It's called the Logitech G5. I've had mine for something like 4 years. The one time I had a problem, I called logitech and they mailed me a replacement. Best mouse I've ever used. Has just enough to get stuff done. (well NOW it does... I do miss the second shoulder button, which they fixed when they revised it)
It's worth noting that you have no constitutional right to a jury "of your peers".
The constitution dictates the following regarding juries:
1) Criminal trials must be conducted by jury; (Article 3, Section 2)
2) The right to a "speedy and public trial," by an impartial jury, in addition to some other requirements of the trial; (6th Amendment)
3) Certain federal civil trials (over amounts > $20) guarantee a jury trial; (7th Amendment)
In the ideal sense, a jury of your "peers" would be a random sampling of other citizens - we are all supposed to be equal under the law, and the practice of bringing in "expert juries" is problematic because it could set up protected classes of people for whom specific laws simply don't apply through tacit agreement not to enforce them. Think this could be a problem if a panel of doctors always sit in judgement of malpractice cases, for example? I sure do.
You can argue for a less-invasive voire-dire process, like they have in the UK, where a much stricter justification is required to dismiss a juror, but arguing for expert juries seems like a dangerous road to go down as well. Expert witnesses should be able to explain the issues to lay people. You don't need to know how to perform bypass surgery yourself to understand the facts of a case involving a botched bypass operation. You don't need to know how to construct a routing table on Linux and design a normalized database to be able to understand an issue involving an IT professional refusing to turn over passwords when he is reassigned. Lay people *can* understand these things, and it is the job of the prosecution & defense (along with the expert witnesses they call) to make the facts clear.
Meh. Which is more "fair" in our legal system, a prosecutor or defender who can get intimate and specific details about a potential juror so as to potentially manipulate the outcome, or to accept a jury pretty much randomly?
A "jury of your peers" should not be a studied, exhaustive screening, but a random sampling.
How do you deal with cases like that network admin in California with a randomly selected group of people?
A randomly selected group of people aren't going to understand the nuances of some of the more specialized professions, like IT, unless you define "peers" very narrowly.
I think that the UAW (and its ilk) people who are ACTUALLY button pushers (or bolt/nut spinners, name your actually low skill job here) that get paid more than $15/hour to do so is what most people take away from any discussion about factory workers.
Anyone here who think a welder or machinist who is good at their job doesn't generally earn their check is DEEPLY mis-informed.
>>I have been looking at PV cells for my house lately. Outlay after the subsidy from our state Government is such that the system would pay for itself in about five years. But if you factor in the opportunity cost of investing the money the payoff period is a lot longer.
Yep, I'm getting solar put in at my house next month. It'll break even after 2-3 years (50c/kWH is PG&E's high tier rates), though as you say you can generally do better with investments.
I may just be too uncool, but I honestly don't do or say anything that would be worth the time of law enforcement.
I'm not saying its ok to just track everything everyone says, that would be a horrible practice, I'm just saying I'm close to the bottom of the list.
What you're not thinking about is what about when your favorite hobby x is deemed "double-plus ungood". This is the beginning of the slippery slope that none of us want to be involved in.
If 20-30 year old cars were just as reliable, wouldn't there be more of them? There is absolutely no way they are as reliable. All you are doing is saying that new cars are no better than old cars because they still break down. My 2002 Taurus has 175K miles on it and only has a handful of problems that are easy to fix. My 1989 Camaro had 125K miles on it and felt like it was about to fall apart from all the problems. I got rid of it because I couldn't fix it enough for it to be acceptably reliable.
Partially parts availability (plastic still breaks and doesn't typically age well, among other things) and partially the general "throw away" societal belief that permeates western culture. There are many, many people driving these older cars happily. My boss being one of them: He owns a mid 70's full size Jeep pickup and an old post-war surplus Willys. He swaps them both out as his daily, depending on the weather and what he has to do.
American cars built from the beginning of the OPEC crisis to about the mid 2000s are bean-counter engineered stuff, which is why your Camaro was what it was. There are a very few that are special in that 30 or so years.
Most of the Japanese stuff from the same time frame were incredibly tiny, lightweight econobox tin cans with low horsepower/high efficiency sewing machines for engines that don't really hold much appeal to the average western buyer. Assuming rust (another materials science issue, specifically for paint) or accidents didn't take them, they would be more common today, if the average buyer had any interest in them.
Alistair Huxley laid out how such a society COULD be brought into existence using (effectively) eugenics and drugs to control the population, but the very idea that was laid out gave me such heebie-jeebies that I couldn't finish "Brave New World". That's not any sort of life I'd want to participate in.
Aldous. Aldous Huxley. And it's a shame you didn't finish the book, since the punchline is that it's not the sort of life anyone would really want.
Primary reason was chapters 1 and 2: I had just had my son less than a year ago when I started reading it (inspired by the image in this post: http://www.cluelessgamer.com/2009/07/15/huxley-vs-orwell/), and the descriptions of what they called "training", along with my overactive imagination...
THE. GOVERNMENT. IS. COLLUDING. WITH. THE. RICH. AGAINST. THE. POOR.
