit your losses and sell. If you think it's going to go back up, you ride out the bad times. Sometimes you make the right choice. Sometimes you make the wrong choice. Calling someone stupid for selling a stock for less than what they bought it for is ridiculous. What's stupid is holding onto that stock, when all indications are that it will never rise again, just because you don't want to sell at a loss. And from looking at RedHat's stock profile since its IPO, it looks a bit unlikely that RedHat will ever again achieve the highs it once hit.
Further requirement necessary for the real world: must be able to ascend a 5% slope at 45 MPH.
Or, if you drive a lot in the American West, a 10% slope at 65mph.
16% for a couple miles was the steepest I encountered on my drive cross-country last year. It was a fun drive down -- car in first and still needing to ride the brakes most of the way.
was invalid. main(void) is ENTIRELY different from main(), however. The grandparent is correct; it should be int main(void). (Whether it is mandated by the spec that it can't be main() I don't know, but it's certainly less correct than either main(void) or main(int, char **) ).
The debate on whether or not to do something about it was because it's the uri handler in the OS which is insecure, not mozilla.
And if operating system vendors hadn't patched the Pentium F00F bug (or any of the applicable CPU bugs over the years), you would say that's OK because it was Intel's fault? Bullshit.
On second thought, most of the Linux fanboys around here would probably say it was OK for Linux to not patch it but at the same time would be blasting Microsoft from here to Jupiter.
And before you mod me down, I use Linux as my primary desktop OS. I just happen not to be blinded by that fact.
Lance went from Yellow Jersey to nine and a half minutes down! To add some perspective to that, Lance's winning margin last year was 61 seconds.
And to add some perspective to THAT, none of the guys that are in the lead now will have a prayer once the race gets to the mountains. You can bet that if any one of them were in contention for the overall title or any of the subtitles (see below), they wouldn't have opened up such a big lead. They won by that much because all the other teams allowed them to win by that much. Stuart O'Grady, the guy who won today's stage, finished the race 2 HOURS and 41 minutes behind Armstrong last year. For instance, he lost 42 minutes in a single stage (stage 8).
That's one of the things that makes the race so strategic and interesting -- there are races within the race. Not only is there the race for the overall win (GC, or General Category; the leader wears the yellow jersey), there's also the King of the Mountains (best climber -- leader wears a polkadot jersey), Sprint Leader (green jersey), and best young rider (white jersey). Most of the top sprinters are in no way in contention for GC (they get killed in the mountains). Nor are most of the top climbers (they get killed in the flat time trials). It takes someone that's good all-around to win the race.
I often wonder what the ratio between gears on the professionals' bikes are. A lot of times when I'm riding downhill I'm pedaling as fast as I can with no tension left to gain speed. I need a better bike. 'Course no bike in the world is going to make me anything near as fast as those guys.
The maximum gearing I have on my road bike is 53 teeth in the front and 12 in the back. Note that the average mountain bike or hybrid has nothing near this gear ratio. You need a racing bike to get this. I don't think pro racing bikes are too terribly different from this -- they might have a couple more teeth in the front and maybe an 11 in the back. If you look at pros ride, they usually have an incredibly high cadence (in other words, they pedal really fast). Sprinters will spin their legs at well over 100 or 120 rpms. Even climbers will often sit in the saddle and spin -- it's much easier to maintain high RPMs and low torque than it is the opposite. The average person would be bouncing all over the place at 100 rpms.
That's a pretty poor analogy. Everyone understands the current security risks with regards to glass windows. Further, 99% of the potential risks have been identified (I'm leaving open that 1% in case it turns out that glass causes cancer or something). On the other hand, the average computer user does NOT understand all the current security risks behind using MSIE. I also think it's fair to say that not all (or even 99%) of the potential vulnerabilities in IE have been discovered. The point is that using glass windows in your home is a risk that you can calculate; using MSIE is not.
The average person also knows how to lock a window in the case that the installer left it unlocked, whereas the average person does not know how to "lock down" MSIE. Also, I would guess that most people, even if they could figure out how to do this, would assume that they would not need to.
Further, the real world is not always a useful analog to the computer world. I would posit that the vast majority of computer crackers out there would NEVER consider physically breaking into someone's home or business, but wouldn't think twice about doing it online.
the situation "thamaht" presented ("By the time she got to public school for her senior year, she could barely pass the classes, because she hadn't learned the foundations yet") is an isolated incident.
