Quick question, how do you suppose the IP connections are carried? What you are seeing are almost communications done over cell phone networks, either before they lost power, or after it was brought back up. I mean, think about it. No land lines. No cell phones. What is carrying the Internet connections, satellite? What is providing the power? Yeah, nothing. It's ALL cell phones.
Much less ironic. This actually was and is a heck of a job. First rate response on our part. I don't want to make this political, though. In some ways, we are better prepared to deal with international emergencies than internal ones. But this type of preparedness and international developmental and emergency aid was a major plank of Obama's platform, so I'm glad to see him actually living up to a promise.
The airport is badly backed up at the moment. I'm amazed that as much material made it onto the runway as it did. Pilots on the ground were performing rough traffic control from their cockpits. Although the roads are not too badly damaged, the problem is really a lack of vehicles. Getting supplies off the planes, onto some kind of vehicles, and out to refuge camps will take some planning and coordination.
This kind of projection of US power does worlds of good for our public image around the world. Haiti is right in our back yard. Let's show the world what the US can do when disaster strikes.
Haiti has nearly no land lines. Cell phone networks are cheaper to deploy than land lines. If you had bothered to read the summary, you would have read that this company was down there before the earthquake, and had won a medal from the State Department for their work building communications infrastructure in Haiti.
The hospital ship Comfort is on the way and so is the supercarrier Carl Vinson, which can provide power and over 100,000 gallons of desalinated water per day. The problems facing Haiti were severe even before this disaster, but afterwords, what little government they did have has, quite literally, collapsed. In other recent disasters, there has at least been continuity of civil government and some kind of coordinated response from within the country. That is simply not possible in this case. Even the UN headquarters there has collapsed.
One of the first things our military did was to get air traffic control up and functioning. The control tower at the airport had collapsed, and there is simply no power in Port-au-Prince. The US cutter Forward was among the first on the scene, and began directing flights into the country. U.S. Southern Command dispatched a team of 30 engineers, planners and a command and control group to Haiti on a Puerto Rico Air National Guard C-130 Hercules, which arrived soon afterwords and took over this vital function.
The biggest problem is going to be getting things out of the airport and to the people that need it. Reports indicate that the harbor is badly damaged and supplies will need to be trans-shipped through the Dominican Republic and driven into Haiti. This seems to me to be a job for the Seabees. Does anyone know if the Nimitz class supercarriers like the Carl Vinson carry LCACs?
If you can impugn the motives of people who believe in the possibility of life outside earth, can we impugn your motives for denying that possibility? You think we're just afraid of the dark, and being alone. Right. Well, maybe you are scared of the implications if there IS life outside earth. Maybe we aren't special, and maybe you're terrified of that possibility, and would rather be alone in the dark than have to share the universe with others.
What's the point of the statement you made? Do you really need to feel superior, and put others down? Do you need to demonstrate your superior stoicism in order to attract a mate or something? What's the deal? Do you also go around telling little kids that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are myths? Why do you even care so much?
Sorry to be mean, but you were the metaphorical straw on the camel's back.
The fact that regular books are inaccessible to the blind is beside the point. e-books don't need to be. The Kindle has a text to speech converter. And a speaker, obviously. All they need to do is provide a patch to let the Kindle read the list of books on the device. That's it.
And the fact is, nobody is preventing anyone from buying a Kindle. Three universities have stopped promoting it as an alternative to regular books (which, by law, must come in braille editions) If Amazon wants universities to promote its use, they can damn well write the ten lines of code it's going to take to make it read its user interface out loud.
Anyway, sorry for calling you stupid. I"m sure you're no less intelligent than the dozens of other people who couldn't be bothered to read the first two sentences of my post, "The problem isn't e-books or readers per-se. The Kindle even includes a text to speech application." before replying, "Yeah, well blind people can't read books"
Except of course they can read books, since all textbook publishers are required by law to provide braille editions. But an ebook manufacturer isn't required to write a ten line fix. And dozens of trolls jump out to defend them against the evil blind people.
I've had to say, 'Way to completely miss the point' dozens of times now. Even after explaining it in simple language, you don't get it. It's like you people can't even read. Go back and read what I wrote again, thankfully, I'm not required by Federal law to cater to stupid people.
