Can you see on the ground directly behind your rear wheel? I thought not. A small child lying down to reach something, or fallen down, is way way below any site line from the drivers seat, no matter if you swivel your head 360 degrees and use all three mirrors.
That's what circle checks are for. And I'm sorry, if you have a child who watches, giggling, until the driver gets in and starts backing up to dive under the wheels...well, that's what natural selection is for.
That being said, I'm certainly not opposed to backup cameras, just as I'm not opposed to ABS or remote starters. I just don't think they're quite as crucial as some would make them out to be, and they are susceptible to various problems (dirty lens, camera problems, cable problems, screen problems, etc.) which lessens their usefulness factor, especially for drivers who've come to depend on them. I'd much rather teach my kid first how to safely back up without relying on the backup camera, then maybe use it as a supplemental tool one I'm sure they're comfortable without it.
Now, however, even putting a + sign in front of a search term doesn't seem to guarantee that that search term will be in all of the returned results. In fact, adding the + sign often doesn't change the base results at all...perhaps the forced term is hidden in the page metadata somewhere, but I don't care about metadata, I only want it if it's on a visible section of an actual webpage or document, and explicitly matches the exact term as I typed it (i.e., '+bubble' should not return pages about some person talking about Bubbles their golden retriever, or bubbly champagne parties...)
Google updated their search terms slightly recently; you need to put a word in quotes to explicitly match. So "bubble" should do what +bubble used to do.
Hey, thanks for the tip! I've only used quotes with multiple words, I'll try it with individual terms I want to match explicitly, see how it works for me!:)
The only thing that will stop this is the rise of meaningful (read: cheap and easy to use) online services that make piracy more trouble than it's worth. A lot of people think that iTunes did this for music, though I would argue that Pandora has done more to negate music piracy than iTunes. I don't think you can directly translate Pandora into movies though.
Sure you can. It's called Netflix.
Sure, Netflix is subscription-based rather than 'free', but it still provides tons of watchable content for a very reasonable monthly fee across several platforms. (If you strongly prefer 'free', then try Hulu if you're in the states, or can spoof being there.)
True, you can't save the movies you like to disk and keep them for 50 years, and you have no control over the content they offer from week to week. But I don't know (I'm not in the states), can you d/l and save songs from Pandora? Do they reply fairly quickly to content requests?
The main reason there is an impression that it's "fading"- it's because it's difficult to find information because people have forgotten (or never knew...) how to ask the right questions for answers- and you have to frame queries with a bit of care to drive the two top search engines to their fullest.
True, however it seems that Google has gotten more lax lately in their quest to bring more relevant search results by double guessing what you 'meant' to search for.
It used to be that any word or phrase without a + sign in front was optional, so search results would bring up pages that may have only two of the three search terms in them (preferably all three, but if no indexed site had all three terms on it, you'd get sites with some of the terms on them at least). If I wanted to force Google to return only pages with all three search terms in them, I'd have to put a + sign in front of each term. Fair enough.
Now, however, even putting a + sign in front of a search term doesn't seem to guarantee that that search term will be in all of the returned results. In fact, adding the + sign often doesn't change the base results at all...perhaps the forced term is hidden in the page metadata somewhere, but I don't care about metadata, I only want it if it's on a visible section of an actual webpage or document, and explicitly matches the exact term as I typed it (i.e., '+bubble' should not return pages about some person talking about Bubbles their golden retriever, or bubbly champagne parties...)
Has anyone else noticed this sort of trend with Google results recently? I'm talking 'recently' as in over the last couple of years or so...
My ideal search engine would be a meta-search to access a specific set of domains.
For instance, I would love to be able to search only the shopping sites I choose, only the journal databases I choose, only the encyclopedias I choose, and only the social networks I choose, only the news websites I choose, etc, all from one search box. That gives you the freedom of using individual websites, with the convienence of a search engine.
DuckDuckGo is on the right track, but I would love even more customization.
FYI, Rollyo (short for 'ROLL Your Own' search engine) does just that. It's still a bit rigid, in that you have to set up a different virtual search engine for each group you want to search together, but it does work and the virtual engines are editable if you want to add or remove a site at a later date. I agree, it would be nice to have your own set of boxes you can tick or untick to get results from only those sites that you're interested in today...but it's still better than searching each site individually!
Unfortunately, it looks like rollyo's down for maintenance right now, here's the Wikipedia link to it, if you're interested.
I have found it useful in the past for that exact reason: quickly searching across several local stores' websites for a particular item, to see who carries it. Unfortunately it lists* results based on site first, so you'll get all the Home Depot results, then all the Lowes results, etc.
*listed, rather. I haven't used it in a while so I don't know for sure, they might do it differently now...
You're right, your personal address, how often you send/receive letters, whether it's private or commercial or parcel, and where/when you move to a new residence, they don't have access to anything important like that, really.
You're either being deliberately obtuse here or missing the point completely.
The information you detailed is what the post office has to keep about it's clients in order to provide service (okay, other than the frequency of letters). What they do not have access to is the contents of such communications or packages. If you write to your aunt and tell her you and your husband are looking at dogs, you don't suddenly get a deluge of flyers for local breeders/veterinarians/pet supply stores.