I would tend to agree, though I think there are certainly cases where kids are homeschooled for the wrong reasons. And in some of these cases, the parents could be pretty darn bad at it. But as you mentioned elsewhere, all of us that went to public schools have had some pretty darn bad teachers as well.
I do think a lot of homeschooled kids lead sheltered lives, for better or for worse. Note that I don't say "most" or "a majority", because I have no idea. I have nothing but anecdotal evidence. For instance, last fall I was hiking a piece of the Appalachian Trail in Vermont, and spent a night with a father and his son, who was homeschooled, and at about the grade 8 level. Someone had left some porno mags in a paper bag in the privy, and the father found them, and promptly brought them to where we had a fire going, and tossed them in. His son asked a number of times what they were, which is father would not answer. He said "I'll tell you when you're older." Now to me, that's a perfectly UNacceptable response. The kid was old enough that he should at least have had some sort of sexual education by this point. He's old enough to be able to be made aware of the existence of porn. I mean really, at some point he's going to move out from under dad's umbrella, and he's going to find out about this stuff on his own. Why pass up the opportunity to let him make that discovery while under parental supervision? Now I'm not suggesting that dad flip through the pages and point out the wide open beaver. I'm saying that at the very least he should have explained to him what the magazines were, and if he didn't want him looking at such magazines, to explain his reasoning. Denying the existence of porn is just ridiculous.
Now, could this kid be just as sheltered in this regard if he were enrolled in public school? Sure. But at the same time, I think one reason a lot of parents pull kids out of public schools is to shelter them from all the bad stuff that is on display there. Unfortunately, a lot of the bad stuff on display in schools is the same bad stuff on display in the rest of the world, so at some point the kid is going to be exposed to it. Keeping them away from this stuff while they're kids is, again, often unrealistic. Exposing them to it but providing guidance about it is much more productive.
Now I will link you to the results of a study that show 74 percent of homeschooled adults aged 18 to 24 have taken college-level courses, compraed to 46 percent of the general U.S. population. Link. In other words, a large majority of homeschoolers are going on to college, compared to less than half of everyone else. This tells me these parents are doing a better job than the teachers you place your trust in.
First off, I'll admit that I didn't read the link. I'm responding merely to your words, which do not support the conclusion that home schooling, on average, is better than public education. You are assuming that correlation proves causation, which we all know is a logical fallacy. The only thing you have proven is that more kids that are home schooled have taken a college level course.
I would assume (I'll invite you to contradict this) that the majority of inner-city kids are not home schooled, the main reason being that mom and dad, if they're both around, are working all the time and don't have time to homeschool. At the same time, inner-city kids as a whole are less likely to go to college anyway.
My point is that the kids that tend to be homeschooled are probably the same kids that tend to go to college in the first place.
I look up the density of petrol in a book someplace, low and behold it's given in gm/cc.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with any intrinsic advantage that one system has over the other. This is only an advantage because the vast majority of scientific applications are performed using metric, and therefore these figures are published in metric (you may be able to argue that the reason most science uses metric is because of an intrinsic advantage of metric, but this is beside the point). Your point is about as useful as saying that Windows is the best operating system in the world because it is the most used.
Having meeting rooms, bathrooms, and a kitchen is also nice.
Yeah, a bathroom would be nice. The last place I worked we all just pissed on the floor. Lemme tell ya, if you think cubicles offer a good amount of privacy, try taking a shit in one without attracting some attention to yourself.
Fluorescent lights gets a bad rap. Flourescent lights are available at various different color temperatures and are also available full-spectrum versions. (Just google for full spectrum fluorescent for many more choices).
No, the cheap-ass no-spectrum pulsating fluorescent lights get a bad rap. So, when people say "no fluorescent lights", they really mean "no cheap-ass no-spectrum pulsating fluorescents". Since this is what 99.9% of fluorescent lights out there are, it's generally safe to leave out the "cheap-ass no-spectrum pulsating" part.
No, it is not quite correct. It is 100% incorrect. But thank you for the definition of a firewall and a NAT device; though they were 100% accurate, they really cleared up... well, nothing.
My workstation resides on a network, which, as you put it, has world reachable addresses. The IP of my workstation is 129.21.xxx.xxx (we're in a building owned by RIT). There is a firewall blocking access on all ports to all machines on our subnet from the outside world. THERE IS NO NAT DEVICE.
