Yeah, mine too. My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"
I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."
and Glenn Beck shouting: "See! See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"
{ Pardon the double-post, browsing past the first one just looks like I'm saying "dur-hur me too!". I prefer to be seen as in idiot for the proper reasons, not because of the way slashdot blurbs me. }
My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology. My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.
Yeah, mine too. My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"
I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."
and Glenn Beck shouting: "See! See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"
"NUMBERED steps ARE meant to be done sequentially. Otherwise they wouldn't be numbered. People who don't get that are part of the problem, not part of the solution."
~~~~~~
I don't think that's at all true. Almost every tests I've ever seen has had numbered questions. If the above were true, then if I had ever skipped over a question, I'd have violated the rule, and gotten no credit for answering later questions. This has never happened during my many years of schooling. So I'd conclude that numbering the questions never implies that they must be done sequentially. It's just a convenient label, so that you can refer to a specific question during discussions.
Numbered DIRECTIONS are different than numbered QUESTIONS.
So in conclusion, numbering (like slashdot comments) is either considered in context OR you're doing it wrong.
Unless they are your children, no one is responsible for anyone else. If someone is nice enough to give you help (whether it's help in a physical emergency or a monetary emergency), then be thankful and that's very nice of them. However, they were under no obligation to do it.
We are under the obligations we place upon ourselves.
This is a bit of a philosophical point, but most people believe that if we are going to take advantage of the benefits of living in a society then we are making ourselves responsible for our actions within that society.
In fact most healthy individuals would argue in the abstract that a "citizen has societal responsibilities". However you can tell a lot about the mental maturity of someone if they are willing to do so when it moves from the abstract to the personal; "I have *this* responsibility towards my neighbor".
So if I were to believe that I have no obligation to my fellow man... either I'm claiming that there is such a thing as a "free ride" in civilized society, OR I'm simply saying "you can't make me share!".
Neither is a mature, rational, or feasible way to live.
I wonder if the album follows the traditional formula of boy-being meets girl-being under a beautiful astronomical body... which then explodes for no apparent reason?
and
Will Jerry be coming out of his tax shelter for the live tour?
Not everybody is a hero, but everyone SHOULD be a responsible citizen.
-----
And that's the crux of the matter. The fact that someone SHOULD do something does not mean that anyone (not even the government) has the right to FORCE them to do something.
Nobody in this hypothetical situation is being FORCED to do anything, however if they have the capability to help then they as citizens have the responsibility to help. If we act against our responsibility then there should be consequences.
Your interpretation really only makes sense if you assume that the steps must be done sequentially, which is usually never true for paper tests. Usually, questions are intended to be done in whatever order best suits you which, in this case, is the order that tells you to not do the rest.
On behalf of the strong engineering/programming base here, I must say: "NUMBERED steps ARE meant to be done sequentially. Otherwise they wouldn't be numbered. People who don't get that are part of the problem, not part of the solution."
Hey don't laugh. It could be very helpful to use an MS-office style (Does OO.org do it too? I hardly use office apps anymore) green squiggly to highlight potential errors or areas that could be improved - light up "seize and desist" "win or loose" "for all intensive purposes", etc and it could make a huge difference to the spelling/grammar/writing-impaired.
Maybe... But do we want everyone to have that sort of power?
Spelling, word comprehension, and sentence structure can all add a veneer of validity; and particularly in the case of online posts that veneer can make a big impression. I appreciate seeing bad grammar online the same way I appreciate the presence of racism in political discussions. Sometimes it nice to have a big flag pointing out those who either don't have a clue or aren't willing to place thought before speech.
I have a laptop that I use at home just as a simple means of access for Internet and shared files throughout the house. It works fine; but what I really WANT is direct access to my desktop computer. Sort of a wireless dumb terminal, which just sends a keyboard/mouse signal and receives a "monitor signal".
I think of it as a Hardware RDP session, except instead of relying on a local video card for rendering the device would truly just be a remote monitor. (Which would open up gaming capability). You could effectively park your case in a "server closet" and have complete access anywhere in the house.