If FB were only to keep and use the information that it needs to provide the service, then there would be no problem. Trouble is, they have access to and mine/sell for their own profit pretty much every iota of information you send to them, and they have agreements in place with other online sources to scrape even more salable info about you. Imagine if you watched a few documentaries about penguins, and suddenly all your junk mail was for stuffed penguins, trips to the Antarctic and Happy Feet revivals? How creeped out would you feel about that?
Of course, as many have pointed out, with services such as FB and Google, you are not the consumer, you are the product. That is the trade off for the 'free' services that they offer. The post office requires a tribute every time you send anything, that's how they stay in business. FB depends on their users not realizing (or not caring about) exactly how much information they retain, sell, trade and barter in your name. It's data prostitution, and I for one have more respect for my privacy than to hand over the intimate details of my life to some profiteering corporation, simply to see photos of my neighbors' cat in a santa hat.
Soo...anyone know why these limits aren't working out? Maybe because there doesn't seem to be an overall cap to contributions, just spending caps on campaigns (I guess anything else is gravy)? Maybe the spending caps are just way too damn high ($84 million per candidate in 2008? seriously?) or not monitored closely enough? IDK.
Unfortunately, corporations have a disproportionate ability to be able to provide campaign funds versus regular citizens.
Corruption in general is making decisions for personal gain instead of the reason you were employed. When corporations provide funds to polititcians (in return for policy decisions), they can use this to run bigger/lavish campaings, hopefully pull move votes and keep themselves a cushy high paying job, meanwhile ignoring the majority of their electorate.
Interesting. How about this: propose spending caps on individual campaigns?
Say, anyone who wants to run for political office can spend no more than $X million on all advertising, staffing, transportation, personal salary, signage, etc. It's completely up to the politician how to divide the pie, but force the pie to be the same size for everybody (provided they can get enough contributions to make that cap). X should probably be a different amount for a presidential campaign vs. a senatorial campaign, etc., but the point is it would be the same X for anyone else running for that office regardless of party affiliations or lack thereof.
And how about restricting total annual campaign contributions to that proposed dollar amount? So if lobbyist X wants to 'contribute' to a friendly senator or presidential candidate's campaign, well they can as long as there's room in the contribution cap...if not, sorry, try next year.
I'm trying to think of what the negative aspects of such a policy would be...as far as I can see, it would mean politicians would be forced to compete based on their policies, not on the amount of airtime they can buy or mud they can sling. Another benefit *might* be the reduction of hate mongering campaigns and annoying pre-election FUD, who knows? Thoughts?
Maybe John and Jane Doe can't contribute to their preferred candidate because the cap has been reached already, but they can always try next year, or contribute that money to a charity instead...maybe even make the charitable contribution in the name of the candidate they wanted to support, so people know that they approve of this guy/gal even if they couldn't contribute directly to his/her campaign. Or they could volunteer to personally assist with the campaign without any form of financial compensation (no volunteers salary, no accommodations paid, etc.) using only campaign-provided materials. Like taking home and stuffing envelopes, or volunteering to pass out campaign materials, that sort of thing.
It might also be beneficial to have some sort of public-access database detailing contribution amounts from all sources for all candidates, so people could go online and see exactly who's bought and paid for the candidate they're considering voting for...
Just some idle meanderings from an outside POV, take as you like. I'm sure there would be no pushback at all from the current administration for implementing these measures... </sarcasm>
I used to use my real name on my gmail account, but they yanked the account without telling me why. BTW, mcgrew is my real name. Been using it for six decades now, why should I change? Cowardly kids! Sheesh...
Hey! How did you know what the extra 'c' stands for!?! You bin following me around, or sumpt'in?:p
Props for keeping it real though, sir (or madam). I'm thinking the online environment has changed somewhat in the last couple of those decades, no? It sure feels like it has to me...when I first went online, I was much less squeamish about mixing online with IRL data. Now, however...nope. Too much unfocused anger and chaos abounding, and all it takes is one asswipe script kiddy with a grudge to make ones life overly complicated. Ah well, to each their own.
Wow, there is a provider out there who understands this? And is willing to work with the hard of hearing to get a device and plan that does what they need, without gouging them for useless voice services? (okay, looks like there's a little gouging, but only to the tune of $10 for 'premium data') That's amazing.
Thanks, I'll let her know about it, in case she ever decides to move to America. AFAIK there is no such equivalent plan in Canada (although it was a few years ago that we were hunting for one, I'll admit, so there could be something out there by now)
If Google does force me to participate in Google+ using my real info, I'll migrate all my mail and data out and change my name Gaygle R. McFaggots, with a picture of Larry and Sergay as my profile pic.
lol, you used your real name for your google/gmail account? silly rabbit.:)
No, I hear you. Even though nothing attached to my gmail or google account(s) actually bears my name or any true demographic data about me at all (I'm not a very trusting person), I'll be watching for something less invasive to hop onto in case this is retroactively enacted. Hotmail chased me away with similar shenanigans years ago, it's a shame that google's trying the same tricks on for size...
How much of a voice plan does one have to buy to qualify for a $30 for 5 GB data plan?
Bingo.
It really bugs me that you can't buy a data plan without some lame voice plan tacked on. Who uses their phone for voice calling anymore? So if that $20 data plan is only available with their $50 voice plan...bend over, suckers. "oh, but you get a thousand minutes of anytime calling!" So what, if I don't use it for calling?
Case in point: one of my friends is deaf. What use is the voice plan for her? Yet a smartphone is invaluable for her to keep in touch with her family and friends...and they made her get a voice plan with her Blackberry, even though she only uses it (can only use it) for texting and data. WTF?