I don't think you really understand what he was trying to tell me. He claimed that because he could not connect to my workstation from the outside world, then there MUST be a NAT device between my workstation and the outside world. This is utter hogwash. There's a firewall, and that's it. And while I agree with you that it is certainly POSSIBLE to configure a firewall to allow incoming connections, that does not mean that ALL firewalls MUST be configured to allow incoming connections (this would sort of defeat the purpose, now wouldn't it?).
The identical same could apply to your workstation.
You're right, it could. But it doesn't. You're falling into the same trap that he did. Just because it's possible to configure a firewall so that you could connect from the outside world, does not mean that my firewall is certainly configured to allow such connections.
Check any network book...
I took several courses in networking while I was at RIT, thank you. I got A's in all of them, I might add.
Slashdot Mirror
It absolutely isn't. Parody is only immune to copyright infringment if the infringed material is itself the subject of parody!.
I don't disagree with you, but how does Weird Al do it? The original songs are almost never the subject of his "parody".
The reason for laws like that is to make life easier on prosecutors. This way, they don't have to take the time to prove to a jury that driving while yacking on a cellphone is driving without due care and attention every time someone does that. The legislature simply states the obvious: that if you are driving while on a cell phone, then you are not paying enough attention to the road.
That's the point of legal precedent.
No, I've never heard of any controversy regarding it. Like you said, every team does it. There's just no other way to win a race that difficult -- to have any hope of winning, you need the undivided support of your team. And if everybody on the team is racing for themselves, that's not much support.
The only controversy I heard was Americans complaining that the tour organizers were attempting to make the race harder for Lance to win with a couple changes to the race this year. Most notably:
So on a team where you get 1st, 6th, and 9th place youre saying the following is true..
Yes, I am. The place they finish is irrelevant to them being "in the competition". They are racing to help Lance win, as opposed to racing to win. Therefore they are not in the competition to win.
Sometimes, if someone on a team is doing better than the team's leader, the team will ride for that person instead of the leader. But nowadays there is often wording in a team leader's contract that says that no matter how poorly he's doing, the team will ride for him. Again, look at Ullrich and Kloden. Kloden was doing better, but was still riding for Ullrich.
Umm are you sure about that?
Armstrong is the leader, yes. There is no controversy about it, despite what the post you are replying to said. All teams are set up like that. Kloden came in 2nd, ahead of his teammate Ullrich (the team leader), who came in 4th. Kloden was still riding for Ullrich, even to the end. Read Armstrong's book "It's Not About the Bike"; he describes the team setup pretty well. Or look online.
THE USPS placed 1st, 6th, and 9th.. Very respectable.
True. A lot of that has to do with the fact that they have some good climbers on the team, and their job is to tow Lance in their slipstream to the top of the climbs so that he can "rest" on the way up. As such, they place pretty well too, being at the front of the pack leading out Armstrong. Obviously Armstrong is a good climber on his own (evidenced by L'Alpe d'Huez), but without a team he'd be nowhere. Cycling, far more than most people realize, is a team sport.
Of 29 winners, only 2 didn't have (known) problems of doping one day or another (and that includes none the winners who won 5 times).
29 winners? There have been a lot more than 29 winner in the history of the tour. Where are you pulling this number from? And would you care to back up this assertion with a link?
In the 1960s, the racers of the TdF went even on strike to protest an anti-doping regulation (on the ground that people should be free to what they want with their body - which is what they could indeed do before the regulation).
Cyclists of the 60's getting pissed at an anti-doping regulation has absolutely ZERO relevance to any supposed doping that's happening today. You know that saying in the stock market, right? Past performance does not guarantee future results?
When you see sanctions of only "3 month suspension" for doping, something is very wrong indeed.
As opposed to Major League Baseball, which refuses to test players?
I ride somewhere with lots of hills, and I've never yet had to push.
Define "lots of hills". Length? Average grade? The hills that are covered in the Tour are not your average hill. We're talking mountains here. You know, like climbing 3000+ feet over a 10 mile climb. I've ridden up the highway on Whiteface Mt in New York, which is an 8 mile climb at an 8% grade. Coincidentally, it's almost exactly the same as L'Alpe D'Huez. I thought I'd ridden hills before. Haha. And the guys in the Tour sometimes have to make a climb like this two or three or four or five times in a stage, while covering 100+ miles to boot.
