I've seen and used Firewire disk mode on Macs (eg, turn whole PC into giant firewire disk).
But wasn't SCSI disk mode limited to a few select laptops? I have dim memories of using it in the late 90s a couple of times, but but only with a laptop and then it was of limited value given the clusterfuck of SCSI cables necessary given the weird SCSI connector on the back of the Mac laptops.
It seems like SCSI disk mode would have been an issue with many Macs, as IIRC you couldn't change the bus ID from 7.
Funyuns are THE BEST widely available crunchy/salty bagged snack. They're even less bad for you (notice I didn't say good for you) than the equivalently priced/merchandised Doritos-type product.
The only one I'll choose before Funyuns are Andy Capp's Hot or Cheddar Fries. Not because they're better necessarily, only because they're good and they aren't generally available here, except for turning up at weird, out of the way independent convenience stores and the odd vending machine.
The sickest of all indulgences is an "express" lunch consisting of a "big grab" bag of Funyuns and a couple of Slim Jims. You do want to kill yourself afterwards, but god is it good at the time.
The term as a category is correct, however I was pointing out that the technology is not in the same league with wide area technologies like cell and radio, yet by continued (ab)use of the otherwise correct category of "wireless" to encompass all cord-free technologies, the average dork with a laptop continues to puzzle over why "wireless" on his cell phone works in places/ranges his "intraweb" wireless doesn't.
It kind of annoys me to see big rollouts using 802.11.
First there's the snowjob the ISPs give the cities to get the municipal monopoly, then there's snowjob the eager, wannabe-techno-savvy politicians give their constituents for giving away the farm to yet another municipal monopoly (where I live it was a sweetheart contract to provide in-care wireless to cops and city workers to prop up the ultimately unprofitable sale of wifi to end-users), and then there's the inevitable whining from users about why it doesn't work like the access point within 25 feet of them everywhere else they use 802.11, which they inaccurately call "wireless" and lump the in same category as cell phones, FM radio, etc.
Then we get to the point where providers using a technology not designed for lighting up whole cities start bitching about everyone else using "their" unlicensed spectrum....
I want to know when they have these brainstorming sessions how "change the way you have to do the same tasks" gets translated into "we made it easier to use".
My use of Vista and W7beta has been limited, but I've had a fair exposure to Server 2008 and in so many cases the same tasks take longer or no less effort than 2003/XP but are done just differently enough that it takes some re-learning, yet the differences don't really seem to be part of a new system/method, just part of stylistic UI changes.
I'm getting old and cantankerous in my 40s and I can't help but just see stylistic UI changes being made to make it seem "new" without any conscious effort being made to make it actually more efficient or better. Frankly I'd like the under-the-hood technology changes, but I'd rather not have to eat the UI changes if they don't actually make things better.
75 years ago, a much smaller fraction of the population went to college, generally speaking they were better educated and much more disciplined.
Now college has been mass-marketed to the extent that most people in college don't really belong in that kind of an academic environment. The other problem is that college has become something of a white collar trade school where people go to collect a basic credential that "entitles" them to some kind of office work.
The other thing that's changed is the social and economic expectations of education and of those being educated. 75 years ago it was largely assumed (for reasons good and perhaps discriminatory) that many people didn't belong in "academic" programs, even as early as secondary school. Most large districts had strong vo-tech programs, many with entire high schools devoted to vo-tech education (some schools still carry the label "Mechanics" or "Mechanics and Arts" for the vo-tech education they provided).
And at that time, a high school education was pretty good -- many people found good paying work with only a high school education. In many places you could even get a law degree and pass the bar without a college education. I've read essays in the paper written by 6/7/8th graders from 1940s that surpass what most college undergrads are capable of producing, let alone their age peers.
I also think that since WWII and moreso since the integration of schools, there's been much more focus on low-skills and low-income background students in public education and making education more "fair" which has kind of thrown out the learning with the process. Basically we've dumbed it down in a desperate and sociologically motivated attempt to help impoverished minorities, and not only is it not working, it's hurting education generally by dropping standards (or redefining away deficiencies).
The other problem is that many urban public education systems have become something of bastions of minority political patronage, where reform and changes are seen as "racist" and attempts to take away a bureaucracy that "belongs" to minorities.
