+1 on the Lenovo. My work MacBook Pro recently croaked and, skipping the hilariously ludicrous IT support (Corp. not Apple), I ended up replacing it with a w530. It was cheaper than an equivalent MacBook and easier to update (ultrabay, express card, etc.). I've been very happy with it. Just having actual mouse buttons made it more than worth it. The only drawback I can see is that the screen is not as high res and I don't believe quite as bright as the current MacBooks. But overall, I'd take one of these over the current MacBooks any day.
Not much of a sailor on the cruiser. According to TFA he saw the sub 100-200 yds ahead and ordered "all back". Should have been hard a port or starboard
The story didn't have a lot of detail. It said the sub rose to periscope depth. My guess (with of course no experience it handling big ships) was that if they could only see the periscope, they may not have been able to determine quickly the speed or direction of the sub. Turning could make a collision better or worse. Slowing down or stopping could avoid and at a minimim will lessen the damage of any collision. Someone mentioned earlier that some naval vessels can stop in 1.5 times their length. If this ship could stop anywhere near that quickly, It seems to me to be the safest quick decision. Order all back, then try to determine the subs direction, try to communicate with the sub, take next steps to avoid a collision, if possible.
To be prepared for unexpected, unpredictable negative events is the very definition of responsibility. How have we lost that as a society?
Interesting, my definition of a national health care would be exactly this. A society being responsible for the unexpected and unpredictable health events of its members is a responsible society. One very effective method of doing this is universal health care. Judging by numbers such as longevity, child mortality, etc., compared to cost per individual, universal health care in most other countries is a more efficient (both more effective and cheaper) method than what the U.S. currently has (mostly job based health insurance). IMO, a responsible society would choose the cheaper more effective alternative (and would be irresponsible not to).
People are lazy and shorten names, 'American' actually makes sense as a shortened (English) term that is still unique enough to differentiate the country.
United States of America => American United States of Mexico => Mexican Canada => Canadian etc.
Of coures there are many more examples in North American alone. Most can easily be shortened to one word and still be unique, just like 'American'. Off hand, I don't believe there actually is a conflict in this method between using 'American' for the USA and a similar term for any other country in the Americas. Although, you are on your own for 'Dominican'.
I would actually re-phrase it as the problem is the voters are human. By that I mean, people are easily swayed by massive and often fraudulent advertising.
If you want to run for any office, the first thing you are going to be asked is how much money do you have. The best way to fix the problem that comes to my mind is to get money out of politics: Do not allow campaign contributions, do not allow massive advertising campaigns. Big money (large corps and the less than 1%) would have a much harder time working the US government as oligarchs without the massive amounts of money legally paid for elections. Without getting money out of politics, any gain will be a short term one. A huge grass roots campaign (OWA multiplied by x) may win short term gains. But as long as money is king in our politics, there will be lobbyist working 24/7 to push any gains back, while the rest of us are trying to live our lives.
Of course, the impossible question is how to get money out of a political system controlled by money. Most if not all of the big money interests that control US politics will obviously fight tooth and nail against any such change.
Agreed. The interview is often a very good indicator of what the job is like. It's just as much of a way for the interviewee to evaluate their prospective employer as it is for the employer evaluating the employee. Even if HR is administering the test or it has been outsourced, that tells you something about how you'll be treated. I remember being rejected based on one of these idiotic interviews for one particular job. It was crushing at the time but in hindsight boy am I glad I didn't get that job! It certainly didn't hurt my career in the long run.
+1 to this. When I was just out of college, I interviewed at a company once where everyone was very friendly, including the VP I would be working for, up until I took the test he wrote. I got everything correct on the test and the VP became seriously angry. I was very confused. In retrospect, instead of continuing a polite interest for the rest of the interview, I wish I had just gotten up and left at that point. But definitely glad they didn't offer me the job, I may have taken it and that guy would have been awful to have as a boss.
2) SUGGEST SOMETHING BETTER. Seriously. I agree, a system biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful sucks (unless you are one).
Okay, I'll bite, off the top of my head without a whole lot of though:
* Don't allow any campaign contributions from corporations, business, entities, etc.