Now the oinking and squealing objection, Snopes might have a point. But I've never put a piglet in a bag. Perhaps the darkness makes them more quiet. Or perhaps it depends on the breed.
Obviously you've never put a cat in a bag either...kinda hard to explain the yowling, thrashing bag with twenty little needles of doom constantly puncturing it seeking blood and vengeance...
"see, it's a really active piglet, good and strong! you pay more for such a loud piglet, yes? Oh, they always hiss like that when they're excited...just like bacon!"
What about the 30 years of science that has been conducted in peer reviewed literature. This is not just that debate? Please explain.
I got'cha beat. There was over 50 years of peer-reviewed, scientific debate and research regarding the validity of the theory of eugenics. Despite that, the Cold Springs Harbour laboratory continued to try to prop up the theory right up until the 60's, when it was no longer deemed 'popular' enough to merit support.
Why are scientists not capable of determining what constitutes a scientific debate? According to them, this is what they've been doing, You disagree. So please explain to me and them why they are wrong and you are right. Why we should listen to you and not to the established process of science.
The current round of screaming and name-calling is considered debate? I'm sorry, emotions generally do not belong in scientific discussions, only religious ones.
The 'established process of science' is as subject to political and social pressures as is any area of life, no matter how much we would like to think otherwise. It can be a tool for discovering objective truths about the universe, but only if the tools used (i.e., the scientists) are able to be objective, or lacking that, have clear, repeatable and unassailable data to work with. Too many temperature datasets are generated by inferred parameters for me to be comfortable asserting the latter, and there is too much funding to be had by researchers who toe the AGW line to be sure of the former.
I know, there aren't any pure long-term datasets to work from (with temperature alone, it is quite difficult to find any 'pure' datasets at all, since most if not all long term datasets have been subject to calibration corrections, adjustments for location changes, environmental adjustments, instrument malfunction adjustments or data loss, etc.), but an awful lot of speculation is riding on the correct interpretation of those secondary and tertiary measurements.
Because the non-scientists demands that science conform to THEIR strictures and not those that make sense to scientists smacks of exactly Hitler's assault on his own scientists.
Actually, there's surprisingly little proof that Hitler pressured his own scientists. Eugenics was an established theory, with decades of research supporting it. Plus they knew where their funding was coming from.
Consider this: which proposal would be more likely to receive funding today? "An examination of the mating habits and migratory patterns of Clangula hyemalis" "An examination of the impact of global warming on the mating habits and migratory patterns of Clangula hyemalis"
After all, who cares when a duck fucks, except a duck? Ahhh, but if humans are negatively impacting the long-tailed duck's love live by warming up the planet, then that's something that should be investigated with all possible speed!
In fact, the AG of Virginia, Ken Cucinelli, is right now using the power of the state to harass and pursue Michael Mann:
Good. I'm sorry, but if you do research on the public dollar, you should be prepared to turn over all of your research for review by the public. Especially if your conclusions promote a political and/or socio-economic agenda. What's wrong with that? Why is it 'persecution' to want to be able to see the data and reasoning used to draw the conclusions that Mann has drawn? Isn't that, in fact, a key step in the scientific method, proving that your conclusions are repeatable by anyone else using the same process and inputs?
As to Eugenics its a red herring argument. The fact
The Nazis objected to their prosecution also. They said it was ex post facto lawmaking to try them for killing the Jews and homosexuals and Gypsies. They argued that they really believed their philosophical load of crap, and they were entitled to make their nation's laws.
And you know what? There was some truth to that argument. Until we decided there wasn't that is and went ahead and charged them for things which had not been crimes before- Crimes Against Humanity- which was just a free floating idea and no law anywhere , until we used it in Nuremberg.
Okay, you do know that the 'philosophical load of crap' they were basing their actions on was the Theory of Eugenics, right? And that, at the time, it was a wildly popular theory right across the globe, with strong support by celebrities and prominent citizens, and even hundreds of studies that 'proved' that it was correct? And that anyone who stepped up and said 'hold on, that science just doesn't look right' was basically shouted down, because 'the majority' of social and scientific consensus said it was true?
People believed in this 'scientific' theory so strongly that programs were initiated around the world, resulting in (looking back) terrible atrocities and violations of the rights and bodies of innocent people. Atrocities like preventing the 'feeble-minded' from marrying ('feeble-minded', of course, being defined by the law makers). Violations like forced sterilization clinics for those deemed 'unfit' to pass on their genes. The Nazi's just took the theory to its' 'logical' conclusion, one that many prominent American scientists also flirted with (few were ready to come out and directly support 'extermination' programs in the name of eugenics, but some were more that prepared to include it in their proposed 'solutions' to the ever growing 'problem')
How well did that turn out, d'ya think? Don't you find it odd that after about 1940, suddenly nobody was a Eugenicist, and the scientific studies that supported the theory were suddenly found to be flawed by the scientific community in general? If they were so flawed, why hadn't this been discovered before?
The fact is, the 'scientific method' was being horribly abused and misused to support a social agenda. Ambiguities in language and interpretation of results opened the way for over-reaching conclusions which the data itself did not support. The body of actual, factual knowledge regarding heredity and genetics was laughable when compared to today, and I would say that even today we really know very little about the whole process. We know much more than we did, but not nearly as much as we need. Pretty much the same boat that we're in regarding climate and climate science.