Wi-Di potentially provides a bit of the missing technology for such a device to be possible.
If any of you engineer such a device please give a shout out to "some weirdo on slashdot" when celebrating your first Million.
You can 'borrow' something from a novel but if you're going to be making money, hand over fist, with it you should probably get permission. And then on top of that you go after the trademark since Dick never did?
Kinda makes me curious which method the irobot company took when they started out.
Programming is all about isolating the smallest part of a problem and simplifying it out. Doing proofs is effectively the basis for programming.
Understanding trig and calc is handy for specific projects, but for every single program we write we have to be able to see the problem, to isolate components of the problem, and to simplify them.
-Rick
I have to agree with the conceptual crossovers between programming and algebra. In my personal experience I didn't do so well with my high school Algebra 1 class (looking back I can see it was the teaching method being used.... which is irrelevant but I want to say it:-). Before my next significant algebra class came along I began to learn programming, and suddenly it made perfect sense. Programming concepts I had learned made the algebra understandable, and I'm sure if I had gained a strong math foundation first it would have benefited my programming education in the same way.
p.s. What's an AgeBra? Is that like the "bro" from Seinfeld?
To name one example, he's rather slovenly in his ways here. This is very different from the original character, who is noted many times in the stories to be quite impeccable in this regard. Even those who've only read the most famous story, The Hound of the Baskervilles, should recall that while Holmes was camping out in the countryside - for weeks without contact - he kept himself clean-shaven every day! Of course, it's also described in the stories that his rooms are not necessarily tidy as one normally thinks of tidy - but not an absolute mess as in the new film.
Haven't seen Holmes yet, probably will wait to rent it (intentionally not getting my hopes up); glad to hear though that it's not as "comic book" as might be expected.
Regarding the impeccable/slovenly Holmes; It's one of my favorite self-contradictions to Holmes' character as described in the books, and some well balanced contradictions can help make a character seem more human.
The well groomed meticulous Holmes of Baskervilles is riding a crest of success; he has matured, is constantly engaged with cases, dresses well, and become overall more professional in his ways. However A study in Scarlet describes him early in his career; his arms are covered in "plasters", his hands are stained from lab experiments, he's poor enough that he can't afford his rent, he's often slumming to develop his underworld connections, and he recreationally shoots cocaine. When he doesn't have a case to amuse himself he becomes positively apathetic to his own well being and presumably his surroundings.
He developed. Not coincidentally he matured and became more successful as his creator did. Many people only know the meticulous Holmes, possibly because as you pointed out they only know the most popular book.
Perhaps, but that doesn't really matter if nobody is buying the songs because they can just download them instead, does it? Unless the musician is just making music for the glory of having his name out there, then the increased exposure means very little unless it translates to sales.
Yeah, it's a dilemma about the clear winners and losers. However personally I can say that all of my music purchases (albums and tickets) in the past... 8 years I believe. Have all been based on discoveries via "Piracy", and more recently from Pandora; (which I instinctively include under the same tag since I collect the MP3's from there and do my actual listening offline).
Speaking for music fans disenfranchised by an industry which only wants to sell MTV fodder, we will always see sharing with a favorable bias.
The only absolute losers in this situation are bands that aren't worth a 2nd listen. Under the RIAA's preferred system you only make that discovery after purchasing the album.
And when the 1st world countries started forcing scrubbers on coal-burning plants, the companies were complaining about lost profits. Somehow, things still went along.
Of course the greedy sh*twads have saved themselves a nice portion of the expense by dumping the contaminated scrub-water unfiltered into rivers. I say make 'em bleed and shoot the whiners.
Calling it melting is prejudicial (because it implies melting due to warming), it's termed glacial retreat and in most cases, there are valid reasons for this not associated with "Global Warming". For instance, the glaciers on Kilimanjaro are retreating because the rain forest at the bottom was destroyed which drastically reduced the amount of precipitation on the mountain's slopes. Less precipitation == less liquid to freeze, so the water lost to the summer temperatures was simply not replaced.
