>So if Macdonalds sold a drink that if you spilled it on yourself, it was lethal, you wouldn't see anything wrong in that?
Hey, why don't we use the Playskool of all drinks, Kool-Aid as an example. I mean, have you EVER heard of someone allergic to that? It makes an even better example for your side! Kool-aid is meant for ingestion, just like coffee.
That being said, some people have found alternate uses of it for hair colouring -- basically spilling a product meant for ingestion on their hair (And this is for real. Ever wondered how the secretary who has next to no money dyes her hair red, and smells like perfumy strawberries? Now you know). The question is, if it turns out that Kool-aid is safe for ingestion, but causes hair to fall out, and later, death, do I see something wrong with that?
FUCK NO. I challenge you to explain to me WHY I should feel bad about an obvious misuse of the product being dangerous to the user.
Now, the same thing with coffee. If nobody burned their mouth/esophagus with it (and, AFAIK, no such lawsuit was ever entered) then anything else is not a problem with me (Aside from proper use of the product -- perhaps a burned hand would make sense; however, it is exceedingly difficult to drink from your groin, and that would make no sense). What if that cup had been left beside the cat's drink? Sound McDonald's be sued because their product is lethal to small animals?
Again, a strong FUCK NO. Unintended uses/mistreatments of products with macabre consequences are not something you should have a right to compensation for.
Now, since you asked me a question and I answered, here's one for you:
If a chainsaw company sells a product that is lethal, and you hold the chainsaw chain to your chest and start it, you would see something wrong with that, right? I mean, husqvarna should have to put labels on the product "DO NOT START WITH CHAINSAW POINTED AT CHEST", right? Or at least make their chainsaws less lethal, say by using some form of new rubber chain invented by 3m? Even if that does change their product totally and makes it less cost effective for them to produce. No problems with that, right? As long as it saves one man from accidentally pointing the chainsaw at their heart and plunging in, no problems.
It's because of people like you my keyboards come with stickers saying "Studies have shown misuse of this product may cause injury". I'm just waiting for a Fisher Price toy to say that. That'd be fresh. Because, I'm sure of you stuck enough Weebles up your ass, you'd be in for some serious hurt. Let's sue Fisher Price for not making them large enough to prevent anal-insertion. Because, you never do know when a naked dumbass might just sit on one.
We need more natual selection in this world to weed out the true idiots, and also perhaps the bleeding heart liberals.
>http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.h t m
Been there, done that. I don't consider misuse of a product a valid basis for a lawsuit.
If placing an already dangerous item even at the "standard" temperature in front of your genetalia isn't misuse, well, I guess I just don't know what is.
I wouldn't give a crap if she died because of it. Misuse of products can do that to you. How about the crazy people that hook their stereo systems up to their genitals for shits and giggles? Can they sue if it renders them sterile?
"Oh, but this stereo is 300 watts. It's really supposed to be 150 watts, so I didn't expect to fry the hell out of my dick! It's all Harman/Kardon's fault! Blame them! Sue them! My dick hurts!"
So, let's suggest I purchase some acid. This company, they screw up, I purchased 10% acid (enough to burn through my skin in 1 minute) but they packed in 100% acid (enough to burn through my skin in 10 seconds).
I decide to carry this dangerous item using my genitalia. Being a moron, I crush the relatively fragile carrier with my thighs and spill this acid all over myself. Rather than being able to wash this stuff off and avoiding sexual pleasure for a week, I have to be hospitalized.
Do I get to sue also? No, I clearly misused a product that, either way, wasn't labelled to be used in that manner. If it were labelled "Please spread this item on your genetalia", I'd have a pretty good case. But it wasn't.
If she sued because the correct usage of the product harmed her, THAT'S FINE. She could sue for 3rd degree mouth burns. That would be fine with me.