I do sometimes wonder if it will take something as wholly and globally repugnant as the actions of the Nazi party in WW2 to similarly expose this 'established scientific theory' to honest and zealot-free debate. Good lord, I hope not. Of course, loss of life because of lack of energy resources due to 'green' politics doesn't usually make the headlines. Who cares if there is no power to provide water sterilization, medical care and basic energy needs, as long as those third worlders don't build that CO2-emitting coal-fired generation plant!
I call on my government and the government of all nations and peoples to use the powers granted to them during war time to neutralize these and other denialists who represent and clear and present danger to the United States of America, the U.K. and all other nations and people, using whatever means is necessary.
Hmmm...apparently you are rooting for just such an event. "Fuck all this talking, just shoot 'em all", nice. Very nice.
Looking at the AlternativeTo site now, though...sexy, very sexy.
Gawddammit! Epic fail: the blasted site uses that OpenID crapfest! Can't create a local account, must use Google or FB or some such to log in. Fartbubbles, I hate sites like that! I don't even have a FB account, and they're sure as hell not getting anything on my google profile...
Oh well. It's still a useable site, I guess, I just would have liked to have been able to vote up some long-time favourites...bah, humbug.
Seems like the OP could stand to learn some googling skills.
Oooh, it seems it's been quite a while since I checked out AlternativeTo...developer's done some really nice work there!
Last time I checked it out it looked like some high school student's homework project, with links to software they liked. There was some cross-comparison of alternatives, if I recall correctly, but it didn't seem very comprehensive or user-friendly...I don't know, I found osalt and simply tended to use that instead when looking for new toys to play with:)
Looking at the AlternativeTo site now, though...sexy, very sexy. Filters by platform and license, doesn't snub commercial or freeware versions (for some stuff I do prioritize performance over license, although I use OS where possible...luckily in a lot of cases the OS alternative is also the performance winner!), and seems fairly comprehensive on quick overview.
As I said, nice work done there! Thanks for bringing me back to it!
I don't know if I've seen this site posted here before, but has anybody checked the Open Source Alternatives site, www.osalt.com? Sure, they're not always totally up-to-date, but the do accept software suggestions if your favourite application is missing from the list...
They also only identify open source alternatives, not freeware alternatives (e.g., Paint.NET is not listed as an alternative to Photoshop, since it is simple freeware now and no longer open source). This can be a good thing or an annoying thing, depending on your goals (I use Paint.NET because it's a helluva program, despite not being OS any longer, and the user base/plugin support is amazing).
From the Dreamweaver page, alternative options include: Quanta Plus 3.5 Available for: windows mac linux unix java For quick and effortless web development - Quanta Plus is steadily becoming a worthwhile competitor to the commercial web editors on the market. Quanta Plus's features include multi-document... Read more Aptana 2 Available for: windows mac linux unix java Aptana is an html/javascript editor, however, it does not provide any WYSIWYG feature - but it is still an amazing editor with many advanced features. Aptana is intended for people developing dynamic... Read more Bluefish 1.0 Available for: windows mac linux unix java Eventhough Bluefish is not a WYSIWYG editor - it is still considered a strong tool, however, mainly for experienced web developers/designers. Has support for unicode - and provides wizards for -... Read more Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.0 Available for: windows mac linux unix java SeaMonkey settles all of your internet application needs in own package. Its a web-browser, email and newsgroup client, HTML authoring program and IRC chat client all-in-one. In most areas -... Read more Amaya 10 Available for: windows mac linux unix java Amaya, developed by W3C, is a web editor/browser that creates and updates documents directly on your website. W3C (WWW Consortium) needed a framework that could include as many of their technologies... Read more Nvu 1.0 Available for: windows mac linux unix java Nvu is a web development system primarily developed for Linux but is now also available for windows and mac. The project aims to be an open source alternative for the major commercial web authoring... Read more KompoZer 0.7.7 Available for: windows mac linux unix java Kompozer is an open source web development tool built on NVU. The project strives to fix bugs in the NVU project and added new features to it. Both the HTML editor as well as the CSS editor has so... Read more
Yes, I will grant that I met my wonderful wife courtesy of Facebook, but beyond that, I cannot see how my life is any better due to the time I used to spend there.
Spot the irony in the above sentence!
I met my equally wonderful husband in a smoking section while *gasp* having a smoke. Does that mean that smoking was the best thing to ever happen to me? Should I have continued to smoke for the sake of sentimentality?
IMHO, FB is bad medicine. Some of us can sample and quit, and some never start in the first place...
Slashdot Mirror
Can you see on the ground directly behind your rear wheel? I thought not. A small child lying down to reach something, or fallen down, is way way below any site line from the drivers seat, no matter if you swivel your head 360 degrees and use all three mirrors.
That's what circle checks are for. And I'm sorry, if you have a child who watches, giggling, until the driver gets in and starts backing up to dive under the wheels...well, that's what natural selection is for.
That being said, I'm certainly not opposed to backup cameras, just as I'm not opposed to ABS or remote starters. I just don't think they're quite as crucial as some would make them out to be, and they are susceptible to various problems (dirty lens, camera problems, cable problems, screen problems, etc.) which lessens their usefulness factor, especially for drivers who've come to depend on them. I'd much rather teach my kid first how to safely back up without relying on the backup camera, then maybe use it as a supplemental tool one I'm sure they're comfortable without it.