I'm certainly slower going uphill than I was on an 'upright' but it's not really a big difference
It may not be a big difference to you, but since the margin of victory in the Tour this year was 6 minutes over the course of 83 hours (and this was considered a blowout), every little bit is VERY important to the pros.
Help prevent dilution of the term FUD before it ends up meaning "anything I disagree with".
/. Anything and everything Microsoft ever says about Linux is FUD, but Linux fanboys on /. can say "Windows crashes every hour" till they're blue in the face, and it's not FUD. It doesn't matter that Windows has been much more robust since Win2K; some people will still repeat it like it's dogma. I run both Linux and XP on my Dell laptop, and both crash equally as often (which is to say rare; probably once a month or so). The cause of every crash I've experienced on this machine? Nvidia drivers.
That's what it already means here on
Anyone who had money in Red hat to begin with was a moron. It's a bad stock, period.
I generally will not disagree with you there. However, the post I originally responded did not say that it was stupid to invest in RedHat. If it had, I would not have argued the point. It said that if you sell a stock for a lower price than you buy it for, you are stupid. This, on the other hand, is a ridiculous statement.
Investing in companies with profit potential: GOOD [emphasis mine]
And that's why the original poster's statement is ridiculous. Profit is never guaranteed, it's only a potential. As such, even the best-looking investments can result in a loss.
So after looking at RedHat's stock profile you think that it's RedHat's fault that anyone lost money in their stock during the period in question?
.sig of your original post, you probably think that any suggestion of RH going bankrupt is sheer blasphemy.
Please point to where in my post I said anything even closely resembling this.
Yup. Or not. That's your choice. But to say that RedHat forced anyone to sell stock during that period is......
Nope, I still didn't say that...
RedHat obviously didn't force anyone to sell. But from looking at the chart, the stock stayed in the basement without moving for about two and a half years. Some would say that not making a profit off a stock for two and a half years, with minimal expectations for growth, would be a pretty bad investment. A lot like stuffing money under your mattress. And I know my financial advisor has never suggested that as a good investment strategy.
And when faced with that situation, I think a lot of people would (wisely) accept the loss and sell, and pursue more profitable ventures. Besides, there's always the real risk that the company goes belly-up and then you lose all your money. But, from looking at the
It's stupid to sell it for less than you purchased it for, and then blame anyone but yourself for doing so. Nobody is forcing anyone to sell stock (or for that matter, to buy it in the first place). Suing over stock losses (which don't become losses until you sell) is even more stupid.
I never said that attempting to blame someone else for stock losses wasn't stupid. In fact, I would agree with you that blaming someone else is stupid. I think there's a very sore lack of people in the U.S. (and in other parts of the world, from what I understand, though I can only speak of that with which I am familiar) who will accept responsibility for their actions.
If you were stupid enough to sell for less than what you purchased the stock for, that's your own problem.
This is insightful? Give me a friggin break moderators. Have you ever invested in the stock market before? If you buy the stock and the price starts to go down, you have a choice -- if you think it's going to go down more, you can limit your losses and sell. If you think it's going to go back up, you ride out the bad times. Sometimes you make the right choice. Sometimes you make the wrong choice. Calling someone stupid for selling a stock for less than what they bought it for is ridiculous. What's stupid is holding onto that stock, when all indications are that it will never rise again, just because you don't want to sell at a loss. And from looking at RedHat's stock profile since its IPO, it looks a bit unlikely that RedHat will ever again achieve the highs it once hit.
Further requirement necessary for the real world: must be able to ascend a 5% slope at 45 MPH.
Or, if you drive a lot in the American West, a 10% slope at 65mph.
16% for a couple miles was the steepest I encountered on my drive cross-country last year. It was a fun drive down -- car in first and still needing to ride the brakes most of the way.
No one said was invalid. main(void) is ENTIRELY different from main(), however. The grandparent is correct; it should be int main(void). (Whether it is mandated by the spec that it can't be main() I don't know, but it's certainly less correct than either main(void) or main(int, char **) ).
The debate on whether or not to do something about it was because it's the uri handler in the OS which is insecure, not mozilla.
And if operating system vendors hadn't patched the Pentium F00F bug (or any of the applicable CPU bugs over the years), you would say that's OK because it was Intel's fault? Bullshit.
On second thought, most of the Linux fanboys around here would probably say it was OK for Linux to not patch it but at the same time would be blasting Microsoft from here to Jupiter.