You do NOT get to sue, in my books, for ANY unintended usage of a product that turns out to be dangerous. Otherwise what happens when one of my $29.99 power supplies gets used in a heart monitor? Do I get sued for it failing at the wrong time and KILLING a patient?
Certainly not. That's misuse of the product. And at least in that case, it was doing something related to proper use of the product. In this lady's case, the item in question wasn't even NEAR where it belonged. This woman assumed the coffee would only cause some burning if she crushed the cup, not a lot. If she assumed none, then honestly, she's really dumber than some of the unfortunate bedridden, braindead people waiting for death at various hospitals not visited by Dr. Kevorkian. At least their natural reactions cause them to shy away from hot items.
Jesus, how can you be so stupid to take a risk of even some burning?
"Damn, lost my ring in with the boiling carrots. Well, I think they've only been on for a minute, I'll just reach in there and get it." "Oh, shit, I burned myself because this stove heats up faster than my usual one. I HAD BETTER SUE FRIGIDAIRE FOR MILLIONS RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE I'M KING DUMBSHIT! Or should I phone emergency... so hard to decide."
>The woman who spilt it was hospitalized for 8 days and suffered 3rd degree burns on 6 percent of her body
I'm sorry she's an idiot and drinks beverages (hot, cold, lukewarm, of any type really) with her vagina. However, someone that stupid really needs hospitalization for something; I'm just glad they caught her before she did more serious damage to herself.
>People can always write to the Attorney General and appeal that they are not a child porn site. I would say even if 10% of the sites which are blokced are not child porn, then that is acceptable. What is not acceptable is doing nothing.
I also agree with you.
But I think we need to implement curfews to prevent night crimes like robbery, outlaw smoking to prevent deaths, and ban drinking because too many people drink and drive. What isn't acceptable is doing nothing about those issues.
I also think states must work together to track down people who make liquor, walk about at night, and produce smokes. They should be hanged.
Re:Ooh more vaporware.
on
MRAM in 2004?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
That's ok, the hardware industry pioneered the idea of vapourware. I mean, how many of you have used write only memory yet? Have you even SEEN it yet?
And that was in the 70s... Things haven't gotten better!
>Stealing music is a crime and I'm the illinest mack in the hood.
Stealing music is a crime, but she isn't charged with stealing, now, is she?
She's charged with illicit copying. The two crimes bear as much similarity as jaywalking and running over someone. Sure, the two crimes can coincide, but that's it.
While I basically agree with you, I am a libertarian, and I strongly take offence that libertarians would support a war on drugs. That makes as much sense as Stalin supporting free enterprise.
That aside, I have to disagree on some things. If you expect privacy at work, you can use your own tools. You want privacy on your computer? Buy a laptop. You want privacy on the telephone? Use a cell phone.
Anything you own you have an expectation to privacy on. If you think you own the employer's computer, you can't expect a christmas bonus.
>Just because one is monoglot^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hanglophone it doesn't mean one shouldn't try to write accents when necessary... nee doesn't mean anything, the French word meaning born being nee in the feminine, masculine ne.
When a foreign word is anglicized, it typically loses its accents. See resume (the paper kind), for example. If you don't like how english operates in general, I humbly suggest you don't use it.
FYI: Nee is certainly a valid english word without the accents. Look it up before flaming next time. To REALLY bug you, noel requires no accent, also.
>Isn't that what I was just saying I didn't have? Duh...
No, it isn't.
You said:...my own ISP stopped offering them claiming that it was used so rarely that it wasn't worth keeping an sshd running.
So, silly me, I assumed you have an ISP. Are they blocking OUTGOING port 22 requests? If they are, you should post it to slashdot's frontpage. It'd make a great story.
Otherwise, fork out and buy a shell account elsewhere if you can't get what you want locally. You have the only requirement, an internet connection, it seems.
If you don't have that, I guess you're REALLY SOL. I just question how you're able to get the snail mail to CmdrTaco fast enough to reply to my posts, and why he's being nice enough to print replies out for you.