Textbooks come in braille format. A simple software patch would allow visually impaired people to use the Kindle. That would be a win for everyone. Why NOT do it?
No, your point rests on assumptions already proven wrong. It's as if you did not even read my comment before replying. A simple software patch would allow the Kindle to read it's user interface. It has a speaker. It has text to speech. It won't be twice as expensive.
I'm just amazed at how many people are missing the point, even after I've explained it. Fixing this requires a software patch to allow text-to-speech of the UI. That's it. Are you saying you don't WANT the Kindle to be accessible to blind people?
Why should Universities spend good money to promote this? It's not as if the Kindle is being banned, sighted people can still choose to use it. The universities just aren't going to promote it.
That's not the point. It's less accessible than it could easily be. By making a big deal now, advocacy groups can ensure that the Kindle and future e-book readers will have navigation for the visually impaired.
How about, pipe the user interface through the text to speech application that already exists on the kindle? Yeah, rather than patch the device in a simple way to make it more appealing to a larger market, and satisfy the ADA, blind people should be required to buy an expensive accessory. Good thinking, My only question is, if they included a text to speech converter in the first place, why in God's name did they not set it up as a screen reader for the interface? It's a no-brainer.
Because the kindle can be made accessible to the visually impaired with the simple fix of letting the text-to-speech reader that is already included read the damn interface. How much are you willing to bet that, thanks to this publicity, the Kindle will include such functionality in the near future? It's a win for everyone. The blind get a device that lets them enjoy books easily. Amazon gets a bigger market. Other manufacturers of e-book readers get free market advice, and can ensure their readers ship with such functionality.
No, it isn't more accessible. Without navigation, it is completely inaccessible. But the fix is very easy: tie the user interface into the text-to speech application that already exists on the device. This publicity will ensure that happens in a very timely fashion.
The problem isn't e-books or readers per-se. The Kindle even includes a text to speech application. But the Kindle lacks a way for visually impaired readers to navigate, and so, it is absolutely useless as it is. All that needs to be done is to tie the user interface into the text to speech application. That's it. Until that very, very simple problem is solved, colleges and universities are correct not to promote the use of this device. A good bit of publicity early on will ensure that all e-book readers in the future have this simple feature.
I know no one reads the articles, as that would get in the way of the knee-jerking we all love to do. But the article makes it quite clear: the kindle includes a text-to-speech application, but no way for visually impaired folks to navigate. Therefore, the Kindle is not the right choice of e-book reader for institutions such as colleges and universities to promote. It is the Kindle that is unusable by the blind, not the e-books themselves.
No, you can't make corn that sings in any reasonable time frame, nor with any certainty, using selective breeding. With selective breeding, you must rely on the traits already present within the genome, or you must wait for the proper random mutation, which may never come.
You are confusing bacteria with viruses. Bacteria do not transfer genes horizontally. And in general, genes transferred this way are not active.
Given that the data came from Monsanto itself, I'd say I trust this study. It's the first of it's kind. You are basically saying, let anyone do anything they like until it is proven conclusively, without a doubt, that it causes harm. I say, if you want to do new things, you must at least label your products as untested. Let consumers make the choice as to what they trust.
The site, truthabouttrade.org, is an agribusiness advocacy site. I find it amazing that you would trust such an obviously biased web site, but not trust a scientific paper published in a respected peer-review journal.
Selective breeding is not the same thing as modern genetic modification. Mendel wasn't putting bacterial genes into corn. We've had thousands of years of testing selective breeding. We have had a decade or so of testing bacteria protein laced corn and other genetically modified foods. See the difference? The damn hippies were right: we should have tested this stuff more.
It's my opinion that the entertainment that Hollywood creates is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Hollywood is risk averse. It's corporate. That is not to say that there are no great artists working in Hollywood, of course there are. And sometimes they even get to create great art. But mostly, it's recycled drek. Yes, I know people like it. I like it too. That's not the point. I like lots of cheesy shit, just because I like it doesn't make it great art.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick question, how do you suppose the IP connections are carried? What you are seeing are almost communications done over cell phone networks, either before they lost power, or after it was brought back up. I mean, think about it. No land lines. No cell phones. What is carrying the Internet connections, satellite? What is providing the power? Yeah, nothing. It's ALL cell phones.