And before you mod me down, I use Linux as my primary desktop OS. I just happen not to be blinded by that fact.
Lance went from Yellow Jersey to nine and a half minutes down! To add some perspective to that, Lance's winning margin last year was 61 seconds.
And to add some perspective to THAT, none of the guys that are in the lead now will have a prayer once the race gets to the mountains. You can bet that if any one of them were in contention for the overall title or any of the subtitles (see below), they wouldn't have opened up such a big lead. They won by that much because all the other teams allowed them to win by that much. Stuart O'Grady, the guy who won today's stage, finished the race 2 HOURS and 41 minutes behind Armstrong last year. For instance, he lost 42 minutes in a single stage (stage 8).
That's one of the things that makes the race so strategic and interesting -- there are races within the race. Not only is there the race for the overall win (GC, or General Category; the leader wears the yellow jersey), there's also the King of the Mountains (best climber -- leader wears a polkadot jersey), Sprint Leader (green jersey), and best young rider (white jersey). Most of the top sprinters are in no way in contention for GC (they get killed in the mountains). Nor are most of the top climbers (they get killed in the flat time trials). It takes someone that's good all-around to win the race.
I often wonder what the ratio between gears on the professionals' bikes are. A lot of times when I'm riding downhill I'm pedaling as fast as I can with no tension left to gain speed. I need a better bike. 'Course no bike in the world is going to make me anything near as fast as those guys.
The maximum gearing I have on my road bike is 53 teeth in the front and 12 in the back. Note that the average mountain bike or hybrid has nothing near this gear ratio. You need a racing bike to get this. I don't think pro racing bikes are too terribly different from this -- they might have a couple more teeth in the front and maybe an 11 in the back. If you look at pros ride, they usually have an incredibly high cadence (in other words, they pedal really fast). Sprinters will spin their legs at well over 100 or 120 rpms. Even climbers will often sit in the saddle and spin -- it's much easier to maintain high RPMs and low torque than it is the opposite. The average person would be bouncing all over the place at 100 rpms.
That's a pretty poor analogy. Everyone understands the current security risks with regards to glass windows. Further, 99% of the potential risks have been identified (I'm leaving open that 1% in case it turns out that glass causes cancer or something). On the other hand, the average computer user does NOT understand all the current security risks behind using MSIE. I also think it's fair to say that not all (or even 99%) of the potential vulnerabilities in IE have been discovered. The point is that using glass windows in your home is a risk that you can calculate; using MSIE is not.
The average person also knows how to lock a window in the case that the installer left it unlocked, whereas the average person does not know how to "lock down" MSIE. Also, I would guess that most people, even if they could figure out how to do this, would assume that they would not need to.
Further, the real world is not always a useful analog to the computer world. I would posit that the vast majority of computer crackers out there would NEVER consider physically breaking into someone's home or business, but wouldn't think twice about doing it online.
the situation "thamaht" presented ("By the time she got to public school for her senior year, she could barely pass the classes, because she hadn't learned the foundations yet") is an isolated incident.
I would tend to agree, though I think there are certainly cases where kids are homeschooled for the wrong reasons. And in some of these cases, the parents could be pretty darn bad at it. But as you mentioned elsewhere, all of us that went to public schools have had some pretty darn bad teachers as well.
I do think a lot of homeschooled kids lead sheltered lives, for better or for worse. Note that I don't say "most" or "a majority", because I have no idea. I have nothing but anecdotal evidence. For instance, last fall I was hiking a piece of the Appalachian Trail in Vermont, and spent a night with a father and his son, who was homeschooled, and at about the grade 8 level. Someone had left some porno mags in a paper bag in the privy, and the father found them, and promptly brought them to where we had a fire going, and tossed them in. His son asked a number of times what they were, which is father would not answer. He said "I'll tell you when you're older." Now to me, that's a perfectly UNacceptable response. The kid was old enough that he should at least have had some sort of sexual education by this point. He's old enough to be able to be made aware of the existence of porn. I mean really, at some point he's going to move out from under dad's umbrella, and he's going to find out about this stuff on his own. Why pass up the opportunity to let him make that discovery while under parental supervision? Now I'm not suggesting that dad flip through the pages and point out the wide open beaver. I'm saying that at the very least he should have explained to him what the magazines were, and if he didn't want him looking at such magazines, to explain his reasoning. Denying the existence of porn is just ridiculous.