* Only actual human beings can contribute and drastically limit the contributions from any one person ($100 or less?), including the person running for office.
* Drastically limit the max amount of campaign funds allowed to a candidate.
* Possibly don't allow any money contributions at all, but allow a relatively small amount of public funding given to candidates with enough supporting signatures.
* Require media to have a certain amount of time per candidate via small number of commercials and debates.
Have more of an actual democracy instead of an effective plutocracy were money is used to buy votes (e.g. advertising) and has very explicitly become the main driver of our elections.
Enacting regulations that simply shift power from the lenders to the debtors is not preserving a free market.
The theoretic free market also relies on a balance between buyers and sellers (lenders and debtors in this case). With the current government regulation, the balance between me and -insert large national bank here- is extremely one sided. I.e., it is not balanced and I'm definitely not on the winning side. To imagine that without any government regulation, it would be more balanced and not more unfair is (IMO, WTW) naive and historically ignorant.
I'm all for ending the bribery game, but as long as it exists, let's not pretend that it's a union-specific problem, just because unions play it too.
In fact, you could argue that unions are playing and losing the bribery game. This is a game that is won by the guy with the biggest bankroll. And that's not unions. And that's very likely not anyone that's reading slashdot either (or frankly any human in thu US +/- 0.01% of the population).
When evolution theory has stood the test of time, being unchanged for over 1800 years and still relevant...then we'll have a contest.
I find after reading this I can only repeat my (current) favorite sarcasm:
"it's not even wrong"
sigh.
okay, I can't help myself. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about religions, I just don't care that much. But, even I know religions have changed dramatically over 1800 years. Even the Roman Catholic one (you are Roman Catholic aren't you?, or perhaps Greek Orthodox?). Pick one, any one, just like human societies, religions change over time. Read a book for god's sake (more than the same one over and over again helps).
Hmm sorry, that was a bit ranty, but the brittle "this has always been the way we've taught this" goes with "we've always been at war with King Henry the VIII". As far as evolution standing the test of time, evidence for evolution goes back millions (okay you got me, billions?) of years. Although, I'm sure that as we learn more, the theory will be changed to better fit the new facts.
I think the GOP just gets a worse rap than the Democrats. But it's not because their individual goals are different than the Dems. It's just that when it comes to screwing the vast majority of the American people (~99% of us), the GOP is so much better at it than the Dems;).
we are conditioning people to accept more and more oppression.
its an unstated goal.
That's not the goal. It's an effect, certainly, but not the goal. Politicians are not comic book villains. They have very clear goals in mind: money and power.
Getting people to accept more oppression gives politicians more power
Perhaps you should include engineers from the real world in your deliberations. The IETF has consistently and adamantly refused to accept that NATs exist for security reasons (NOT JUST TO SAVE ADDRESSES!!) and are not going to go away with IPv6. In that regard, please stop inventing protocols that require a masters degree thesis to pass through NATs. (Thesis here: http://www.minisip.org/publications/Thesis_LaTorreYurkov_feb2006.pdf)
Perhaps, many within the IETF understand that NATs exist to generate more address space and they also provide some firewall-like security features. Perhaps some of them might even think that when the additional address space needs are unnecessary, the use of NATs as a firewall is also unnecessary. You might even just use, I don't know, something that is explicitly a firewall and not bother NATing.
If you really want security, having a device which functions explicitly for security might be better than, "Hey, I'm doing this NAT thing because I want more address space at home instead of that stinking single static (most people dynamic, sigh) IP my ISP is giving me. But now that I have 18 quintillion IP addresses at home I can't possibly get rid of NAT and use a firewall that blocks incoming connections because,..., Bueller?"
My googlefu may be poor. I'd like to think that since I did this a few months ago, it has become more available since then. But it could be that my searching just kind of sucked. I had two problem though. One is that of the places saying they support DNSSEC, I had a very difficult time figuring out what that meant (they'll let you enter records on there site, you can have records in your own DNS (duh), or you can actually upload your DS records to your parent in some fashion). For the most part it looked like I would have to register domains at registrars to find out.