Much less ironic. This actually was and is a heck of a job. First rate response on our part. I don't want to make this political, though. In some ways, we are better prepared to deal with international emergencies than internal ones. But this type of preparedness and international developmental and emergency aid was a major plank of Obama's platform, so I'm glad to see him actually living up to a promise.
The airport is badly backed up at the moment. I'm amazed that as much material made it onto the runway as it did. Pilots on the ground were performing rough traffic control from their cockpits. Although the roads are not too badly damaged, the problem is really a lack of vehicles. Getting supplies off the planes, onto some kind of vehicles, and out to refuge camps will take some planning and coordination.
This kind of projection of US power does worlds of good for our public image around the world. Haiti is right in our back yard. Let's show the world what the US can do when disaster strikes.
Haiti has nearly no land lines. Cell phone networks are cheaper to deploy than land lines. If you had bothered to read the summary, you would have read that this company was down there before the earthquake, and had won a medal from the State Department for their work building communications infrastructure in Haiti.
It's all well to dream, as long as you realize it's still only a dream, not reality.
Last night I dreamed I would wake up, eat breakfast, and have sex with a supermodel. Dreams can come true. Or at least parts of them.
The hospital ship Comfort is on the way and so is the supercarrier Carl Vinson, which can provide power and over 100,000 gallons of desalinated water per day. The problems facing Haiti were severe even before this disaster, but afterwords, what little government they did have has, quite literally, collapsed. In other recent disasters, there has at least been continuity of civil government and some kind of coordinated response from within the country. That is simply not possible in this case. Even the UN headquarters there has collapsed.
One of the first things our military did was to get air traffic control up and functioning. The control tower at the airport had collapsed, and there is simply no power in Port-au-Prince. The US cutter Forward was among the first on the scene, and began directing flights into the country. U.S. Southern Command dispatched a team of 30 engineers, planners and a command and control group to Haiti on a Puerto Rico Air National Guard C-130 Hercules, which arrived soon afterwords and took over this vital function.
The biggest problem is going to be getting things out of the airport and to the people that need it. Reports indicate that the harbor is badly damaged and supplies will need to be trans-shipped through the Dominican Republic and driven into Haiti. This seems to me to be a job for the Seabees. Does anyone know if the Nimitz class supercarriers like the Carl Vinson carry LCACs?
If you can impugn the motives of people who believe in the possibility of life outside earth, can we impugn your motives for denying that possibility? You think we're just afraid of the dark, and being alone. Right. Well, maybe you are scared of the implications if there IS life outside earth. Maybe we aren't special, and maybe you're terrified of that possibility, and would rather be alone in the dark than have to share the universe with others.
What's the point of the statement you made? Do you really need to feel superior, and put others down? Do you need to demonstrate your superior stoicism in order to attract a mate or something? What's the deal? Do you also go around telling little kids that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are myths? Why do you even care so much?
Sorry to be mean, but you were the metaphorical straw on the camel's back.
The fact that regular books are inaccessible to the blind is beside the point. e-books don't need to be. The Kindle has a text to speech converter. And a speaker, obviously. All they need to do is provide a patch to let the Kindle read the list of books on the device. That's it.
And the fact is, nobody is preventing anyone from buying a Kindle. Three universities have stopped promoting it as an alternative to regular books (which, by law, must come in braille editions) If Amazon wants universities to promote its use, they can damn well write the ten lines of code it's going to take to make it read its user interface out loud.
Anyway, sorry for calling you stupid. I"m sure you're no less intelligent than the dozens of other people who couldn't be bothered to read the first two sentences of my post, "The problem isn't e-books or readers per-se. The Kindle even includes a text to speech application." before replying, "Yeah, well blind people can't read books"
Except of course they can read books, since all textbook publishers are required by law to provide braille editions. But an ebook manufacturer isn't required to write a ten line fix. And dozens of trolls jump out to defend them against the evil blind people.
Jesus fucking wept.
Yeah, that's so much better than issuing a simple patch to let the text to speech application read the navigation out loud.
I've had to say, 'Way to completely miss the point' dozens of times now. Even after explaining it in simple language, you don't get it. It's like you people can't even read. Go back and read what I wrote again, thankfully, I'm not required by Federal law to cater to stupid people.