Now, could this kid be just as sheltered in this regard if he were enrolled in public school? Sure. But at the same time, I think one reason a lot of parents pull kids out of public schools is to shelter them from all the bad stuff that is on display there. Unfortunately, a lot of the bad stuff on display in schools is the same bad stuff on display in the rest of the world, so at some point the kid is going to be exposed to it. Keeping them away from this stuff while they're kids is, again, often unrealistic. Exposing them to it but providing guidance about it is much more productive.
Now I will link you to the results of a study that show 74 percent of homeschooled adults aged 18 to 24 have taken college-level courses, compraed to 46 percent of the general U.S. population. Link. In other words, a large majority of homeschoolers are going on to college, compared to less than half of everyone else. This tells me these parents are doing a better job than the teachers you place your trust in.
First off, I'll admit that I didn't read the link. I'm responding merely to your words, which do not support the conclusion that home schooling, on average, is better than public education. You are assuming that correlation proves causation, which we all know is a logical fallacy. The only thing you have proven is that more kids that are home schooled have taken a college level course.
I would assume (I'll invite you to contradict this) that the majority of inner-city kids are not home schooled, the main reason being that mom and dad, if they're both around, are working all the time and don't have time to homeschool. At the same time, inner-city kids as a whole are less likely to go to college anyway.
My point is that the kids that tend to be homeschooled are probably the same kids that tend to go to college in the first place.
7.832405354218 ounces per cubic inch.
1 g = 0.035274 ounces
1 cm = 1 / 2.54 inches = 0.3937... inches
Thus, 1 cm^3 = 1 mL = 0.061023744 cubic inches.
So, 1 g/mL = 0.035274 / 0.061023744 = 0.5780372955 ounces per cubic inch.
And finally, 13.55g/mL = 13.55 * 0.578037 = 7.8324053... ounces per cubic inch. QED.
I mean, DUH! I could do that in my head!
I look up the density of petrol in a book someplace, low and behold it's given in gm/cc.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with any intrinsic advantage that one system has over the other. This is only an advantage because the vast majority of scientific applications are performed using metric, and therefore these figures are published in metric (you may be able to argue that the reason most science uses metric is because of an intrinsic advantage of metric, but this is beside the point). Your point is about as useful as saying that Windows is the best operating system in the world because it is the most used.
Having meeting rooms, bathrooms, and a kitchen is also nice.
Yeah, a bathroom would be nice. The last place I worked we all just pissed on the floor. Lemme tell ya, if you think cubicles offer a good amount of privacy, try taking a shit in one without attracting some attention to yourself.
Fluorescent lights gets a bad rap. Flourescent lights are available at various different color temperatures and are also available full-spectrum versions. (Just google for full spectrum fluorescent for many more choices).
No, the cheap-ass no-spectrum pulsating fluorescent lights get a bad rap. So, when people say "no fluorescent lights", they really mean "no cheap-ass no-spectrum pulsating fluorescents". Since this is what 99.9% of fluorescent lights out there are, it's generally safe to leave out the "cheap-ass no-spectrum pulsating" part.
Which is, actually, quite correct.
No, it is not quite correct. It is 100% incorrect. But thank you for the definition of a firewall and a NAT device; though they were 100% accurate, they really cleared up... well, nothing.
My workstation resides on a network, which, as you put it, has world reachable addresses. The IP of my workstation is 129.21.xxx.xxx (we're in a building owned by RIT). There is a firewall blocking access on all ports to all machines on our subnet from the outside world. THERE IS NO NAT DEVICE.
I don't think you really understand what he was trying to tell me. He claimed that because he could not connect to my workstation from the outside world, then there MUST be a NAT device between my workstation and the outside world. This is utter hogwash. There's a firewall, and that's it. And while I agree with you that it is certainly POSSIBLE to configure a firewall to allow incoming connections, that does not mean that ALL firewalls MUST be configured to allow incoming connections (this would sort of defeat the purpose, now wouldn't it?).
The identical same could apply to your workstation.
You're right, it could. But it doesn't. You're falling into the same trap that he did. Just because it's possible to configure a firewall so that you could connect from the outside world, does not mean that my firewall is certainly configured to allow such connections.
Check any network book...
I took several courses in networking while I was at RIT, thank you. I got A's in all of them, I might add.