Hansel and Gretel -- your parents can't feed you so they abandon you in the woods to starve to death. Kids had to be exposed to the realities of the world, which despite our attempts to pretend otherwise, were way worse for your typical non-aristocrat in 17th century Europe. Abuse. Abandonment. Starvation. Fairy Tales served as a way to expose kids to what might happen next.
How is that story -- which was a real threat back when famine and starvation weren't just inspirations for pop music sing-alongs -- any worse than a 9/11 coloring book which tries to help kids understand what happened?
We're so fucked when the response is to just shelter kids from everything. Shelter them from nothing. Expose them carefully and they will learn.
A certain amount of desensitization is necessary to live.
I open the paper every day to see a two-page spread of people who died. If I wasn't desensitized to death to a certain degree and instead had a huge emotional reaction to everyone who had died, I'd be screwed.
You don't want kids to be callous, but you don't want them to live in fear, either.
A fine weapon but 7.62x51 doesn't really have the range or the terminal ballistics at marine engagement distances, plus is likely to be whipsawed by the winds on the open ocean a lot more than the much heavier 12.7x99.50 cal round. You really want a round that will still puncture mild steel trawler cabins at distances where the 7.62x39 AK round just falls into the ocean. This keeps the crew from being at risk while still being able to lethally engage the pirates.
I think the penetration power of the.50 cal round sinking or at least crippling pirate boats is a win. They may give up if they start taking on water, and short of carpet bombing coastal Somalia, disabling or destroying the capability to pirate via boat sinking or damaging helps suppress piracy.
Only real drawback is the question of accuracy, but I would think a M82 mounted on a fluid head mount would probably be pretty easy to shoot accurately at boat-sized targets. The idea is to put fire on the vessel, not try to earn SEAL head shots.
From news accounts, I think the "successful" pirates can be pretty easily identified by the large houses and extravagant lifestyles the ransoms provide. I think the military should seriously consider precision airstrikes against known pirate shore targets.
Where I live Comcast only give out M-cards (sorry, I forgot the name) since they are newer and work better (per the tech on site who had to "install" it).
But with ONE M card I get dual channel recording, so your information is incorrect.
An automatic weapon isn't a bad idea, but I would think in terms of effectiveness that 3-4.50 BMG rifles (semi-autos, like the Barrett M82) with wide-field low magnification scopes would be a decent low-end compromise.
The.50 BMG round has reach-out-and-touch-you range that can hold the pirates far outside of effective range of AK ammo and probably RPGs (if you consider RPG hits only matter on the conning tower and not the hull of an ocean going ship). They also have the terminal velocity severely damage or disable pirate watercraft, up to and including the fishing trawler "mother ships" used in the more recent open ocean piracy.
The guns are simple enough to operate that training wouldn't be a big issue. As semi-automatic weapons they may be less likely to be "lost" than fully automatic machine guns. Magazine fed, they would allow the users to keep up a reasonable rate of fire, especially with multiple users. The guns could be fitted with deck mounts to eliminate any concerns about recoil (I've seen them fired off-hand "insurgent" style, so the muzzle break works well enough on its own), and the low-power wide-field scopes would allow the shooters easy spotting on moving targets without concern for excess magnification.
I saw the dog movie that was out last fall in 3D. It was OK, but the glasses-over-glasses is super annoying and makes the focus/3d effect a lot less than it would be if I didn't have to wear glasses.
Do they have any options for the huge portion of the population without 20/20 vision who wear glasses?
How completely aligned are the national defense needs of, say, Hawaii with those of, say, Ohio? Note, I don't say there aren't mutual interests, but to say that there is 100% overlap is ridiculous.
We've been kind of snookered into this one-size-fits-all all-national-interests-are-aligned mindset.
Questions about Obama's citizenship and links to Islamic religious belief are canards.
Whether or not Obama's deficit spending and involvement in the affairs of private business constitute a step towards socialism or whether he will go along with gun control zealots in the Democratic party are not canards. They represent legitimate criticisms and legitimate fears.
The media, who have been some of the thirstiest consumers of the Obama-aide, have begun to leak very subtle criticisms of him, but only subtle ones, and Obama himself still engages in gross exaggeration of his critics positions (http://www.slate.com/id/2215631/).