Time (maybe even laziness) was the other issue, particularly after a few conversations with the help contacts at different places. I figured I didn't want to spend the time to go from one person who has no idea what DNSSEC is to the next, to another, to finally someone who knows what it is but tells me they don't support it. I was pretty discouraged. Godaddy was the first one I found that had online instruction about what they did (upload DS records using a web based tool) so I went with them. But I figured there must be other choices. It didn't occur to me to ask slashdot at the time. But it did when the godaddy buyout came up.
This is good to know. When I looked at dyndns a few months ago, I was unable to find away to upload DS records to my parent. In fact, this appeared to me to be a registrar that would only support DNSSEC if it managed the DNS (which would already put it ahead of most at the time). I'm hoping this is a fairly recent change and it wasn't just my failure to figure it out at the time. I was a bit disappointed too, because I really like dyndns. It seems to me to be one of the more professional registrars (more interested in being a good registrar than in trying up-sell everything).
she had been using an Asian-style vegetable peeler to try to pry open the door, when the aforesaid burlies saw the peeler they "thought it was a cleaver" and as we know two large men are no match for a distraught 89 pound woman! The officers, "fearing for their lives" opened fire and shot the lady many, many times (cops NEVER shoot to wound or disable) at point blank range!
I don't really like defending the police. There are many cases of abuse. But this is a bad example. The Asian-style vegetable peeler in this case was in the shape of a cleaver with a 6" blade (10" overall) at the bottom and a second peeling blade in the middle. A picture I found of it was here:
An 88 pound woman could severely injure and/or kill two grown men with that. IIRC, she was coming at them with it held over her head. If someone was coming at me like that, I'd consider my life at risk. Now, I don't know what happened before that. I.e., police seem to have a need to 'dominate' any situation and I could imagine that behavior making an agitated person more agitated. There may have been a way to handle the situation leading up to the shooting better (I just don't know). But once she was coming at them with that thing, I can easily understand them thinking their life was in danger.
No they're not, they just better understand the argument than you do apparently, and Google's conclusion doesn't disagree with them.
I think everyone agrees C++ can theoretically perform faster, but as Google notes you need to perform a lot of optimisations by hand which requires a lot of time, and a high degree of skill to perform.
I would suggest you re-read the article (or read it). The conclusion was that a simply written C++ was much faster (almost an order of magnitude) than a simply written java program. Your argument would follow that Java could theoretcially perform as fast as simple un-optimized C++ but it would require a high degree of skill and time to make it that way. I.e., everyone should write their code in C++.
The 'optimized' C++ speed was not shown, nor the 'optimized' Java (it just mentioned that the optimized Java was as fast as the simple C++).
Now, the test was a narrowly defined test. And speed performance is not always the most important feature of a software project (maybe not even the majority of the time). So I think this test shows what most people already know. C/C++ is faster than Java. But then, for many (most?) projects, it doesn't matter that much and other language features can be more important (ease of development, familiarity, etc...).
How about this? This is my proposal for IPv5. Whack another two octets onto the front of your addresses, so that the entire 0.0.0.0.0.0/48 block is reserved for IPv4 use - if the first two octets are zeroes, it's IPv4 over IPv5.
...
Anyone know how to set up a RFC?
Yes, got to www.ietf.org. Become active in that organization and try to start a work group (or find one where this RFC would be applicable), write and submit your RFC. Of course, the main problems: no one is implementing it at ISPs, no one is implementing in hardware, compatibility issues, ISPs won't implemented until they have too (i.e. they believe they lose money without it or believe they will make more money with it), everyone one and Dilbert's mother will have an idea of what to add / change in your proposal before anyone accepts it and actually does any of the above. If you're extremely successful, you end up with a bastardized IPv4 that will take longer for anyone to use than IPv6 (i.e. which is already defined and available in modern devices), does less, and has a much smaller address space than IPv6. I'm not thinking it would be a big win.
- Jail a person because they force people to sell their bodies
- Jail a person because they ran over someone else while drunk
One of those things is not like the other...