Now, however, even putting a + sign in front of a search term doesn't seem to guarantee that that search term will be in all of the returned results. In fact, adding the + sign often doesn't change the base results at all...perhaps the forced term is hidden in the page metadata somewhere, but I don't care about metadata, I only want it if it's on a visible section of an actual webpage or document, and explicitly matches the exact term as I typed it (i.e., '+bubble' should not return pages about some person talking about Bubbles their golden retriever, or bubbly champagne parties...)
Google updated their search terms slightly recently; you need to put a word in quotes to explicitly match. So "bubble" should do what +bubble used to do.
Hey, thanks for the tip! I've only used quotes with multiple words, I'll try it with individual terms I want to match explicitly, see how it works for me! :)
The only thing that will stop this is the rise of meaningful (read: cheap and easy to use) online services that make piracy more trouble than it's worth. A lot of people think that iTunes did this for music, though I would argue that Pandora has done more to negate music piracy than iTunes. I don't think you can directly translate Pandora into movies though.
Sure you can. It's called Netflix.
Sure, Netflix is subscription-based rather than 'free', but it still provides tons of watchable content for a very reasonable monthly fee across several platforms. (If you strongly prefer 'free', then try Hulu if you're in the states, or can spoof being there.)
True, you can't save the movies you like to disk and keep them for 50 years, and you have no control over the content they offer from week to week. But I don't know (I'm not in the states), can you d/l and save songs from Pandora? Do they reply fairly quickly to content requests?
> Nothing against the man, but I'd be surprised if he was in *any* spanking
> movie, yet alone a really good one.
Nice try, but I am not googling "Kofi Annan spanking movie".
At least not from work... :)
The main reason there is an impression that it's "fading"- it's because it's difficult to find information because people have forgotten (or never knew...) how to ask the right questions for answers- and you have to frame queries with a bit of care to drive the two top search engines to their fullest.
True, however it seems that Google has gotten more lax lately in their quest to bring more relevant search results by double guessing what you 'meant' to search for.
It used to be that any word or phrase without a + sign in front was optional, so search results would bring up pages that may have only two of the three search terms in them (preferably all three, but if no indexed site had all three terms on it, you'd get sites with some of the terms on them at least). If I wanted to force Google to return only pages with all three search terms in them, I'd have to put a + sign in front of each term. Fair enough.
Now, however, even putting a + sign in front of a search term doesn't seem to guarantee that that search term will be in all of the returned results. In fact, adding the + sign often doesn't change the base results at all...perhaps the forced term is hidden in the page metadata somewhere, but I don't care about metadata, I only want it if it's on a visible section of an actual webpage or document, and explicitly matches the exact term as I typed it (i.e., '+bubble' should not return pages about some person talking about Bubbles their golden retriever, or bubbly champagne parties...)
Has anyone else noticed this sort of trend with Google results recently? I'm talking 'recently' as in over the last couple of years or so...
My ideal search engine would be a meta-search to access a specific set of domains.
For instance, I would love to be able to search only the shopping sites I choose, only the journal databases I choose, only the encyclopedias I choose, and only the social networks I choose, only the news websites I choose, etc, all from one search box. That gives you the freedom of using individual websites, with the convienence of a search engine.
DuckDuckGo is on the right track, but I would love even more customization.
FYI, Rollyo (short for 'ROLL Your Own' search engine) does just that. It's still a bit rigid, in that you have to set up a different virtual search engine for each group you want to search together, but it does work and the virtual engines are editable if you want to add or remove a site at a later date. I agree, it would be nice to have your own set of boxes you can tick or untick to get results from only those sites that you're interested in today...but it's still better than searching each site individually!
Unfortunately, it looks like rollyo's down for maintenance right now, here's the Wikipedia link to it, if you're interested.
I have found it useful in the past for that exact reason: quickly searching across several local stores' websites for a particular item, to see who carries it. Unfortunately it lists* results based on site first, so you'll get all the Home Depot results, then all the Lowes results, etc.
*listed, rather. I haven't used it in a while so I don't know for sure, they might do it differently now...
You're right, your personal address, how often you send/receive letters, whether it's private or commercial or parcel, and where/when you move to a new residence, they don't have access to anything important like that, really.
You're either being deliberately obtuse here or missing the point completely.
The information you detailed is what the post office has to keep about it's clients in order to provide service (okay, other than the frequency of letters). What they do not have access to is the contents of such communications or packages. If you write to your aunt and tell her you and your husband are looking at dogs, you don't suddenly get a deluge of flyers for local breeders/veterinarians/pet supply stores.
If FB were only to keep and use the information that it needs to provide the service, then there would be no problem. Trouble is, they have access to and mine/sell for their own profit pretty much every iota of information you send to them, and they have agreements in place with other online sources to scrape even more salable info about you. Imagine if you watched a few documentaries about penguins, and suddenly all your junk mail was for stuffed penguins, trips to the Antarctic and Happy Feet revivals? How creeped out would you feel about that?
Of course, as many have pointed out, with services such as FB and Google, you are not the consumer, you are the product. That is the trade off for the 'free' services that they offer. The post office requires a tribute every time you send anything, that's how they stay in business. FB depends on their users not realizing (or not caring about) exactly how much information they retain, sell, trade and barter in your name. It's data prostitution, and I for one have more respect for my privacy than to hand over the intimate details of my life to some profiteering corporation, simply to see photos of my neighbors' cat in a santa hat.