Dialup shell access is rare and totally unnecessary unless you really have a burning neeed to get that LS ADM3A on the internet...:-)
Just dial in to your local ISP, and ssh to your shell account. Unless you've got some hardware slower than an XT, I can't see the problem with that. There's even PPP stacks and SSH clients for DOS...
It isn't. You can take option #2 and wait for someone else to do it. There's always two ways to solve a problem. You can spend money, or you can spend time.
>I'm not interested in "starting my own", I just want quality broadband when I need it. I'd sooner subscribe to a T1 business line than start my own ISP.
Then you'll need to wait for someone to fill that void. That's how business/life works as a buyer. Unless you want government to step in and provide broadband. At that point business service will look REALLY cheap...
>Riiiight... Only requires capital, technical skills, employees, leased lines (where you pay the bills whether you have customers this month or not) and a high level of self-loathing and masochistic tendencies.
Well, if you're needing it for technical services, then sure, you should have the technical skills. But you don't need anything else. Just deal with it wholesale, and re-sell it "as is". Sell it cheap, offer no support, and let that be known.
You'd be surprised at how many people will buy internet like that. I pretty much did. I didn't need to pay the extra that a somewhat more reliable, well supported service provider wants. I got what I needed.
>I'm going to go build my own automobile because I'm tired of paying advertising fees to automobile companies who are trying to out-do each other in how much they can spend during the super-bowl to make the nation aware that "Ford" is better than "Chevy" and that "Saturn", as a company, does indeed exist.
If you dislike the situation enough, go ahead. Trust me, there isn't much sympathy from others for a geek without ports.
Experience of running a site that has gigabytes of traffic daily?
>My web host charges about $9 per month, and I get 150 hits per month. That works out to roughly 6 cents per hit.
That's great, but...
I actually pay $10 CDN per 10 GB. I host my own stuff (like slashdot). So, a hit costs me $0.005 CDN. I expect slashdot, using more bandwidth than myself, gets a better rate.
It is unfortunate that your weservice is so expensive.
To cost slashdot $21,000, you would need to download over 21 TB of data from them. That means, if each hit costs 50 kb, you need to hit slashdot at least (and that's assuming they pay my rate, which is wrong to assume) 4,200,000 times a year. That's 11,507 times a day. Trust me, they'd ban your subnet before you got as far as 300 times a day.
>I only assume that Slashdot uses an equally economic web service.
Actually, the second amendment specifically requires the people bearing such arms to be a well trained militia.
That's a lot different from joe sixpack on the street having his finger on the button.
Perhaps what the government needs to do is competency checks on militias. See if they're trained, and if they're still a militia -- if they aren't revoke their privledge.
>How do you expect to get into university if your highschool never prepares you?
??? Part of preparing you for life is to prepare you for university *IF* you choose that path. High School needs to have two streams (in fact, in my province, there are THREE) -- one for those planning to graduate high school and find work (the VAST majority) and one for those who aren't.
>Sure you can go to community college and work your way in, but highschools should focus on getting people in.
WHY? Why should they when the majority of the people paying for High School have no interest in such pursuits?
Should they also force knowledge of programming on students? Why not? I mean, only a small percentage are interested, so lets force it on them!
>University Education is a much needed filter, if you havent noticed, we are LOSING not GAINING jobs, if we dont increase the filters, we will suffer a depression, cant you see that when theres less jobs to choose from that you must be more qualified to get the same job which you once could get with little to no qualification?
LOL! The vast majority (again) of highly university educated people are no good for *real* jobs. University is to prepare you for a life of learning. That often means working one's learning into a box so tight there is no *real* job available.
The most knowledgeable people I know haven't been to university. And because of that, I (an employer) do not hire based on university status. I hire based on competence, which is mix of far more skills than university could ever hope to teach students. I hire based on ability to work with others (like university EVER tests that), based on ability to complete tasks, and based on knowledgeability of the job. There's a few other criteria, such as attitude and appearance, and none of these are hardly EVER instilled into one by university. Not even knowledgeability for the job, as, like I've mentioned, university is *NOT* about expanding one's ability to work, it's about preparing oneself to learn everything about a small subject. It always has been.
