What does it take to get a government of the people, for the people, and by the people in today's world?
Same thing it took the first time--an overlord that wasn't respected, a bunch of charismatic people that wanted to change things, and an army to protect #2 from #1.
As others have noted, it's big in parking lots, where otherwise the only indication you have that something is about to START moving is brake lights going off--which doesn't help if you're in front (they backed into a spot or pulled forward). If you know the car is running (insofar as that applies to electric cars), you can give it a wider berth on principle, or at least know to check the lights / make eye contact with the driver.
I think that if you know enough about computers to talk about Ruby on Rails, you cannot possibly be representative of humanity as a whole.
I on the other hand look forward eagerly to the day when ChromeOS almost entirely invalidates the "nontechnicals user who screw up windows while surfing the net" portion of humanity. Plus if ChromeOS is hard to screw up (because it doesn't trust the user or apps -- in spite of the vitriol about that before) it means that machine is never going to be part of any botnets. Which, frankly, is worth maintaining a thin OS wrapped around a web browser that you're continuing to develop anyway, all on its own.
What part of your complaints applies to granny-who-just-shares-photos? What part applies to mom-who-plays-facebook-games? Dad-who-watches-hulu-while-working-out? Sister-who-thinks-being-a-computer-person-isn't-cool-but-likes-cheezburger-sites?
Not all white-collar jobs use a computer for heavy duty work, and of those that do, not all of them use their home computers for similar tasks; a no-nonsense web browser at home might be pretty darn good. Blue-collar jobs... even if they use a computer at home, if they're a nontechnical user (vulnerable to getting rooted) they probably don't need a full PC anyway, and if they're a technical user, they can make their own damn minds up. Blue-collar jobs outweigh white collar by a fair margin, unless I miss my guess.
And all Google needs to succeed is enough users to justify continuing. If all computer grannies were given ChromeOS, that'd probably be enough of a user base to justify it. However, as long as it's properly marketed and makes it into the hands of people that need it, it's not going to stop at just the grannies. There are plenty of people that need it.
In the sentence "I like wireless.", "wireless" is a noun.
Pardon, but I'm pretty sure that that sentence is implying an unstated noun that is obvious given the context, much like the sentence "I will." which has no predicate at all. Wireless is still an adjective, but it is standing in for a complete phrase. If you were talking about car paint jobs and said, "I like red", red would be an adjective ("I like red paint jobs") not a noun ("I like the color red (in general)."). Or in this case specifically, "I like wireless (communications)" does not necessarily imply that wireless is itself a noun, it's just standing in for the understood phrase.
I guess what I'm trying to say with the above post is, sat phones would work at uniform, medium population density--enough subscribers to cover the cost, but not enough to overload any satellites. However, the world is full of really really high densities and really rather low densities, which is a bad mix.
I'm going to hazard a guess and say that $18B worth of cellular towers can service more customers, more reliably than $18B worth of satellites. Even assuming signals passed through buildings, which according to others they don't, how many satellites do you need to cover one city of several million people? Given their height, I assume those sats will also service the suburbs nearby. And even if you split up the commo into several distinct frequencies, one per satellite, to avoid interference... all of the earthbound signals will be heard by everyone, with absolutely no limiting the signal to a smaller area. Plus add extra complexity to the satellites to deal with millions of concurrent connections, including power sources--and remember that the cost to get things in orbit goes up with weight. A lot.
That said, when you get out of the urban and sub-urban environments, a much smaller number of satellites is needed for rural areas and small cities/towns. However, without the large number of subscribers, but still keeping the high overhead of launching them, are they going to be profitable?
IANA Satellite phone engineer, but it seems like it'd be a huge mess to me.
Refusing arguments by analogy is absurd. Argument by analogy is incomplete, in that there are differences between the actual point of contention and the analogous situation, and those differences might make a particular analog inapplicable to a particular situation, but dismissing analogy as an invalid tool for legal or other argument is just silly.
To put it differently, an analogy is not an argument, it is a tool for communication. You cannot end a proof on an analogy; it's not logic, and it doesn't show anything. What it does is open up the floor to a new, related discussion, in order to make a related argument in isolation from complications that arise in the original.
I've said it before, but I don't think certain people in America understand that some things aren't myths. Terrorism is not a myth. Murder is not a myth. Mass-murder is not a myth. You cannot say those things and mean whatever you want; they are actual words with actual meanings. Like Jon Steward said at the Rally to Restore Sanity--they're titles that have to be earned.
People who treat important matters as though they were fairy tales shouldn't be allowed in public office. "Oh, he--he did something bad? Only bad people do bad things! He's just like those other bad people... Taliban!"
Seriously, it ought to be criminal to allow people like that in office.