Interestingly, the cost of replacing the stoves causing the Himalayan pollution (it is believed that most of the soot is not from large scale generation, but from household stoves - individually they're not that significant, but there's a hell of a lot of people in that part of the world) has been estimated at $15 billion. This seems like a good use of resources to me, rather than fantasy schemes like cap and trade.
I agree with 98% of what you just said.
The only thing I would counter-argue is: Calling it "glacial retreat" is prejudicial, it makes it sound as if it is is isolated from all impact of human activity.
I'd figure that "melting" is cause neutral, technically accurate, and generally safe for conversation. But that may be a side effect of where I live, here people who put salt on their sidewalks watch the ice melt without the temperature changing. But to get a strong point across "Pollution based erosion" wins every time, it gets across the point of "hey dummies, this is our fault" without feeding the political boogie man of global warming.
I don't think it will hurt the layperson that much to gain a bit of doubt. This is a case where the worst case scenario IS the best case scenario.
What if we look as the net result not as a "weakening of scientific belief", but as an introduction of skepticism. The problem isn't credibility but credulity; credibility builds based on performance, credulity assumes performance without examining further.
Hard science can and will weather doubts, because it is provable and above all practical. Theory science needs to be refined to the provable and practical; and it just might be forced to do so if the general public are no longer willing to "buy" based on the same sort of marketing that's been used for decades.
In an atmosphere of easy credulity everyone can simply pick a theory to support based on what they already believe, in this same atmosphere theories will flourish to match each preexisting belief. This is religious in nature and not scientific, and the net result is inaction; losing the factual and the achievable in a storm of multiple "what ifs".
Think about global warming, as a whole no one can honestly prove the tenets either for our against. So... SCRAP it, or stop trying to base decisions on the theory. Instead address the provable: Does dumping X in water-sources cause Y damage? Does B action cause smog? Is C resource being used sustainably? etc..
The earth/environment is a large adaptive system, If we address the provable negative effects our actions have then the system will be allowed to function as it always has.
Science develops from theory, but actions should be based on proven science; and the layperson should have a narrower understanding of what makes a "proven science".
p.s. Remember what the opposite of Layperson is anyway: "Clergy", and that is exactly the sort of relationship that most people have with science.
The upfront cost can be zero if you find a perfectly good 10-year old or so laser printer on eBay. At that age you can get nice workgroup level printers for a steal.
Exactly, and get creative, if you see an old laser gathering dust ask about it.
I've used an HP Laserjet 4L for years. A small business purchased it around 1992, a couple of years ago I discovered it and several un-opened laser carts sitting in a closet along with some old equipment they were unsure about throwing away. I hooked it up, mostly our of curiosity, it was much too slow for their needs and was leaving toner streaks. After a simple clean out with a vacuum the streaks were gone.
The quality is good. Data transfer is slow, but the printer itself is fast, so the PPM holds about average with a cheap inkjet. It's everything I need as a home user, and I am still working on the first laser cart with 4 more in stock; I'm set to print for the rest of my life (or as far into the future as I can keep a computer with a parallel port alive).
This is a machine that's nearly 20 years old, if I see an inkjet that's 5 years old and still working I'm surprised.
"As they are tools they can be used for both Good and Evil purposes."
I know what you mean, but that's the wrong terminology to be using when discussing Machiavelli and the school of realism (which is essentially what you're describing). It's nothing to do with "good" and "evil". It's only about power, and continuing the existence of the state by whatever means necessary.
Well you've convinced me...
From now on I shall stop thinking about governments in terms of "good" vs"evil", instead I will think of government in terms of "doesn't exist" vs "exists". Where "doesn't exist" represents government that serves for the betterment of all humanity, and "exists" represents greedy, lying, murdering bastards.:-P
It makes sense for the persons in power to look at things from the moral neutral; the perspective of 'What must I do to keep this power'. As subjects of power, "good" vs "evil" are exactly the scales we should measure on. We MUST avoid moral neutrality, otherwise we become the tools of the government rather than government being a tool of the people.