Why do many of you not get this yet? It doesn't matter how much we vocalize, they know what they want to do and they will do it. The only recourse we have is making them know we're not weaklings to be pushed around. We can fight back. Soon this will not happen only online but we will see violent rebellion in "first world" countries if our dear leaders do not get the message.
I'd feel no sadness to hear news of the summary execution of executives of corporations nor high political officials. They have don't nothing but profit on the suffering and labors of others. They are sociopathic leaches.
Karma burning time...
"The business of America is business". - President Calvin Coolidge
I've never been employed by a "poor" person. Exploited, perhaps, but not gainfully employed.
If you can somehow line out how a society where people can be utterly satisfied by their good work to give it away could successfully operate, I (and I'm certain several others) would be glad to listen. Until then, as ugly as it can be, capitalism is where it's at. No one can work for free all the time, nor does anyone WANT to do so. There is crap about EVERY job that anyone doing it will say "this part sucks". There are parts of some jobs that are "This is potentially life ending". Money is the tool that allows those of us who can't do (or don't want to do) something (like set a broken bone, or make french fries) pay those who can do it well without having to beg of them a portion of their life without reward.
Until people get over this idealized view of humans, we won't be able to get on with actually making our current best option (capitalism, imo) work, or be able to move on to another system that works better.
Alistair Huxley laid out how such a society COULD be brought into existence using (effectively) eugenics and drugs to control the population, but the very idea that was laid out gave me such heebie-jeebies that I couldn't finish "Brave New World". That's not any sort of life I'd want to participate in.
Well. Yes. It might. Hell, nuking the whole planet would prevent them too, but no one's suggesting that. Why not?
...
If you think that the idea of turning a certain part of the planet to a nice sheet of glass hasn't been brought up, I have a bridge that you may be interested in...
That's a pretty good representation of what they do, as someone who uses them currently. Basically you create an ARL (akamai resource locator) and use that as your distribution link. Akamai will snatch one copy of the the content for storage, use that ARL to locate the content on their network, and supply the mirrors from it. At least that's my understanding of how it works.
There's some hoops you have to jump through to tell Akamai that the content has changed, if you do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Murphy states that once this happens, the failure rate of these items will approach 100%.
Is this before or after the taxpayer subsidy that many places hand you?
I'm in if it involves attractive robots from the future.
It's called the Logitech G5. I've had mine for something like 4 years. The one time I had a problem, I called logitech and they mailed me a replacement. Best mouse I've ever used. Has just enough to get stuff done. (well NOW it does... I do miss the second shoulder button, which they fixed when they revised it)
http://www.amazon.com/Ring-Stephen-Baxter/dp/0061056944/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/worldwarz/
http://www.starrigger.net/Downloads.htm#Chaos
Just to name a few that I've enjoyed. My tastes may differ blah blah blah.
That's Lake Wobegon, MN.
It's worth noting that you have no constitutional right to a jury "of your peers".
The constitution dictates the following regarding juries: 1) Criminal trials must be conducted by jury; (Article 3, Section 2) 2) The right to a "speedy and public trial," by an impartial jury, in addition to some other requirements of the trial; (6th Amendment) 3) Certain federal civil trials (over amounts > $20) guarantee a jury trial; (7th Amendment)
In the ideal sense, a jury of your "peers" would be a random sampling of other citizens - we are all supposed to be equal under the law, and the practice of bringing in "expert juries" is problematic because it could set up protected classes of people for whom specific laws simply don't apply through tacit agreement not to enforce them. Think this could be a problem if a panel of doctors always sit in judgement of malpractice cases, for example? I sure do.
You can argue for a less-invasive voire-dire process, like they have in the UK, where a much stricter justification is required to dismiss a juror, but arguing for expert juries seems like a dangerous road to go down as well. Expert witnesses should be able to explain the issues to lay people. You don't need to know how to perform bypass surgery yourself to understand the facts of a case involving a botched bypass operation. You don't need to know how to construct a routing table on Linux and design a normalized database to be able to understand an issue involving an IT professional refusing to turn over passwords when he is reassigned. Lay people *can* understand these things, and it is the job of the prosecution & defense (along with the expert witnesses they call) to make the facts clear.
Best answer in the thread. Thank you.
Meh. Which is more "fair" in our legal system, a prosecutor or defender who can get intimate and specific details about a potential juror so as to potentially manipulate the outcome, or to accept a jury pretty much randomly?
A "jury of your peers" should not be a studied, exhaustive screening, but a random sampling.
How do you deal with cases like that network admin in California with a randomly selected group of people?
A randomly selected group of people aren't going to understand the nuances of some of the more specialized professions, like IT, unless you define "peers" very narrowly.
Seriously, an article about someone not trusting Google? You'd think that it was never said here that Google's "Don't be evil" is complete bull!@#$.
"The left" "not into authority". I have a new one for an icebreaker comedy routine.
I don't think that's the point at all.
I think that the UAW (and its ilk) people who are ACTUALLY button pushers (or bolt/nut spinners, name your actually low skill job here) that get paid more than $15/hour to do so is what most people take away from any discussion about factory workers.
Anyone here who think a welder or machinist who is good at their job doesn't generally earn their check is DEEPLY mis-informed.