Case in point: I know math PhDs who can't do their own taxes.
>There has to be levels so people can work their way into the middle class, for you to think that everyone can be middle class is insane.
I never said that.
The fact is, though, that few jobs require university. Why would we force people to do something that isn't necessary?
People like you would have potential applicants for a secretary's job walk over hot coals just to test their ability to work under pressure. Why? Where is the correlation?
I see none.
There is rarely correlation between university education and ability to do a job. There can be if the university educated person finds one of the very few jobs his education has prepared him for, but that doesn't happen very often.
Society was doing just fine before everyone and their brother thought university education was a must. University needs to become the educational institution it once was, and needs to quit being a vocational institude.
Otherwise, did we expect Albert Eienstein to study beside the man mopping your floors?
>If we used computers to do all the grading there is no way George W Bush would have made it through highschool and I'm damn sure he wouldnt have got a degree from Yale.
Maybe you're right, but, AFAIK, passing High School isn't a requirement to become president. Then again, I'm not from the US, I'm from Canada. Perhaps you have higher standards?;-)
>the job of highschool should be to get a student into the best college/university possible
NO!
That's the problem right there.
Highschool should be to prepare you for the real world (ie: A job, life, maybe marriage).
University is there to prepare you for a lifetime of learning on a subject.
Instead, we have employers that require university educations for secretaries. It's insane, wrong, and needs to stop if we expect everyone in society to be useful (and they ARE, it's just that stupid employers use university education as a filter).
>Actually, the larger dishes for DSS produce a weaker signal because they use an almost identical surface area to bounce signals from three satellites instead of one. (Note that the small dishes with two satellites are probably worse than the large dishes with three, but I don't see many of those around.)
No, I'm not talking about the ParaTodos dishes, or the Dish 500 systems. I really mean a 30" single LNBF dish (in my case, made by Winegard -- buy one from my store!;-)
>In most parts of the U.S., you should get at least a 70% signal with a triple dish, 80% with a single (or thereabouts). Anything over a 30% signal or so should not result in dropouts, so there's a -large- margin, nearby tree limbs notwithstanding.
The question is, what is that in dB? Percentages are nice, but, being in percentages, that scale is probably linear, and horribly inaccurate to boot (it'll mix viterbi, error rate, and signal level into one). The difference between 30% and 70% looks like 50% but, depending on how they spread out the scale (there's no such thing as 100% signal, unless the IRD overloads at that point, which I would doubt), could be as little as 4% or 5% on a log scale.
I've peaked many dishes, and while an 18" dish, when peaked well, takes a downpour to kill the signal, it will still go during strong storms. A 30" dish really helps during the heavy snow we get at times in Canada.:-) Then again, the amount of signal you'll get depends on your location in regards to the satellite. Probably the best location in the northern hemisphere is the north of Texas for most satellites.
>The point is that if you want a solid signal, buy a dish (small, large, 30 foot uplink/downlink, whatever) and install it yourself so that you know it was done right. Mount it solidly into studs (or for a larger dish, concrete) using as many screws or bolts as possible, and you'll be much happier.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
>So if Macdonalds sold a drink that if you spilled it on yourself, it was lethal, you wouldn't see anything wrong in that?
Hey, why don't we use the Playskool of all drinks, Kool-Aid as an example. I mean, have you EVER heard of someone allergic to that? It makes an even better example for your side! Kool-aid is meant for ingestion, just like coffee.
That being said, some people have found alternate uses of it for hair colouring -- basically spilling a product meant for ingestion on their hair (And this is for real. Ever wondered how the secretary who has next to no money dyes her hair red, and smells like perfumy strawberries? Now you know). The question is, if it turns out that Kool-aid is safe for ingestion, but causes hair to fall out, and later, death, do I see something wrong with that?