Textbooks come in braille format. A simple software patch would allow visually impaired people to use the Kindle. That would be a win for everyone. Why NOT do it?
No, your point rests on assumptions already proven wrong. It's as if you did not even read my comment before replying. A simple software patch would allow the Kindle to read it's user interface. It has a speaker. It has text to speech. It won't be twice as expensive.
I'm just amazed at how many people are missing the point, even after I've explained it. Fixing this requires a software patch to allow text-to-speech of the UI. That's it. Are you saying you don't WANT the Kindle to be accessible to blind people?
Why should Universities spend good money to promote this? It's not as if the Kindle is being banned, sighted people can still choose to use it. The universities just aren't going to promote it.
That's not the point. It's less accessible than it could easily be. By making a big deal now, advocacy groups can ensure that the Kindle and future e-book readers will have navigation for the visually impaired.
How about, pipe the user interface through the text to speech application that already exists on the kindle? Yeah, rather than patch the device in a simple way to make it more appealing to a larger market, and satisfy the ADA, blind people should be required to buy an expensive accessory. Good thinking, My only question is, if they included a text to speech converter in the first place, why in God's name did they not set it up as a screen reader for the interface? It's a no-brainer.
Because the kindle can be made accessible to the visually impaired with the simple fix of letting the text-to-speech reader that is already included read the damn interface. How much are you willing to bet that, thanks to this publicity, the Kindle will include such functionality in the near future? It's a win for everyone. The blind get a device that lets them enjoy books easily. Amazon gets a bigger market. Other manufacturers of e-book readers get free market advice, and can ensure their readers ship with such functionality.
No, it isn't more accessible. Without navigation, it is completely inaccessible. But the fix is very easy: tie the user interface into the text-to speech application that already exists on the device. This publicity will ensure that happens in a very timely fashion.
The problem isn't e-books or readers per-se. The Kindle even includes a text to speech application. But the Kindle lacks a way for visually impaired readers to navigate, and so, it is absolutely useless as it is. All that needs to be done is to tie the user interface into the text to speech application. That's it. Until that very, very simple problem is solved, colleges and universities are correct not to promote the use of this device. A good bit of publicity early on will ensure that all e-book readers in the future have this simple feature.
I know no one reads the articles, as that would get in the way of the knee-jerking we all love to do. But the article makes it quite clear: the kindle includes a text-to-speech application, but no way for visually impaired folks to navigate. Therefore, the Kindle is not the right choice of e-book reader for institutions such as colleges and universities to promote. It is the Kindle that is unusable by the blind, not the e-books themselves.
Think of the "money" shot...shudder.
It's coming right at me!
No, you can't make corn that sings in any reasonable time frame, nor with any certainty, using selective breeding. With selective breeding, you must rely on the traits already present within the genome, or you must wait for the proper random mutation, which may never come.
You are confusing bacteria with viruses. Bacteria do not transfer genes horizontally. And in general, genes transferred this way are not active.
Given that the data came from Monsanto itself, I'd say I trust this study. It's the first of it's kind. You are basically saying, let anyone do anything they like until it is proven conclusively, without a doubt, that it causes harm. I say, if you want to do new things, you must at least label your products as untested. Let consumers make the choice as to what they trust.
The site, truthabouttrade.org, is an agribusiness advocacy site. I find it amazing that you would trust such an obviously biased web site, but not trust a scientific paper published in a respected peer-review journal.
Selective breeding is not the same thing as modern genetic modification. Mendel wasn't putting bacterial genes into corn. We've had thousands of years of testing selective breeding. We have had a decade or so of testing bacteria protein laced corn and other genetically modified foods. See the difference? The damn hippies were right: we should have tested this stuff more.
A spider unicorn, dude. A spider unicorn named Snookie. But yes, it has a long glittery main, and she combs it.
I like cheesy crap, too. I just don't think that because I like it, that makes it great art.
It's my opinion that the entertainment that Hollywood creates is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Hollywood is risk averse. It's corporate. That is not to say that there are no great artists working in Hollywood, of course there are. And sometimes they even get to create great art. But mostly, it's recycled drek. Yes, I know people like it. I like it too. That's not the point. I like lots of cheesy shit, just because I like it doesn't make it great art.