It's still fairly early on in his presidency to have too many criticisms of Obama (although his spending is fair game), but in six months or so the "I'm still cleaning up after Bush" won't work.
But the reliability, color, disposal and retrofitting issues are real.
I've been buying them since the late 90s when they were huge and very expensive; mostly it was a way to light areas inexpensively without getting into "ordinary" fluorescent fixtures. As they got smaller and fit ordinary fixtures better, I liked them for the ability to use a higher "wattage"-equivalent bulb in fixtures designed for only 60 watt bulbs. Oh yeah, and they use less power.
But...I still have a premature failure rate (like months vs. years) of about 30 percent, across the board.. This is both expensive and probably not super environmentally friendly, either. A recent NY Times article confirmed this as a common experience and reinforced that they just don't work well in a lot of fixtures. Although strangely the ones I have in outside fixtures appear to thrive during -20F weather.
So retrofitting is a problem -- I'd waste way more resources replacing perfectly serviceable, seldom-used fixtures just to use a CFL over an incandescent, especially for lights that are on maybe an hour a month. Even in newer fixtures where they fit, and using bulbs designed for the application (eg, CFL reflectors for cans) they burn out fast and the light quality is poor (slow to get to max output, which is dimmer than the incandescent they replaced, despite the wattage equivalence).
The color issue doesn't bother me, but my wife hates them and when I do an a/b comparison I think she has a point, even though it doesn't bother me personally.
The disposal issue is a problem. Given that most people are lazy slobs, there's going to be a ton of mercury dumped into the trash (streets, etc) if these ever become some kind of requirement.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen and used Firewire disk mode on Macs (eg, turn whole PC into giant firewire disk).
But wasn't SCSI disk mode limited to a few select laptops? I have dim memories of using it in the late 90s a couple of times, but but only with a laptop and then it was of limited value given the clusterfuck of SCSI cables necessary given the weird SCSI connector on the back of the Mac laptops.
It seems like SCSI disk mode would have been an issue with many Macs, as IIRC you couldn't change the bus ID from 7.
Funyuns are THE BEST widely available crunchy/salty bagged snack. They're even less bad for you (notice I didn't say good for you) than the equivalently priced/merchandised Doritos-type product.
The only one I'll choose before Funyuns are Andy Capp's Hot or Cheddar Fries. Not because they're better necessarily, only because they're good and they aren't generally available here, except for turning up at weird, out of the way independent convenience stores and the odd vending machine.
The sickest of all indulgences is an "express" lunch consisting of a "big grab" bag of Funyuns and a couple of Slim Jims. You do want to kill yourself afterwards, but god is it good at the time.
The term as a category is correct, however I was pointing out that the technology is not in the same league with wide area technologies like cell and radio, yet by continued (ab)use of the otherwise correct category of "wireless" to encompass all cord-free technologies, the average dork with a laptop continues to puzzle over why "wireless" on his cell phone works in places/ranges his "intraweb" wireless doesn't.
Is that pedantic enough for you?
It kind of annoys me to see big rollouts using 802.11.
First there's the snowjob the ISPs give the cities to get the municipal monopoly, then there's snowjob the eager, wannabe-techno-savvy politicians give their constituents for giving away the farm to yet another municipal monopoly (where I live it was a sweetheart contract to provide in-care wireless to cops and city workers to prop up the ultimately unprofitable sale of wifi to end-users), and then there's the inevitable whining from users about why it doesn't work like the access point within 25 feet of them everywhere else they use 802.11, which they inaccurately call "wireless" and lump the in same category as cell phones, FM radio, etc.
Then we get to the point where providers using a technology not designed for lighting up whole cities start bitching about everyone else using "their" unlicensed spectrum....
And I've owned my lawn mower since 1999 and still hear things I haven't heard before.
I want to know when they have these brainstorming sessions how "change the way you have to do the same tasks" gets translated into "we made it easier to use".
My use of Vista and W7beta has been limited, but I've had a fair exposure to Server 2008 and in so many cases the same tasks take longer or no less effort than 2003/XP but are done just differently enough that it takes some re-learning, yet the differences don't really seem to be part of a new system/method, just part of stylistic UI changes.