>>I have been looking at PV cells for my house lately. Outlay after the subsidy from our state Government is such that the system would pay for itself in about five years. But if you factor in the opportunity cost of investing the money the payoff period is a lot longer.
Yep, I'm getting solar put in at my house next month. It'll break even after 2-3 years (50c/kWH is PG&E's high tier rates), though as you say you can generally do better with investments.
You're (not) welcome.
The taxpayers.
I may just be too uncool, but I honestly don't do or say anything that would be worth the time of law enforcement.
I'm not saying its ok to just track everything everyone says, that would be a horrible practice, I'm just saying I'm close to the bottom of the list.
What you're not thinking about is what about when your favorite hobby x is deemed "double-plus ungood". This is the beginning of the slippery slope that none of us want to be involved in.
Thanks for this. It made me smile.
Yeah - I know that. And maybe that's what akamai, itunes and company are doing wrong ... duh.
Maybe it's time to read up on Akamai (and other CDNs) and perhaps learn that "they don't just serve up HTTP content".
If 20-30 year old cars were just as reliable, wouldn't there be more of them? There is absolutely no way they are as reliable. All you are doing is saying that new cars are no better than old cars because they still break down. My 2002 Taurus has 175K miles on it and only has a handful of problems that are easy to fix. My 1989 Camaro had 125K miles on it and felt like it was about to fall apart from all the problems. I got rid of it because I couldn't fix it enough for it to be acceptably reliable.
Partially parts availability (plastic still breaks and doesn't typically age well, among other things) and partially the general "throw away" societal belief that permeates western culture. There are many, many people driving these older cars happily. My boss being one of them: He owns a mid 70's full size Jeep pickup and an old post-war surplus Willys. He swaps them both out as his daily, depending on the weather and what he has to do.
American cars built from the beginning of the OPEC crisis to about the mid 2000s are bean-counter engineered stuff, which is why your Camaro was what it was. There are a very few that are special in that 30 or so years.
Most of the Japanese stuff from the same time frame were incredibly tiny, lightweight econobox tin cans with low horsepower/high efficiency sewing machines for engines that don't really hold much appeal to the average western buyer. Assuming rust (another materials science issue, specifically for paint) or accidents didn't take them, they would be more common today, if the average buyer had any interest in them.
Alistair Huxley laid out how such a society COULD be brought into existence using (effectively) eugenics and drugs to control the population, but the very idea that was laid out gave me such heebie-jeebies that I couldn't finish "Brave New World". That's not any sort of life I'd want to participate in.
Aldous. Aldous Huxley. And it's a shame you didn't finish the book, since the punchline is that it's not the sort of life anyone would really want.
Primary reason was chapters 1 and 2: I had just had my son less than a year ago when I started reading it (inspired by the image in this post: http://www.cluelessgamer.com/2009/07/15/huxley-vs-orwell/), and the descriptions of what they called "training", along with my overactive imagination...
Thank you for the gentle correction.
THE. GOVERNMENT. IS. COLLUDING. WITH. THE. RICH. AGAINST. THE. POOR. Why do many of you not get this yet? It doesn't matter how much we vocalize, they know what they want to do and they will do it. The only recourse we have is making them know we're not weaklings to be pushed around. We can fight back. Soon this will not happen only online but we will see violent rebellion in "first world" countries if our dear leaders do not get the message. I'd feel no sadness to hear news of the summary execution of executives of corporations nor high political officials. They have don't nothing but profit on the suffering and labors of others. They are sociopathic leaches.
Karma burning time...
"The business of America is business". - President Calvin Coolidge
I've never been employed by a "poor" person. Exploited, perhaps, but not gainfully employed.
If you can somehow line out how a society where people can be utterly satisfied by their good work to give it away could successfully operate, I (and I'm certain several others) would be glad to listen. Until then, as ugly as it can be, capitalism is where it's at. No one can work for free all the time, nor does anyone WANT to do so. There is crap about EVERY job that anyone doing it will say "this part sucks". There are parts of some jobs that are "This is potentially life ending". Money is the tool that allows those of us who can't do (or don't want to do) something (like set a broken bone, or make french fries) pay those who can do it well without having to beg of them a portion of their life without reward.
Until people get over this idealized view of humans, we won't be able to get on with actually making our current best option (capitalism, imo) work, or be able to move on to another system that works better.
Alistair Huxley laid out how such a society COULD be brought into existence using (effectively) eugenics and drugs to control the population, but the very idea that was laid out gave me such heebie-jeebies that I couldn't finish "Brave New World". That's not any sort of life I'd want to participate in.
-1 (flamebait) rating for articles.
...
Well. Yes. It might. Hell, nuking the whole planet would prevent them too, but no one's suggesting that. Why not?
If you think that the idea of turning a certain part of the planet to a nice sheet of glass hasn't been brought up, I have a bridge that you may be interested in...
There's some hoops you have to jump through to tell Akamai that the content has changed, if you do so.
I am not an etymologist, but the wikitionary appears to be a good tool for starting that research.
Which is linked from the google definition page.
Most insightful comment in the thread. Thank you sir.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:whinge