Interesting, the oddball I would have picked is the one above that does not have a person actively doing something to second person that the second person doesn't want.
FWIW considering we're fairly far off topic at this point and of course the 'I am Spartacus' line is a Hollywood invention. But Spartacus was assumed to have died in the final battle without his body being found/known. His 'I am Spartacus' followers that lived were not very lucky either, six thousand of the slave army that Spartacus led were crucified after the battle (and placed all along the main drag into Rome). I don't think they (the man?) had any qualms about dealing with large groups of 'anonymous' people, even in the Bronze Age.
If you're not paying for a service, then you are the product being sold.
You write that as though being a "product" somehow dehumanizes you, and yet at the same time you're creating a false sense of self-worth. Why is it a problem if I'm the "product"?
Not the GP, but it does dehumanize you. Try saying this,
I threw that product in the trash when I was done with it. I threw Mary in the trash when I was done with her.
Unless you're a sociopath, the second one should have some serious negative connatations. Although I would agree that being a 'product' might not be all bad. It may be a trade off that's worth it. I would argue that generally the productising of humans is not transparent. The majority of people being treated that way don't realise it, or its full implications, and often don't have a choice whether to be treated that way or not. It is inherently flawed and bad for society unless it is very carefully done.
The plus side it is possible to recover. Unfortunately dumb asses in congress want to cut taxes, renew tax breaks, and stop government programs.
When you're on the verge of bankruptcy, reducing waste and increasing income is precisely how you do recover. On a national level that means cut taxes and eliminate wasteful government jobs programs.
I can see what you mean by waste, 'eliminate wasteful government jobs programs' (although when that is a very tiny part of the federal budget, by itself it won't do much, military, SocSec and medicaid/medicare are the really big items). But since it's our government going bankrupt, I don't think 'increasing incomes' = 'cut taxes' will do what you think it will do. Ever time we've tried it in the past 30 years, government debt goes up, median income goes down. Our government loses and the only people that gain are people in the top %5-%10 income bracket (and the only big gains are in the top %1). To me it sounds like the building of a crappy surf society where most of us lose.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 on the Lenovo. My work MacBook Pro recently croaked and, skipping the hilariously ludicrous IT support (Corp. not Apple), I ended up replacing it with a w530. It was cheaper than an equivalent MacBook and easier to update (ultrabay, express card, etc.). I've been very happy with it. Just having actual mouse buttons made it more than worth it. The only drawback I can see is that the screen is not as high res and I don't believe quite as bright as the current MacBooks. But overall, I'd take one of these over the current MacBooks any day.
Not much of a sailor on the cruiser. According to TFA he saw the sub 100-200 yds ahead and ordered "all back". Should have been hard a port or starboard
The story didn't have a lot of detail. It said the sub rose to periscope depth. My guess (with of course no experience it handling big ships) was that if they could only see the periscope, they may not have been able to determine quickly the speed or direction of the sub. Turning could make a collision better or worse. Slowing down or stopping could avoid and at a minimim will lessen the damage of any collision. Someone mentioned earlier that some naval vessels can stop in 1.5 times their length. If this ship could stop anywhere near that quickly, It seems to me to be the safest quick decision. Order all back, then try to determine the subs direction, try to communicate with the sub, take next steps to avoid a collision, if possible.
To be prepared for unexpected, unpredictable negative events is the very definition of responsibility. How have we lost that as a society?
Interesting, my definition of a national health care would be exactly this. A society being responsible for the unexpected and unpredictable health events of its members is a responsible society. One very effective method of doing this is universal health care. Judging by numbers such as longevity, child mortality, etc., compared to cost per individual, universal health care in most other countries is a more efficient (both more effective and cheaper) method than what the U.S. currently has (mostly job based health insurance). IMO, a responsible society would choose the cheaper more effective alternative (and would be irresponsible not to).
People are lazy and shorten names, 'American' actually makes sense as a shortened (English) term that is still unique enough to differentiate the country.
United States of America => American
United States of Mexico => Mexican
Canada => Canadian
etc.