I'm getting old and cantankerous in my 40s and I can't help but just see stylistic UI changes being made to make it seem "new" without any conscious effort being made to make it actually more efficient or better. Frankly I'd like the under-the-hood technology changes, but I'd rather not have to eat the UI changes if they don't actually make things better.
I thought maybe he was looking for some really twisted sex.
I love FreeBSD and have been a dedicated user since the 90s, but sysinstall does blow chunks.
It "works" for installation, but has a weird menu system that doesn't navigate well if you try to use it any other time other than installation.
75 years ago, a much smaller fraction of the population went to college, generally speaking they were better educated and much more disciplined.
Now college has been mass-marketed to the extent that most people in college don't really belong in that kind of an academic environment. The other problem is that college has become something of a white collar trade school where people go to collect a basic credential that "entitles" them to some kind of office work.
The other thing that's changed is the social and economic expectations of education and of those being educated. 75 years ago it was largely assumed (for reasons good and perhaps discriminatory) that many people didn't belong in "academic" programs, even as early as secondary school. Most large districts had strong vo-tech programs, many with entire high schools devoted to vo-tech education (some schools still carry the label "Mechanics" or "Mechanics and Arts" for the vo-tech education they provided).
And at that time, a high school education was pretty good -- many people found good paying work with only a high school education. In many places you could even get a law degree and pass the bar without a college education. I've read essays in the paper written by 6/7/8th graders from 1940s that surpass what most college undergrads are capable of producing, let alone their age peers.
I also think that since WWII and moreso since the integration of schools, there's been much more focus on low-skills and low-income background students in public education and making education more "fair" which has kind of thrown out the learning with the process. Basically we've dumbed it down in a desperate and sociologically motivated attempt to help impoverished minorities, and not only is it not working, it's hurting education generally by dropping standards (or redefining away deficiencies).
The other problem is that many urban public education systems have become something of bastions of minority political patronage, where reform and changes are seen as "racist" and attempts to take away a bureaucracy that "belongs" to minorities.
..to teach kids about bad stuff.
Hansel and Gretel -- your parents can't feed you so they abandon you in the woods to starve to death. Kids had to be exposed to the realities of the world, which despite our attempts to pretend otherwise, were way worse for your typical non-aristocrat in 17th century Europe. Abuse. Abandonment. Starvation. Fairy Tales served as a way to expose kids to what might happen next.
How is that story -- which was a real threat back when famine and starvation weren't just inspirations for pop music sing-alongs -- any worse than a 9/11 coloring book which tries to help kids understand what happened?
We're so fucked when the response is to just shelter kids from everything. Shelter them from nothing. Expose them carefully and they will learn.
A certain amount of desensitization is necessary to live.
I open the paper every day to see a two-page spread of people who died. If I wasn't desensitized to death to a certain degree and instead had a huge emotional reaction to everyone who had died, I'd be screwed.
You don't want kids to be callous, but you don't want them to live in fear, either.
When you move to the civilized world let us know how you feel about $349.
Now's the time to get to that remote northern compound, top off your fuel & food, and lock it down.
Inside of 500 yards, full auto makes a ton of sense. M249 SAWs would probably be ideal since they could be used shipboard.
A fine weapon but 7.62x51 doesn't really have the range or the terminal ballistics at marine engagement distances, plus is likely to be whipsawed by the winds on the open ocean a lot more than the much heavier 12.7x99 .50 cal round. You really want a round that will still puncture mild steel trawler cabins at distances where the 7.62x39 AK round just falls into the ocean. This keeps the crew from being at risk while still being able to lethally engage the pirates.
I think the penetration power of the .50 cal round sinking or at least crippling pirate boats is a win. They may give up if they start taking on water, and short of carpet bombing coastal Somalia, disabling or destroying the capability to pirate via boat sinking or damaging helps suppress piracy.
Only real drawback is the question of accuracy, but I would think a M82 mounted on a fluid head mount would probably be pretty easy to shoot accurately at boat-sized targets. The idea is to put fire on the vessel, not try to earn SEAL head shots.
From news accounts, I think the "successful" pirates can be pretty easily identified by the large houses and extravagant lifestyles the ransoms provide. I think the military should seriously consider precision airstrikes against known pirate shore targets.