FUCK NO. I challenge you to explain to me WHY I should feel bad about an obvious misuse of the product being dangerous to the user.
Now, the same thing with coffee. If nobody burned their mouth/esophagus with it (and, AFAIK, no such lawsuit was ever entered) then anything else is not a problem with me (Aside from proper use of the product -- perhaps a burned hand would make sense; however, it is exceedingly difficult to drink from your groin, and that would make no sense). What if that cup had been left beside the cat's drink? Sound McDonald's be sued because their product is lethal to small animals?
Again, a strong FUCK NO. Unintended uses/mistreatments of products with macabre consequences are not something you should have a right to compensation for.
Now, since you asked me a question and I answered, here's one for you:
If a chainsaw company sells a product that is lethal, and you hold the chainsaw chain to your chest and start it, you would see something wrong with that, right? I mean, husqvarna should have to put labels on the product "DO NOT START WITH CHAINSAW POINTED AT CHEST", right? Or at least make their chainsaws less lethal, say by using some form of new rubber chain invented by 3m? Even if that does change their product totally and makes it less cost effective for them to produce. No problems with that, right? As long as it saves one man from accidentally pointing the chainsaw at their heart and plunging in, no problems.
It's because of people like you my keyboards come with stickers saying "Studies have shown misuse of this product may cause injury". I'm just waiting for a Fisher Price toy to say that. That'd be fresh. Because, I'm sure of you stuck enough Weebles up your ass, you'd be in for some serious hurt. Let's sue Fisher Price for not making them large enough to prevent anal-insertion. Because, you never do know when a naked dumbass might just sit on one.
We need more natual selection in this world to weed out the true idiots, and also perhaps the bleeding heart liberals.
>http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.h t m
Been there, done that. I don't consider misuse of a product a valid basis for a lawsuit.
If placing an already dangerous item even at the "standard" temperature in front of your genetalia isn't misuse, well, I guess I just don't know what is.
I wouldn't give a crap if she died because of it. Misuse of products can do that to you. How about the crazy people that hook their stereo systems up to their genitals for shits and giggles? Can they sue if it renders them sterile?
"Oh, but this stereo is 300 watts. It's really supposed to be 150 watts, so I didn't expect to fry the hell out of my dick! It's all Harman/Kardon's fault! Blame them! Sue them! My dick hurts!"
So, let's suggest I purchase some acid. This company, they screw up, I purchased 10% acid (enough to burn through my skin in 1 minute) but they packed in 100% acid (enough to burn through my skin in 10 seconds).
I decide to carry this dangerous item using my genitalia. Being a moron, I crush the relatively fragile carrier with my thighs and spill this acid all over myself. Rather than being able to wash this stuff off and avoiding sexual pleasure for a week, I have to be hospitalized.
Do I get to sue also? No, I clearly misused a product that, either way, wasn't labelled to be used in that manner. If it were labelled "Please spread this item on your genetalia", I'd have a pretty good case. But it wasn't.
If she sued because the correct usage of the product harmed her, THAT'S FINE. She could sue for 3rd degree mouth burns. That would be fine with me.
You do NOT get to sue, in my books, for ANY unintended usage of a product that turns out to be dangerous. Otherwise what happens when one of my $29.99 power supplies gets used in a heart monitor? Do I get sued for it failing at the wrong time and KILLING a patient?
Certainly not. That's misuse of the product. And at least in that case, it was doing something related to proper use of the product. In this lady's case, the item in question wasn't even NEAR where it belonged. This woman assumed the coffee would only cause some burning if she crushed the cup, not a lot. If she assumed none, then honestly, she's really dumber than some of the unfortunate bedridden, braindead people waiting for death at various hospitals not visited by Dr. Kevorkian. At least their natural reactions cause them to shy away from hot items.