Many old DOS games weren't all that good, but some of them were. I remain a fan of Quarky and Quaysoo's Turbo Science, even though it was an educational game. Honestly, I wish it would be re-released, say for a touchscreen tablet; it'd be an ideal application.
not because I'm a bad person or I don't trust her, but for the sake of our relationship.
Actually, that IS a lack of trust. To phrase it differently, if you don't do these things, the relationship will die, even if you meant well; you can be working hard in other ways, but they will be meaningless in the face of these otherwise insignificant things. You don't trust her to receive your words as you mean them, or you think that she will give up a good thing because you mention another woman's tits.
If she says, "Tell me what you think" or "tell me what you're thinking about" and you don't because you are afraid she will get mad, you don't trust her. It's the very definition of the word.
This says nothing whatsoever about whether you SHOULD trust her or not, only that you do not.
I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap.
You'll pardon me for being a pragmatist since I don't have experience in love (as I'm certain experience would completely negate a pragmatic argument, no matter how true), but if your relationship is sustained by the fact she doesn't know what you said or what you feel, either you're a dick, or she's psycho--or you fear she's psycho / she fears you're a dick, which means you aren't even sure of the other's personality. Any of those might indicate that your relationship, and the friendship that's behind it, is shaky. Of course, given the divorce rate here in the US, I suppose those things do happen quite a bit.
If governance is running on the same shoddy model, that should be changed. I'm not saying it can be (easily or otherwise) anytime soon, but it should be.
If the TSA was keeping us safe, they would have some leniency in their methods.
They (by which I mean the mangers and policy-setters rather than the incompetent, cheap-ass laborers) should not be permitted to use these methods in order to be lazy. If they were serious--if they were even pretending to be serious--there are people they could learn from. "Terrorists" are not a myth, you do not ward them off with superstition and half-assed attempts to look good, which is what security theater is. There are people with experience. There are ways to test the solution. Science can be done upon it. Engineering can be done upon it. It can be made better.
And yet it's clear to me that America does not understand that, nor similar things like public opinion (here or abroad). They are in fact approaching it as though it were superstition--as though these patdowns and screenings were an offering to The God of Public Opinion to say "Look, we're competent! Don't stop flying!" And they're viewing the feedback as though it's Their God Public Opinion saying "that offering isn't good enough"--they're upping the ante, not changing their methods.
And it is "method;" they're trying to prevent something. Their efforts won't work. It won't work in the same way voodoo wasn't medicine and hallucinogens didn't give you contact with gods. It seems like they don't understand that, on a fundamental level, the figurative blood sacrifice that is TSA security isn't going to appease anyone, and people continue to be in danger (however much or little danger actually exists). Or maybe they just don't understand that there are in fact effective methods out there, or maybe they don't care.
And it's that incompetence, whichever form it takes, which is going to kill American citizens some day, when someone actually goes out of their way to prove the complete idiocy by means of a bomb.
Heck yes, I picked up Magic Carpet 2 I don't even know how long ago, and I remain impressed by it to this day; not only because it was a lot of fun, but it's also never been copied, to my knowledge.
Motion control seems like way more of a distraction than normal controls. I rocked D2 fully on keyboard, and even having every control within twitch distance (and with plenty of experience), sliding, aiming, and firing all at once was a lot to coordinate, let alone guidebot commands, weapon select, and auxiliaries like headlights.
If you're doing all of these: * Switching missiles (say to flash) * Going in reverse * Sliding down * Firing missile (to blind enemies--have you guessed I'm running away?) * Pitch and yaw to line up with the next corridor * Switch to forward motion, possibly with afterburner * Possibly have to rotate 90 or 180 degrees to get a more comfortable "down" * Possibly firing flares or turning on headlights * Possibly asking Guidebot to find shields or energy
I'm sure you couldn't do all that with a Move, first of all; and the kinect, if you were moving parts of your body for each of those, I'd be seriously concerned with vertigo, or loss of balance. Even if the game auto-oriented the down direction, all the rest of that 3D motion has to be done manually.
Slashdot Mirror
What does it take to get a government of the people, for the people, and by the people in today's world?
Same thing it took the first time--an overlord that wasn't respected, a bunch of charismatic people that wanted to change things, and an army to protect #2 from #1.
As others have noted, it's big in parking lots, where otherwise the only indication you have that something is about to START moving is brake lights going off--which doesn't help if you're in front (they backed into a spot or pulled forward). If you know the car is running (insofar as that applies to electric cars), you can give it a wider berth on principle, or at least know to check the lights / make eye contact with the driver.
Aaand I'll go ahead and call Godwin's Law on my own post. Sorry.
They came first for the illegal file sharers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't sharing files illegally.
Then they came for the high bandwidth users,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a high bandwidth user.
Then they came for the porn,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't doing porn.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
You make a saline point.