The usage of the phrases good and evil have no value when coming from the top down, they should be very meaningful coming from the bottom up.
In the first 3 months of 2009 49,000 people who did nothing but patrol wikipedia all day were downsized because of the economy; raising questions of how the Internet will survive without the uselessly employed.
Is it possible that the story is true as it's been presented? I don't know
Is it possible that he can actually be guiding the "communication" when his pupils are not following the motion? I don't know
Is it possible that he is still completely unaware at this point? I don't know
I do know that the only people I've seen saying either "It's a MIRACLE!" or "It's a HOAX" have an agenda to support.... and I don't trust anyone who's that certain based on 3rd hand information.
Why just yesterday I convinced 3 more people that companies that make money are evil. They immediately dropped everything, moved out to the brushfuck and started farming and digging a well so they don't have to trade money, goods, or services with those evil companies...
"convinced" eh?
Wow, you must be something special. I've met my share of loser neighbors and asshole business men, but none I'd move to "brushfuck" to get away from.
It strikes me that a lot of good is being done by this body. Plus there's more to come. So it strikes me that Bill might be in line first, or maybe a shared one with Bill, Linus and Tim Berners-Lee or something.
There is good being done. There is also a lot of damage being done by misguided cultural meddling.* I don't doubt that B & M Gates have good intentions with their charity, but it gets handled like you would expect from any Corporate PR campaign, looking to make news rather than make a change.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, mine too. My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"
I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."
and Glenn Beck shouting: "See! See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"
{ Pardon the double-post, browsing past the first one just looks like I'm saying "dur-hur me too!". I prefer to be seen as in idiot for the proper reasons, not because of the way slashdot blurbs me. }
My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology. My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.
Yeah, mine too.
My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"
I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."
and Glenn Beck shouting: "See! See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"
"NUMBERED steps ARE meant to be done sequentially. Otherwise they wouldn't be numbered. People who don't get that are part of the problem, not part of the solution."
~~~~~~
I don't think that's at all true. Almost every tests I've ever seen has had numbered questions. If the above were true, then if I had ever skipped over a question, I'd have violated the rule, and gotten no credit for answering later questions. This has never happened during my many years of schooling. So I'd conclude that numbering the questions never implies that they must be done sequentially. It's just a convenient label, so that you can refer to a specific question during discussions.
Numbered DIRECTIONS are different than numbered QUESTIONS.
So in conclusion, numbering (like slashdot comments) is either considered in context OR you're doing it wrong.
Unless they are your children, no one is responsible for anyone else. If someone is nice enough to give you help (whether it's help in a physical emergency or a monetary emergency), then be thankful and that's very nice of them. However, they were under no obligation to do it.
We are under the obligations we place upon ourselves.
This is a bit of a philosophical point, but most people believe that if we are going to take advantage of the benefits of living in a society then we are making ourselves responsible for our actions within that society.
In fact most healthy individuals would argue in the abstract that a "citizen has societal responsibilities".
However you can tell a lot about the mental maturity of someone if they are willing to do so when it moves from the abstract to the personal; "I have *this* responsibility towards my neighbor".
So if I were to believe that I have no obligation to my fellow man... either I'm claiming that there is such a thing as a "free ride" in civilized society, OR I'm simply saying "you can't make me share!".
Neither is a mature, rational, or feasible way to live.
2 important questions:
I wonder if the album follows the traditional formula of boy-being meets girl-being under a beautiful astronomical body... which then explodes for no apparent reason?
and
Will Jerry be coming out of his tax shelter for the live tour?
Not everybody is a hero, but everyone SHOULD be a responsible citizen.
-----
And that's the crux of the matter. The fact that someone SHOULD do something does not mean that anyone (not even the government) has the right to FORCE them to do something.