Jesus, how can you be so stupid to take a risk of even some burning?
"Damn, lost my ring in with the boiling carrots. Well, I think they've only been on for a minute, I'll just reach in there and get it." "Oh, shit, I burned myself because this stove heats up faster than my usual one. I HAD BETTER SUE FRIGIDAIRE FOR MILLIONS RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE I'M KING DUMBSHIT! Or should I phone emergency... so hard to decide."
>The woman who spilt it was hospitalized for 8 days and suffered 3rd degree burns on 6 percent of her body
I'm sorry she's an idiot and drinks beverages (hot, cold, lukewarm, of any type really) with her vagina. However, someone that stupid really needs hospitalization for something; I'm just glad they caught her before she did more serious damage to herself.
This really puts the icing on the cake, doesn't it?
>Child Porn is a special case. It's so abhorent to mainstream society that special prohibitions are deemed appropriate.
So, people would rather be murdered than deal with child porn?
Seems to me society has a more serious problem to deal with than people wanting to look at naked children.
Have you tried hardcover yet?
>People can always write to the Attorney General and appeal that they are not a child porn site. I would say even if 10% of the sites which are blokced are not child porn, then that is acceptable. What is not acceptable is doing nothing.
I also agree with you.
But I think we need to implement curfews to prevent night crimes like robbery, outlaw smoking to prevent deaths, and ban drinking because too many people drink and drive. What isn't acceptable is doing nothing about those issues.
I also think states must work together to track down people who make liquor, walk about at night, and produce smokes. They should be hanged.
That's ok, the hardware industry pioneered the idea of vapourware. I mean, how many of you have used write only memory yet? Have you even SEEN it yet?
And that was in the 70s... Things haven't gotten better!
>Stealing music is a crime and I'm the illinest mack in the hood.
Stealing music is a crime, but she isn't charged with stealing, now, is she?
She's charged with illicit copying. The two crimes bear as much similarity as jaywalking and running over someone. Sure, the two crimes can coincide, but that's it.
It'll be a john doe lawsuit. The RIAA tells the court "This IP address committed these copyright violations. We need to sue whoever owns it."
After that the gears are in motion, and it's not until the person is found and served do the RIAA find out who it really is...
While I basically agree with you, I am a libertarian, and I strongly take offence that libertarians would support a war on drugs. That makes as much sense as Stalin supporting free enterprise.
That aside, I have to disagree on some things. If you expect privacy at work, you can use your own tools. You want privacy on your computer? Buy a laptop. You want privacy on the telephone? Use a cell phone.
Anything you own you have an expectation to privacy on. If you think you own the employer's computer, you can't expect a christmas bonus.
>Just because one is monoglot^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hanglophone it doesn't mean one shouldn't try to write accents when necessary... nee doesn't mean anything, the French word meaning born being nee in the feminine, masculine ne.
When a foreign word is anglicized, it typically loses its accents. See resume (the paper kind), for example. If you don't like how english operates in general, I humbly suggest you don't use it.
FYI: Nee is certainly a valid english word without the accents. Look it up before flaming next time. To REALLY bug you, noel requires no accent, also.
>Isn't that what I was just saying I didn't have? Duh...
...my own ISP stopped offering them claiming that it was used so rarely that it wasn't worth keeping an sshd running.
No, it isn't.
You said:
So, silly me, I assumed you have an ISP. Are they blocking OUTGOING port 22 requests? If they are, you should post it to slashdot's frontpage. It'd make a great story.
Otherwise, fork out and buy a shell account elsewhere if you can't get what you want locally. You have the only requirement, an internet connection, it seems.
If you don't have that, I guess you're REALLY SOL. I just question how you're able to get the snail mail to CmdrTaco fast enough to reply to my posts, and why he's being nice enough to print replies out for you.