Umm...never mind. Thought I was being all clever and such, but it seems the US already has such limits in place...sort of.
Soo...anyone know why these limits aren't working out? Maybe because there doesn't seem to be an overall cap to contributions, just spending caps on campaigns (I guess anything else is gravy)? Maybe the spending caps are just way too damn high ($84 million per candidate in 2008? seriously?) or not monitored closely enough? IDK.
Unfortunately, corporations have a disproportionate ability to be able to provide campaign funds versus regular citizens.
Corruption in general is making decisions for personal gain instead of the reason you were employed. When corporations provide funds to polititcians (in return for policy decisions), they can use this to run bigger/lavish campaings, hopefully pull move votes and keep themselves a cushy high paying job, meanwhile ignoring the majority of their electorate.
Interesting. How about this: propose spending caps on individual campaigns?
Say, anyone who wants to run for political office can spend no more than $X million on all advertising, staffing, transportation, personal salary, signage, etc. It's completely up to the politician how to divide the pie, but force the pie to be the same size for everybody (provided they can get enough contributions to make that cap). X should probably be a different amount for a presidential campaign vs. a senatorial campaign, etc., but the point is it would be the same X for anyone else running for that office regardless of party affiliations or lack thereof.
And how about restricting total annual campaign contributions to that proposed dollar amount? So if lobbyist X wants to 'contribute' to a friendly senator or presidential candidate's campaign, well they can as long as there's room in the contribution cap...if not, sorry, try next year.
I'm trying to think of what the negative aspects of such a policy would be...as far as I can see, it would mean politicians would be forced to compete based on their policies, not on the amount of airtime they can buy or mud they can sling. Another benefit *might* be the reduction of hate mongering campaigns and annoying pre-election FUD, who knows? Thoughts?
Maybe John and Jane Doe can't contribute to their preferred candidate because the cap has been reached already, but they can always try next year, or contribute that money to a charity instead...maybe even make the charitable contribution in the name of the candidate they wanted to support, so people know that they approve of this guy/gal even if they couldn't contribute directly to his/her campaign. Or they could volunteer to personally assist with the campaign without any form of financial compensation (no volunteers salary, no accommodations paid, etc.) using only campaign-provided materials. Like taking home and stuffing envelopes, or volunteering to pass out campaign materials, that sort of thing.
It might also be beneficial to have some sort of public-access database detailing contribution amounts from all sources for all candidates, so people could go online and see exactly who's bought and paid for the candidate they're considering voting for...
Just some idle meanderings from an outside POV, take as you like. I'm sure there would be no pushback at all from the current administration for implementing these measures... </sarcasm>
I used to use my real name on my gmail account, but they yanked the account without telling me why. BTW, mcgrew is my real name. Been using it for six decades now, why should I change? Cowardly kids! Sheesh...
Hey! How did you know what the extra 'c' stands for!?! You bin following me around, or sumpt'in? :p
Props for keeping it real though, sir (or madam). I'm thinking the online environment has changed somewhat in the last couple of those decades, no? It sure feels like it has to me...when I first went online, I was much less squeamish about mixing online with IRL data. Now, however...nope. Too much unfocused anger and chaos abounding, and all it takes is one asswipe script kiddy with a grudge to make ones life overly complicated. Ah well, to each their own.
Case in point: one of my friends is deaf. What use is the voice plan for her?
Sprint offers data-only plans, but only to people who can prove that they are deaf.
Wow, there is a provider out there who understands this? And is willing to work with the hard of hearing to get a device and plan that does what they need, without gouging them for useless voice services? (okay, looks like there's a little gouging, but only to the tune of $10 for 'premium data') That's amazing.
Thanks, I'll let her know about it, in case she ever decides to move to America. AFAIK there is no such equivalent plan in Canada (although it was a few years ago that we were hunting for one, I'll admit, so there could be something out there by now)
If Google does force me to participate in Google+ using my real info, I'll migrate all my mail and data out and change my name Gaygle R. McFaggots, with a picture of Larry and Sergay as my profile pic.
lol, you used your real name for your google/gmail account? silly rabbit. :)
No, I hear you. Even though nothing attached to my gmail or google account(s) actually bears my name or any true demographic data about me at all (I'm not a very trusting person), I'll be watching for something less invasive to hop onto in case this is retroactively enacted. Hotmail chased me away with similar shenanigans years ago, it's a shame that google's trying the same tricks on for size...
How much of a voice plan does one have to buy to qualify for a $30 for 5 GB data plan?
Bingo.
It really bugs me that you can't buy a data plan without some lame voice plan tacked on. Who uses their phone for voice calling anymore? So if that $20 data plan is only available with their $50 voice plan...bend over, suckers. "oh, but you get a thousand minutes of anytime calling!" So what, if I don't use it for calling?
Case in point: one of my friends is deaf. What use is the voice plan for her? Yet a smartphone is invaluable for her to keep in touch with her family and friends...and they made her get a voice plan with her Blackberry, even though she only uses it (can only use it) for texting and data. WTF?
Now the oinking and squealing objection, Snopes might have a point. But I've never put a piglet in a bag. Perhaps the darkness makes them more quiet. Or perhaps it depends on the breed.