Nobody in this hypothetical situation is being FORCED to do anything, however if they have the capability to help then they as citizens have the responsibility to help. If we act against our responsibility then there should be consequences.
Everyone is free to not act.
Your interpretation really only makes sense if you assume that the steps must be done sequentially, which is usually never true for paper tests. Usually, questions are intended to be done in whatever order best suits you which, in this case, is the order that tells you to not do the rest.
On behalf of the strong engineering/programming base here, I must say:
"NUMBERED steps ARE meant to be done sequentially. Otherwise they wouldn't be numbered. People who don't get that are part of the problem, not part of the solution."
This sounds like a good cover for a prostitution ring.
from heading
a free, five-minute bed warming session from the hotel's human bed warmers
Hmmm 5 minutes eh? You've been on slashdot too long my friend.
Hey don't laugh. It could be very helpful to use an MS-office style (Does OO.org do it too? I hardly use office apps anymore) green squiggly to highlight potential errors or areas that could be improved - light up "seize and desist" "win or loose" "for all intensive purposes", etc and it could make a huge difference to the spelling/grammar/writing-impaired.
Maybe... But do we want everyone to have that sort of power?
Spelling, word comprehension, and sentence structure can all add a veneer of validity; and particularly in the case of online posts that veneer can make a big impression.
I appreciate seeing bad grammar online the same way I appreciate the presence of racism in political discussions. Sometimes it nice to have a big flag pointing out those who either don't have a clue or aren't willing to place thought before speech.
... A wireless portable I/O system.
I have a laptop that I use at home just as a simple means of access for Internet and shared files throughout the house. It works fine; but what I really WANT is direct access to my desktop computer. Sort of a wireless dumb terminal, which just sends a keyboard/mouse signal and receives a "monitor signal".
I think of it as a Hardware RDP session, except instead of relying on a local video card for rendering the device would truly just be a remote monitor. (Which would open up gaming capability). You could effectively park your case in a "server closet" and have complete access anywhere in the house.
Wi-Di potentially provides a bit of the missing technology for such a device to be possible.
If any of you engineer such a device please give a shout out to "some weirdo on slashdot" when celebrating your first Million.
You can 'borrow' something from a novel but if you're going to be making money, hand over fist, with it you should probably get permission. And then on top of that you go after the trademark since Dick never did?
Kinda makes me curious which method the irobot company took when they started out.
Proofs, proofs, then more proofs.
Programming is all about isolating the smallest part of a problem and simplifying it out. Doing proofs is effectively the basis for programming.
Understanding trig and calc is handy for specific projects, but for every single program we write we have to be able to see the problem, to isolate components of the problem, and to simplify them.
-Rick
I have to agree with the conceptual crossovers between programming and algebra. In my personal experience I didn't do so well with my high school Algebra 1 class (looking back I can see it was the teaching method being used.... which is irrelevant but I want to say it :-). Before my next significant algebra class came along I began to learn programming, and suddenly it made perfect sense.
Programming concepts I had learned made the algebra understandable, and I'm sure if I had gained a strong math foundation first it would have benefited my programming education in the same way.
p.s. What's an AgeBra? Is that like the "bro" from Seinfeld?
To name one example, he's rather slovenly in his ways here. This is very different from the original character, who is noted many times in the stories to be quite impeccable in this regard. Even those who've only read the most famous story, The Hound of the Baskervilles, should recall that while Holmes was camping out in the countryside - for weeks without contact - he kept himself clean-shaven every day! Of course, it's also described in the stories that his rooms are not necessarily tidy as one normally thinks of tidy - but not an absolute mess as in the new film.
Haven't seen Holmes yet, probably will wait to rent it (intentionally not getting my hopes up); glad to hear though that it's not as "comic book" as might be expected.
Regarding the impeccable/slovenly Holmes; It's one of my favorite self-contradictions to Holmes' character as described in the books, and some well balanced contradictions can help make a character seem more human.
The well groomed meticulous Holmes of Baskervilles is riding a crest of success; he has matured, is constantly engaged with cases, dresses well, and become overall more professional in his ways.