Nevertheless they may need or want at least email, and probably access to photos, etc.
Amazingly, the internet is huge as far as enabling people to socialize, even if it's a foreign concept to you.
I think that if you know enough about computers to talk about Ruby on Rails, you cannot possibly be representative of humanity as a whole.
I on the other hand look forward eagerly to the day when ChromeOS almost entirely invalidates the "nontechnicals user who screw up windows while surfing the net" portion of humanity. Plus if ChromeOS is hard to screw up (because it doesn't trust the user or apps -- in spite of the vitriol about that before) it means that machine is never going to be part of any botnets. Which, frankly, is worth maintaining a thin OS wrapped around a web browser that you're continuing to develop anyway, all on its own.
What part of your complaints applies to granny-who-just-shares-photos? What part applies to mom-who-plays-facebook-games? Dad-who-watches-hulu-while-working-out? Sister-who-thinks-being-a-computer-person-isn't-cool-but-likes-cheezburger-sites?
Not all white-collar jobs use a computer for heavy duty work, and of those that do, not all of them use their home computers for similar tasks; a no-nonsense web browser at home might be pretty darn good. Blue-collar jobs... even if they use a computer at home, if they're a nontechnical user (vulnerable to getting rooted) they probably don't need a full PC anyway, and if they're a technical user, they can make their own damn minds up. Blue-collar jobs outweigh white collar by a fair margin, unless I miss my guess.
And all Google needs to succeed is enough users to justify continuing. If all computer grannies were given ChromeOS, that'd probably be enough of a user base to justify it. However, as long as it's properly marketed and makes it into the hands of people that need it, it's not going to stop at just the grannies. There are plenty of people that need it.
In the sentence "I like wireless.", "wireless" is a noun.
Pardon, but I'm pretty sure that that sentence is implying an unstated noun that is obvious given the context, much like the sentence "I will." which has no predicate at all. Wireless is still an adjective, but it is standing in for a complete phrase. If you were talking about car paint jobs and said, "I like red", red would be an adjective ("I like red paint jobs") not a noun ("I like the color red (in general)."). Or in this case specifically, "I like wireless (communications)" does not necessarily imply that wireless is itself a noun, it's just standing in for the understood phrase.
I am, however, NOT a linguist.
Logically, by the engineers who built and tested them
...and who utterly failed to convince marketing and sales that it could even possibly be an issue, let alone an embarrassing, glaringly obvious one.
"What are you talking about? The calendar says we ship today. Are you really trying to second-guess the calendar?"
How about, physicists who are not statisticians shouldn't claim to be, and physicists who aren't should make sure they know at least a little?
I guess what I'm trying to say with the above post is, sat phones would work at uniform, medium population density--enough subscribers to cover the cost, but not enough to overload any satellites. However, the world is full of really really high densities and really rather low densities, which is a bad mix.
I'm going to hazard a guess and say that $18B worth of cellular towers can service more customers, more reliably than $18B worth of satellites. Even assuming signals passed through buildings, which according to others they don't, how many satellites do you need to cover one city of several million people? Given their height, I assume those sats will also service the suburbs nearby. And even if you split up the commo into several distinct frequencies, one per satellite, to avoid interference... all of the earthbound signals will be heard by everyone, with absolutely no limiting the signal to a smaller area. Plus add extra complexity to the satellites to deal with millions of concurrent connections, including power sources--and remember that the cost to get things in orbit goes up with weight. A lot.
That said, when you get out of the urban and sub-urban environments, a much smaller number of satellites is needed for rural areas and small cities/towns. However, without the large number of subscribers, but still keeping the high overhead of launching them, are they going to be profitable?
IANA Satellite phone engineer, but it seems like it'd be a huge mess to me.
No, clearly the move to Cloud computing was all to block Sun. Except Oracle's acquiring Sun, so I'm sure they saw that coming...
And I've got the "Dirt" on their new Google Earth competitor: Micro, Soft Earth. Perfect for farmers.
It only seems that way at first blush.
Refusing arguments by analogy is absurd. Argument by analogy is incomplete, in that there are differences between the actual point of contention and the analogous situation, and those differences might make a particular analog inapplicable to a particular situation, but dismissing analogy as an invalid tool for legal or other argument is just silly.
To put it differently, an analogy is not an argument, it is a tool for communication. You cannot end a proof on an analogy; it's not logic, and it doesn't show anything. What it does is open up the floor to a new, related discussion, in order to make a related argument in isolation from complications that arise in the original.
I've said it before, but I don't think certain people in America understand that some things aren't myths. Terrorism is not a myth. Murder is not a myth. Mass-murder is not a myth. You cannot say those things and mean whatever you want; they are actual words with actual meanings. Like Jon Steward said at the Rally to Restore Sanity--they're titles that have to be earned.