Obviously you've never put a cat in a bag either...kinda hard to explain the yowling, thrashing bag with twenty little needles of doom constantly puncturing it seeking blood and vengeance...
"see, it's a really active piglet, good and strong! you pay more for such a loud piglet, yes? Oh, they always hiss like that when they're excited...just like bacon!"
I love it that Slashdot's walking the walk. Good on you!
What about the 30 years of science that has been conducted in peer reviewed literature. This is not just that debate? Please explain.
I got'cha beat. There was over 50 years of peer-reviewed, scientific debate and research regarding the validity of the theory of eugenics. Despite that, the Cold Springs Harbour laboratory continued to try to prop up the theory right up until the 60's, when it was no longer deemed 'popular' enough to merit support.
Why are scientists not capable of determining what constitutes a scientific debate? According to them, this is what they've been doing, You disagree. So please explain to me and them why they are wrong and you are right. Why we should listen to you and not to the established process of science.
The current round of screaming and name-calling is considered debate? I'm sorry, emotions generally do not belong in scientific discussions, only religious ones.
The 'established process of science' is as subject to political and social pressures as is any area of life, no matter how much we would like to think otherwise. It can be a tool for discovering objective truths about the universe, but only if the tools used (i.e., the scientists) are able to be objective, or lacking that, have clear, repeatable and unassailable data to work with. Too many temperature datasets are generated by inferred parameters for me to be comfortable asserting the latter, and there is too much funding to be had by researchers who toe the AGW line to be sure of the former.
I know, there aren't any pure long-term datasets to work from (with temperature alone, it is quite difficult to find any 'pure' datasets at all, since most if not all long term datasets have been subject to calibration corrections, adjustments for location changes, environmental adjustments, instrument malfunction adjustments or data loss, etc.), but an awful lot of speculation is riding on the correct interpretation of those secondary and tertiary measurements.
Because the non-scientists demands that science conform to THEIR strictures and not those that make sense to scientists smacks of exactly Hitler's assault on his own scientists.
Actually, there's surprisingly little proof that Hitler pressured his own scientists. Eugenics was an established theory, with decades of research supporting it. Plus they knew where their funding was coming from.
Consider this: which proposal would be more likely to receive funding today?
"An examination of the mating habits and migratory patterns of Clangula hyemalis"
"An examination of the impact of global warming on the mating habits and migratory patterns of Clangula hyemalis"
After all, who cares when a duck fucks, except a duck? Ahhh, but if humans are negatively impacting the long-tailed duck's love live by warming up the planet, then that's something that should be investigated with all possible speed!
In fact, the AG of Virginia, Ken Cucinelli, is right now using the power of the state to harass and pursue Michael Mann:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/science/earth/23virginia.html?pagewanted=all
Good. I'm sorry, but if you do research on the public dollar, you should be prepared to turn over all of your research for review by the public. Especially if your conclusions promote a political and/or socio-economic agenda. What's wrong with that? Why is it 'persecution' to want to be able to see the data and reasoning used to draw the conclusions that Mann has drawn? Isn't that, in fact, a key step in the scientific method, proving that your conclusions are repeatable by anyone else using the same process and inputs?
As to Eugenics its a red herring argument. The fact
*sigh* I know I'm just feeding the troll, but...
The Nazis objected to their prosecution also. They said it was ex post facto lawmaking to try them for killing the Jews and homosexuals and Gypsies. They argued that they really believed their philosophical load of crap, and they were entitled to make their nation's laws.
And you know what? There was some truth to that argument. Until we decided there wasn't that is and went ahead and charged them for things which had not been crimes before- Crimes Against Humanity- which was just a free floating idea and no law anywhere , until we used it in Nuremberg.
Okay, you do know that the 'philosophical load of crap' they were basing their actions on was the Theory of Eugenics, right? And that, at the time, it was a wildly popular theory right across the globe, with strong support by celebrities and prominent citizens, and even hundreds of studies that 'proved' that it was correct? And that anyone who stepped up and said 'hold on, that science just doesn't look right' was basically shouted down, because 'the majority' of social and scientific consensus said it was true?
People believed in this 'scientific' theory so strongly that programs were initiated around the world, resulting in (looking back) terrible atrocities and violations of the rights and bodies of innocent people. Atrocities like preventing the 'feeble-minded' from marrying ('feeble-minded', of course, being defined by the law makers). Violations like forced sterilization clinics for those deemed 'unfit' to pass on their genes. The Nazi's just took the theory to its' 'logical' conclusion, one that many prominent American scientists also flirted with (few were ready to come out and directly support 'extermination' programs in the name of eugenics, but some were more that prepared to include it in their proposed 'solutions' to the ever growing 'problem')
How well did that turn out, d'ya think? Don't you find it odd that after about 1940, suddenly nobody was a Eugenicist, and the scientific studies that supported the theory were suddenly found to be flawed by the scientific community in general? If they were so flawed, why hadn't this been discovered before?
The fact is, the 'scientific method' was being horribly abused and misused to support a social agenda. Ambiguities in language and interpretation of results opened the way for over-reaching conclusions which the data itself did not support. The body of actual, factual knowledge regarding heredity and genetics was laughable when compared to today, and I would say that even today we really know very little about the whole process. We know much more than we did, but not nearly as much as we need. Pretty much the same boat that we're in regarding climate and climate science.