However A study in Scarlet describes him early in his career; his arms are covered in "plasters", his hands are stained from lab experiments, he's poor enough that he can't afford his rent, he's often slumming to develop his underworld connections, and he recreationally shoots cocaine. When he doesn't have a case to amuse himself he becomes positively apathetic to his own well being and presumably his surroundings.
He developed. Not coincidentally he matured and became more successful as his creator did. Many people only know the meticulous Holmes, possibly because as you pointed out they only know the most popular book.
Perhaps, but that doesn't really matter if nobody is buying the songs because they can just download them instead, does it? Unless the musician is just making music for the glory of having his name out there, then the increased exposure means very little unless it translates to sales.
Yeah, it's a dilemma about the clear winners and losers. However personally I can say that all of my music purchases (albums and tickets) in the past... 8 years I believe. Have all been based on discoveries via "Piracy", and more recently from Pandora; (which I instinctively include under the same tag since I collect the MP3's from there and do my actual listening offline).
Speaking for music fans disenfranchised by an industry which only wants to sell MTV fodder, we will always see sharing with a favorable bias.
The only absolute losers in this situation are bands that aren't worth a 2nd listen. Under the RIAA's preferred system you only make that discovery after purchasing the album.
And when the 1st world countries started forcing scrubbers on coal-burning plants, the companies were complaining about lost profits. Somehow, things still went along.
Of course the greedy sh*twads have saved themselves a nice portion of the expense by dumping the contaminated scrub-water unfiltered into rivers.
I say make 'em bleed and shoot the whiners.
Calling it melting is prejudicial (because it implies melting due to warming), it's termed glacial retreat and in most cases, there are valid reasons for this not associated with "Global Warming". For instance, the glaciers on Kilimanjaro are retreating because the rain forest at the bottom was destroyed which drastically reduced the amount of precipitation on the mountain's slopes. Less precipitation == less liquid to freeze, so the water lost to the summer temperatures was simply not replaced.
Interestingly, the cost of replacing the stoves causing the Himalayan pollution (it is believed that most of the soot is not from large scale generation, but from household stoves - individually they're not that significant, but there's a hell of a lot of people in that part of the world) has been estimated at $15 billion. This seems like a good use of resources to me, rather than fantasy schemes like cap and trade.
I agree with 98% of what you just said.
The only thing I would counter-argue is: Calling it "glacial retreat" is prejudicial, it makes it sound as if it is is isolated from all impact of human activity.
I'd figure that "melting" is cause neutral, technically accurate, and generally safe for conversation. But that may be a side effect of where I live, here people who put salt on their sidewalks watch the ice melt without the temperature changing.
But to get a strong point across "Pollution based erosion" wins every time, it gets across the point of "hey dummies, this is our fault" without feeding the political boogie man of global warming.
I don't think it will hurt the layperson that much to gain a bit of doubt. This is a case where the worst case scenario IS the best case scenario.
What if we look as the net result not as a "weakening of scientific belief", but as an introduction of skepticism.
The problem isn't credibility but credulity; credibility builds based on performance, credulity assumes performance without examining further.
Hard science can and will weather doubts, because it is provable and above all practical. Theory science needs to be refined to the provable and practical; and it just might be forced to do so if the general public are no longer willing to "buy" based on the same sort of marketing that's been used for decades.
In an atmosphere of easy credulity everyone can simply pick a theory to support based on what they already believe, in this same atmosphere theories will flourish to match each preexisting belief. This is religious in nature and not scientific, and the net result is inaction; losing the factual and the achievable in a storm of multiple "what ifs".
Think about global warming, as a whole no one can honestly prove the tenets either for our against. So... SCRAP it, or stop trying to base decisions on the theory. Instead address the provable:
Does dumping X in water-sources cause Y damage?
Does B action cause smog?
Is C resource being used sustainably?
etc..
The earth/environment is a large adaptive system, If we address the provable negative effects our actions have then the system will be allowed to function as it always has.