People who treat important matters as though they were fairy tales shouldn't be allowed in public office. "Oh, he--he did something bad? Only bad people do bad things! He's just like those other bad people... Taliban!"
Seriously, it ought to be criminal to allow people like that in office.
Many old DOS games weren't all that good, but some of them were. I remain a fan of Quarky and Quaysoo's Turbo Science, even though it was an educational game. Honestly, I wish it would be re-released, say for a touchscreen tablet; it'd be an ideal application.
not because I'm a bad person or I don't trust her, but for the sake of our relationship.
Actually, that IS a lack of trust. To phrase it differently, if you don't do these things, the relationship will die, even if you meant well; you can be working hard in other ways, but they will be meaningless in the face of these otherwise insignificant things. You don't trust her to receive your words as you mean them, or you think that she will give up a good thing because you mention another woman's tits.
If she says, "Tell me what you think" or "tell me what you're thinking about" and you don't because you are afraid she will get mad, you don't trust her. It's the very definition of the word.
This says nothing whatsoever about whether you SHOULD trust her or not, only that you do not.
I'm wondering, on the smaller scale, how you would feel if everything you said about your wife in private were to be dropped on her lap.
You'll pardon me for being a pragmatist since I don't have experience in love (as I'm certain experience would completely negate a pragmatic argument, no matter how true), but if your relationship is sustained by the fact she doesn't know what you said or what you feel, either you're a dick, or she's psycho--or you fear she's psycho / she fears you're a dick, which means you aren't even sure of the other's personality. Any of those might indicate that your relationship, and the friendship that's behind it, is shaky. Of course, given the divorce rate here in the US, I suppose those things do happen quite a bit.
If governance is running on the same shoddy model, that should be changed. I'm not saying it can be (easily or otherwise) anytime soon, but it should be.
That was during a perfect storm: we didn't start any wars, congress was eager, and the president was shrewd
You'll forgive me if I don't excuse those that came after for failing to live up to those standards.
I find your posts informative and salute you.
If the TSA was keeping us safe, they would have some leniency in their methods.
They (by which I mean the mangers and policy-setters rather than the incompetent, cheap-ass laborers) should not be permitted to use these methods in order to be lazy. If they were serious--if they were even pretending to be serious--there are people they could learn from. "Terrorists" are not a myth, you do not ward them off with superstition and half-assed attempts to look good, which is what security theater is. There are people with experience. There are ways to test the solution. Science can be done upon it. Engineering can be done upon it. It can be made better.
And yet it's clear to me that America does not understand that, nor similar things like public opinion (here or abroad). They are in fact approaching it as though it were superstition--as though these patdowns and screenings were an offering to The God of Public Opinion to say "Look, we're competent! Don't stop flying!" And they're viewing the feedback as though it's Their God Public Opinion saying "that offering isn't good enough"--they're upping the ante, not changing their methods.
And it is "method;" they're trying to prevent something. Their efforts won't work. It won't work in the same way voodoo wasn't medicine and hallucinogens didn't give you contact with gods. It seems like they don't understand that, on a fundamental level, the figurative blood sacrifice that is TSA security isn't going to appease anyone, and people continue to be in danger (however much or little danger actually exists). Or maybe they just don't understand that there are in fact effective methods out there, or maybe they don't care.
And it's that incompetence, whichever form it takes, which is going to kill American citizens some day, when someone actually goes out of their way to prove the complete idiocy by means of a bomb.
Fair point. I don't think I was playing T2 close to the release, so I guess I didn't know any of that.
I liked the hoverbike and hovertank--I thought they were neat. I didn't even know they were a kludge.
Heck yes, I picked up Magic Carpet 2 I don't even know how long ago, and I remain impressed by it to this day; not only because it was a lot of fun, but it's also never been copied, to my knowledge.
Motion control seems like way more of a distraction than normal controls. I rocked D2 fully on keyboard, and even having every control within twitch distance (and with plenty of experience), sliding, aiming, and firing all at once was a lot to coordinate, let alone guidebot commands, weapon select, and auxiliaries like headlights.
If you're doing all of these:
* Switching missiles (say to flash)
* Going in reverse
* Sliding down
* Firing missile (to blind enemies--have you guessed I'm running away?)
* Pitch and yaw to line up with the next corridor
* Switch to forward motion, possibly with afterburner
* Possibly have to rotate 90 or 180 degrees to get a more comfortable "down"
* Possibly firing flares or turning on headlights
* Possibly asking Guidebot to find shields or energy
I'm sure you couldn't do all that with a Move, first of all; and the kinect, if you were moving parts of your body for each of those, I'd be seriously concerned with vertigo, or loss of balance. Even if the game auto-oriented the down direction, all the rest of that 3D motion has to be done manually.