Dialup shell access is rare and totally unnecessary unless you really have a burning neeed to get that LS ADM3A on the internet... :-)
Just dial in to your local ISP, and ssh to your shell account. Unless you've got some hardware slower than an XT, I can't see the problem with that. There's even PPP stacks and SSH clients for DOS...
>Why is that my only option?
It isn't. You can take option #2 and wait for someone else to do it. There's always two ways to solve a problem. You can spend money, or you can spend time.
>I'm not interested in "starting my own", I just want quality broadband when I need it. I'd sooner subscribe to a T1 business line than start my own ISP.
Then you'll need to wait for someone to fill that void. That's how business/life works as a buyer. Unless you want government to step in and provide broadband. At that point business service will look REALLY cheap...
>Riiiight... Only requires capital, technical skills, employees, leased lines (where you pay the bills whether you have customers this month or not) and a high level of self-loathing and masochistic tendencies.
Well, if you're needing it for technical services, then sure, you should have the technical skills. But you don't need anything else. Just deal with it wholesale, and re-sell it "as is". Sell it cheap, offer no support, and let that be known.
You'd be surprised at how many people will buy internet like that. I pretty much did. I didn't need to pay the extra that a somewhat more reliable, well supported service provider wants. I got what I needed.
>I'm going to go build my own automobile because I'm tired of paying advertising fees to automobile companies who are trying to out-do each other in how much they can spend during the super-bowl to make the nation aware that "Ford" is better than "Chevy" and that "Saturn", as a company, does indeed exist.
If you dislike the situation enough, go ahead. Trust me, there isn't much sympathy from others for a geek without ports.
I see all this bitching that there would never be an isp that would have ports open for users.
That's not right. There would be if you started your own.
Trust me, nowadays, that isn't so hard.
Why not buy one?
>Once again, I speak from experience.
Experience of running a site that has gigabytes of traffic daily?
>My web host charges about $9 per month, and I get 150 hits per month. That works out to roughly 6 cents per hit.
That's great, but...
I actually pay $10 CDN per 10 GB. I host my own stuff (like slashdot). So, a hit costs me $0.005 CDN. I expect slashdot, using more bandwidth than myself, gets a better rate.
It is unfortunate that your weservice is so expensive.
To cost slashdot $21,000, you would need to download over 21 TB of data from them. That means, if each hit costs 50 kb, you need to hit slashdot at least (and that's assuming they pay my rate, which is wrong to assume) 4,200,000 times a year. That's 11,507 times a day. Trust me, they'd ban your subnet before you got as far as 300 times a day.
>I only assume that Slashdot uses an equally economic web service.
I certainly hope not!
>Every page view costs Slashdot six cents.
Please explain how you ever came up with that figure.
Me thinks you need to shift the decimal point two places left.
Actually, the second amendment specifically requires the people bearing such arms to be a well trained militia.
That's a lot different from joe sixpack on the street having his finger on the button.
Perhaps what the government needs to do is competency checks on militias. See if they're trained, and if they're still a militia -- if they aren't revoke their privledge.
>How do you expect to get into university if your highschool never prepares you?
??? Part of preparing you for life is to prepare you for university *IF* you choose that path. High School needs to have two streams (in fact, in my province, there are THREE) -- one for those planning to graduate high school and find work (the VAST majority) and one for those who aren't.
>Sure you can go to community college and work your way in, but highschools should focus on getting people in.
WHY? Why should they when the majority of the people paying for High School have no interest in such pursuits?
Should they also force knowledge of programming on students? Why not? I mean, only a small percentage are interested, so lets force it on them!
>University Education is a much needed filter, if you havent noticed, we are LOSING not GAINING jobs, if we dont increase the filters, we will suffer a depression, cant you see that when theres less jobs to choose from that you must be more qualified to get the same job which you once could get with little to no qualification?
LOL! The vast majority (again) of highly university educated people are no good for *real* jobs. University is to prepare you for a life of learning. That often means working one's learning into a box so tight there is no *real* job available.