Science develops from theory, but actions should be based on proven science; and the layperson should have a narrower understanding of what makes a "proven science".
p.s. Remember what the opposite of Layperson is anyway: "Clergy", and that is exactly the sort of relationship that most people have with science.
The upfront cost can be zero if you find a perfectly good 10-year old or so laser printer on eBay. At that age you can get nice workgroup level printers for a steal.
Exactly, and get creative, if you see an old laser gathering dust ask about it.
I've used an HP Laserjet 4L for years. A small business purchased it around 1992, a couple of years ago I discovered it and several un-opened laser carts sitting in a closet along with some old equipment they were unsure about throwing away.
I hooked it up, mostly our of curiosity, it was much too slow for their needs and was leaving toner streaks. After a simple clean out with a vacuum the streaks were gone.
The quality is good. Data transfer is slow, but the printer itself is fast, so the PPM holds about average with a cheap inkjet. It's everything I need as a home user, and I am still working on the first laser cart with 4 more in stock; I'm set to print for the rest of my life (or as far into the future as I can keep a computer with a parallel port alive).
This is a machine that's nearly 20 years old, if I see an inkjet that's 5 years old and still working I'm surprised.
I know what you mean, but that's the wrong terminology to be using when discussing Machiavelli and the school of realism (which is essentially what you're describing). It's nothing to do with "good" and "evil". It's only about power, and continuing the existence of the state by whatever means necessary.
Well you've convinced me...
From now on I shall stop thinking about governments in terms of "good" vs"evil", instead I will think of government in terms of "doesn't exist" vs "exists". :-P
Where "doesn't exist" represents government that serves for the betterment of all humanity, and "exists" represents greedy, lying, murdering bastards.
It makes sense for the persons in power to look at things from the moral neutral; the perspective of 'What must I do to keep this power'.
As subjects of power, "good" vs "evil" are exactly the scales we should measure on. We MUST avoid moral neutrality, otherwise we become the tools of the government rather than government being a tool of the people.
The usage of the phrases good and evil have no value when coming from the top down, they should be very meaningful coming from the bottom up.
In the first 3 months of 2009 49,000 people who did nothing but patrol wikipedia all day were downsized because of the economy; raising questions of how the Internet will survive without the uselessly employed.
I am not a medical professional, and can only judge based on the information we have been given.....
But when I watch this video I don't see the same thing that's being reported.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/24/coma.man.belgium/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
What I see is some very questionable "facilitated communication"
http://www.skepdic.com/facilcom.html
Is it possible that the story is true as it's been presented? I don't know
Is it possible that he can actually be guiding the "communication" when his pupils are not following the motion? I don't know
Is it possible that he is still completely unaware at this point? I don't know
I do know that the only people I've seen saying either "It's a MIRACLE!" or "It's a HOAX" have an agenda to support.... and I don't trust anyone who's that certain based on 3rd hand information.
Well unless selfcarved forehead swastikas are somehow genetic.... I'm gonna vote "Manson".
Why just yesterday I convinced 3 more people that companies that make money are evil. They immediately dropped everything, moved out to the brushfuck and started farming and digging a well so they don't have to trade money, goods, or services with those evil companies...
"convinced" eh?
Wow, you must be something special. I've met my share of loser neighbors and asshole business men, but none I'd move to "brushfuck" to get away from.
It strikes me that a lot of good is being done by this body. Plus there's more to come. So it strikes me that Bill might be in line first, or maybe a shared one with Bill, Linus and Tim Berners-Lee or something.
There is good being done. There is also a lot of damage being done by misguided cultural meddling.*
I don't doubt that B & M Gates have good intentions with their charity, but it gets handled like you would expect from any Corporate PR campaign, looking to make news rather than make a change.
(* the link provided by an AC below is a good start http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-gatesx7jan07-sg,0,2046572.storygallery )
Political satire lost all meaning when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
wait.... that was real? I thought that WAS satire, shit that's messed up.