I do sometimes wonder if it will take something as wholly and globally repugnant as the actions of the Nazi party in WW2 to similarly expose this 'established scientific theory' to honest and zealot-free debate. Good lord, I hope not. Of course, loss of life because of lack of energy resources due to 'green' politics doesn't usually make the headlines. Who cares if there is no power to provide water sterilization, medical care and basic energy needs, as long as those third worlders don't build that CO2-emitting coal-fired generation plant!
I call on my government and the government of all nations and peoples to use the powers granted to them during war time to neutralize these and other denialists who represent and clear and present danger to the United States of America, the U.K. and all other nations and people, using whatever means is necessary.
Hmmm...apparently you are rooting for just such an event. "Fuck all this talking, just shoot 'em all", nice. Very nice.
"Do you believe that the only way science gets done is via experiment?"
Please detail a couple of alternative methods.
Apparently palm reading, crystal-ball gazing and pure speculation got snuck into the definition of 'the scientific method' when we weren't looking...
Looking at the AlternativeTo site now, though...sexy, very sexy.
Gawddammit! Epic fail: the blasted site uses that OpenID crapfest! Can't create a local account, must use Google or FB or some such to log in. Fartbubbles, I hate sites like that! I don't even have a FB account, and they're sure as hell not getting anything on my google profile...
Oh well. It's still a useable site, I guess, I just would have liked to have been able to vote up some long-time favourites...bah, humbug.
Another place to look that I've used in the past is AlternativeTo:
http://alternativeto.net/software/adobe-dreamweaver/?license=opensource
Seems like the OP could stand to learn some googling skills.
Oooh, it seems it's been quite a while since I checked out AlternativeTo...developer's done some really nice work there!
Last time I checked it out it looked like some high school student's homework project, with links to software they liked. There was some cross-comparison of alternatives, if I recall correctly, but it didn't seem very comprehensive or user-friendly...I don't know, I found osalt and simply tended to use that instead when looking for new toys to play with :)
Looking at the AlternativeTo site now, though...sexy, very sexy. Filters by platform and license, doesn't snub commercial or freeware versions (for some stuff I do prioritize performance over license, although I use OS where possible...luckily in a lot of cases the OS alternative is also the performance winner!), and seems fairly comprehensive on quick overview.
As I said, nice work done there! Thanks for bringing me back to it!
I don't know if I've seen this site posted here before, but has anybody checked the Open Source Alternatives site, www.osalt.com? Sure, they're not always totally up-to-date, but the do accept software suggestions if your favourite application is missing from the list...
They also only identify open source alternatives, not freeware alternatives (e.g., Paint.NET is not listed as an alternative to Photoshop, since it is simple freeware now and no longer open source). This can be a good thing or an annoying thing, depending on your goals (I use Paint.NET because it's a helluva program, despite not being OS any longer, and the user base/plugin support is amazing).
From the Dreamweaver page, alternative options include:
Quanta Plus 3.5
Available for: windows mac linux unix java
For quick and effortless web development - Quanta Plus is steadily becoming a worthwhile competitor to the commercial web editors on the market. Quanta Plus's features include multi-document... Read more
Aptana 2
Available for: windows mac linux unix java
Aptana is an html/javascript editor, however, it does not provide any WYSIWYG feature - but it is still an amazing editor with many advanced features. Aptana is intended for people developing dynamic... Read more
Bluefish 1.0
Available for: windows mac linux unix java
Eventhough Bluefish is not a WYSIWYG editor - it is still considered a strong tool, however, mainly for experienced web developers/designers. Has support for unicode - and provides wizards for -... Read more
Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.0
Available for: windows mac linux unix java
SeaMonkey settles all of your internet application needs in own package. Its a web-browser, email and newsgroup client, HTML authoring program and IRC chat client all-in-one. In most areas -... Read more
Amaya 10
Available for: windows mac linux unix java
Amaya, developed by W3C, is a web editor/browser that creates and updates documents directly on your website. W3C (WWW Consortium) needed a framework that could include as many of their technologies... Read more
Nvu 1.0
Available for: windows mac linux unix java
Nvu is a web development system primarily developed for Linux but is now also available for windows and mac. The project aims to be an open source alternative for the major commercial web authoring... Read more
KompoZer 0.7.7
Available for: windows mac linux unix java
Kompozer is an open source web development tool built on NVU. The project strives to fix bugs in the NVU project and added new features to it. Both the HTML editor as well as the CSS editor has so... Read more
That's okay, everybody hates themselves at least part of the time.
Do you want a hug or some whiskey?
Oh damn, you mean I circled right back to mainstream again? How embarrassing!
Gimme that whiskey...got any scotch? :)
Yes, I will grant that I met my wonderful wife courtesy of Facebook, but beyond that, I cannot see how my life is any better due to the time I used to spend there.
Spot the irony in the above sentence!
I met my equally wonderful husband in a smoking section while *gasp* having a smoke. Does that mean that smoking was the best thing to ever happen to me? Should I have continued to smoke for the sake of sentimentality?
IMHO, FB is bad medicine. Some of us can sample and quit, and some never start in the first place...
Pfft, hating M$ and F-UB are SO mainstream.
I hate slashdot.
Well, I hate everybody.
Oh yeah? Well I hate myself!
<pause>
*sniffle*
kids were holding on to the back of buses during the winter and "sledding"
Back in the day, that was called bumper sketching.
Really? I thought it was called road bumping... :)