Where I live Comcast only give out M-cards (sorry, I forgot the name) since they are newer and work better (per the tech on site who had to "install" it).
But with ONE M card I get dual channel recording, so your information is incorrect.
An automatic weapon isn't a bad idea, but I would think in terms of effectiveness that 3-4 .50 BMG rifles (semi-autos, like the Barrett M82) with wide-field low magnification scopes would be a decent low-end compromise.
The .50 BMG round has reach-out-and-touch-you range that can hold the pirates far outside of effective range of AK ammo and probably RPGs (if you consider RPG hits only matter on the conning tower and not the hull of an ocean going ship). They also have the terminal velocity severely damage or disable pirate watercraft, up to and including the fishing trawler "mother ships" used in the more recent open ocean piracy.
The guns are simple enough to operate that training wouldn't be a big issue. As semi-automatic weapons they may be less likely to be "lost" than fully automatic machine guns. Magazine fed, they would allow the users to keep up a reasonable rate of fire, especially with multiple users. The guns could be fitted with deck mounts to eliminate any concerns about recoil (I've seen them fired off-hand "insurgent" style, so the muzzle break works well enough on its own), and the low-power wide-field scopes would allow the shooters easy spotting on moving targets without concern for excess magnification.
So get a new Tivo. My S3 uses a dual-channel cable card without an issue.
durka durka, muhammad jihad.
I saw the dog movie that was out last fall in 3D. It was OK, but the glasses-over-glasses is super annoying and makes the focus/3d effect a lot less than it would be if I didn't have to wear glasses.
Do they have any options for the huge portion of the population without 20/20 vision who wear glasses?
Or for that matter, defense?
How completely aligned are the national defense needs of, say, Hawaii with those of, say, Ohio? Note, I don't say there aren't mutual interests, but to say that there is 100% overlap is ridiculous.
We've been kind of snookered into this one-size-fits-all all-national-interests-are-aligned mindset.
If Obama's only measure of his success is initiating an unhindered agenda, he's fucked. Nobody gets a baggage-free presidency.
Questions about Obama's citizenship and links to Islamic religious belief are canards.
Whether or not Obama's deficit spending and involvement in the affairs of private business constitute a step towards socialism or whether he will go along with gun control zealots in the Democratic party are not canards. They represent legitimate criticisms and legitimate fears.
The media, who have been some of the thirstiest consumers of the Obama-aide, have begun to leak very subtle criticisms of him, but only subtle ones, and Obama himself still engages in gross exaggeration of his critics positions (http://www.slate.com/id/2215631/).
It's still fairly early on in his presidency to have too many criticisms of Obama (although his spending is fair game), but in six months or so the "I'm still cleaning up after Bush" won't work.
The power factor argument is, well, a non-factor.
But the reliability, color, disposal and retrofitting issues are real.
I've been buying them since the late 90s when they were huge and very expensive; mostly it was a way to light areas inexpensively without getting into "ordinary" fluorescent fixtures. As they got smaller and fit ordinary fixtures better, I liked them for the ability to use a higher "wattage"-equivalent bulb in fixtures designed for only 60 watt bulbs. Oh yeah, and they use less power.
But...I still have a premature failure rate (like months vs. years) of about 30 percent, across the board.. This is both expensive and probably not super environmentally friendly, either. A recent NY Times article confirmed this as a common experience and reinforced that they just don't work well in a lot of fixtures. Although strangely the ones I have in outside fixtures appear to thrive during -20F weather.
So retrofitting is a problem -- I'd waste way more resources replacing perfectly serviceable, seldom-used fixtures just to use a CFL over an incandescent, especially for lights that are on maybe an hour a month. Even in newer fixtures where they fit, and using bulbs designed for the application (eg, CFL reflectors for cans) they burn out fast and the light quality is poor (slow to get to max output, which is dimmer than the incandescent they replaced, despite the wattage equivalence).
The color issue doesn't bother me, but my wife hates them and when I do an a/b comparison I think she has a point, even though it doesn't bother me personally.
The disposal issue is a problem. Given that most people are lazy slobs, there's going to be a ton of mercury dumped into the trash (streets, etc) if these ever become some kind of requirement.
Your euphemism is clever. When your PHB uses it to describe why your job has been eliminated, let us know if it still sounds clever.