The most knowledgeable people I know haven't been to university. And because of that, I (an employer) do not hire based on university status. I hire based on competence, which is mix of far more skills than university could ever hope to teach students. I hire based on ability to work with others (like university EVER tests that), based on ability to complete tasks, and based on knowledgeability of the job. There's a few other criteria, such as attitude and appearance, and none of these are hardly EVER instilled into one by university. Not even knowledgeability for the job, as, like I've mentioned, university is *NOT* about expanding one's ability to work, it's about preparing oneself to learn everything about a small subject. It always has been.
Case in point: I know math PhDs who can't do their own taxes.
>There has to be levels so people can work their way into the middle class, for you to think that everyone can be middle class is insane.
I never said that.
The fact is, though, that few jobs require university. Why would we force people to do something that isn't necessary?
People like you would have potential applicants for a secretary's job walk over hot coals just to test their ability to work under pressure. Why? Where is the correlation?
I see none.
There is rarely correlation between university education and ability to do a job. There can be if the university educated person finds one of the very few jobs his education has prepared him for, but that doesn't happen very often.
Society was doing just fine before everyone and their brother thought university education was a must. University needs to become the educational institution it once was, and needs to quit being a vocational institude.
Otherwise, did we expect Albert Eienstein to study beside the man mopping your floors?
What you ask for is ludicrous to the extreme.
>If we used computers to do all the grading there is no way George W Bush would have made it through highschool and I'm damn sure he wouldnt have got a degree from Yale.
;-)
Maybe you're right, but, AFAIK, passing High School isn't a requirement to become president. Then again, I'm not from the US, I'm from Canada. Perhaps you have higher standards?
>the job of highschool should be to get a student into the best college/university possible
NO!
That's the problem right there.
Highschool should be to prepare you for the real world (ie: A job, life, maybe marriage).
University is there to prepare you for a lifetime of learning on a subject.
Instead, we have employers that require university educations for secretaries. It's insane, wrong, and needs to stop if we expect everyone in society to be useful (and they ARE, it's just that stupid employers use university education as a filter).
Okay, so if I leave my house unlocked, and you just walk in, sit on the sofa, and wait for me to arrive, that's ok too, right?
Wrong. In some parts of the US that could even get you shot to death, legally too.
>Actually, the larger dishes for DSS produce a weaker signal because they use an almost identical surface area to bounce signals from three satellites instead of one. (Note that the small dishes with two satellites are probably worse than the large dishes with three, but I don't see many of those around.)
;-)
:-) Then again, the amount of signal you'll get depends on your location in regards to the satellite. Probably the best location in the northern hemisphere is the north of Texas for most satellites.
:-)
No, I'm not talking about the ParaTodos dishes, or the Dish 500 systems. I really mean a 30" single LNBF dish (in my case, made by Winegard -- buy one from my store!
>In most parts of the U.S., you should get at least a 70% signal with a triple dish, 80% with a single (or thereabouts). Anything over a 30% signal or so should not result in dropouts, so there's a -large- margin, nearby tree limbs notwithstanding.
The question is, what is that in dB? Percentages are nice, but, being in percentages, that scale is probably linear, and horribly inaccurate to boot (it'll mix viterbi, error rate, and signal level into one). The difference between 30% and 70% looks like 50% but, depending on how they spread out the scale (there's no such thing as 100% signal, unless the IRD overloads at that point, which I would doubt), could be as little as 4% or 5% on a log scale.
I've peaked many dishes, and while an 18" dish, when peaked well, takes a downpour to kill the signal, it will still go during strong storms. A 30" dish really helps during the heavy snow we get at times in Canada.
>The point is that if you want a solid signal, buy a dish (small, large, 30 foot uplink/downlink, whatever) and install it yourself so that you know it was done right. Mount it solidly into studs (or for a larger dish, concrete) using as many screws or bolts as possible, and you'll be much happier.
Very true, very true.