Of coures there are many more examples in North American alone. Most can easily be shortened to one word and still be unique, just like 'American'. Off hand, I don't believe there actually is a conflict in this method between using 'American' for the USA and a similar term for any other country in the Americas. Although, you are on your own for 'Dominican'.
... Thus, the problem is the voters.
I would actually re-phrase it as the problem is the voters are human. By that I mean, people are easily swayed by massive and often fraudulent advertising.
If you want to run for any office, the first thing you are going to be asked is how much money do you have. The best way to fix the problem that comes to my mind is to get money out of politics: Do not allow campaign contributions, do not allow massive advertising campaigns. Big money (large corps and the less than 1%) would have a much harder time working the US government as oligarchs without the massive amounts of money legally paid for elections. Without getting money out of politics, any gain will be a short term one. A huge grass roots campaign (OWA multiplied by x) may win short term gains. But as long as money is king in our politics, there will be lobbyist working 24/7 to push any gains back, while the rest of us are trying to live our lives.
Of course, the impossible question is how to get money out of a political system controlled by money. Most if not all of the big money interests that control US politics will obviously fight tooth and nail against any such change.
Agreed. The interview is often a very good indicator of what the job is like. It's just as much of a way for the interviewee to evaluate their prospective employer as it is for the employer evaluating the employee. Even if HR is administering the test or it has been outsourced, that tells you something about how you'll be treated. I remember being rejected based on one of these idiotic interviews for one particular job. It was crushing at the time but in hindsight boy am I glad I didn't get that job! It certainly didn't hurt my career in the long run.
+1 to this. When I was just out of college, I interviewed at a company once where everyone was very friendly, including the VP I would be working for, up until I took the test he wrote. I got everything correct on the test and the VP became seriously angry. I was very confused. In retrospect, instead of continuing a polite interest for the rest of the interview, I wish I had just gotten up and left at that point. But definitely glad they didn't offer me the job, I may have taken it and that guy would have been awful to have as a boss.
2) SUGGEST SOMETHING BETTER. Seriously. I agree, a system biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful sucks (unless you are one).
Okay, I'll bite, off the top of my head without a whole lot of though:
* Don't allow any campaign contributions from corporations, business, entities, etc.
* Only actual human beings can contribute and drastically limit the contributions from any one person ($100 or less?), including the person running for office.
* Drastically limit the max amount of campaign funds allowed to a candidate.
* Possibly don't allow any money contributions at all, but allow a relatively small amount of public funding given to candidates with enough supporting signatures.
* Require media to have a certain amount of time per candidate via small number of commercials and debates.
Have more of an actual democracy instead of an effective plutocracy were money is used to buy votes (e.g. advertising) and has very explicitly become the main driver of our elections.
Enacting regulations that simply shift power from the lenders to the debtors is not preserving a free market.
The theoretic free market also relies on a balance between buyers and sellers (lenders and debtors in this case). With the current government regulation, the balance between me and -insert large national bank here- is extremely one sided. I.e., it is not balanced and I'm definitely not on the winning side. To imagine that without any government regulation, it would be more balanced and not more unfair is (IMO, WTW) naive and historically ignorant.
I'm all for ending the bribery game, but as long as it
exists, let's not pretend that it's a union-specific problem, just
because unions play it too.
In fact, you could argue that unions are playing and losing the
bribery game. This is a game that is won by the guy with the biggest
bankroll. And that's not unions. And that's very likely not anyone
that's reading slashdot either (or frankly any human in thu US +/-
0.01% of the population).
When evolution theory has stood the test of time, being unchanged for over 1800 years and still relevant...then we'll have a contest.
I find after reading this I can only repeat my (current) favorite
sarcasm:
"it's not even wrong"
sigh.
okay, I can't help myself. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about
religions, I just don't care that much. But, even I know religions
have changed dramatically over 1800 years. Even the Roman Catholic
one (you are Roman Catholic aren't you?, or perhaps Greek Orthodox?).
Pick one, any one, just like human societies, religions change over
time. Read a book for god's sake (more than the same one over and
over again helps).
Hmm sorry, that was a bit ranty, but the brittle "this has always been
the way we've taught this" goes with "we've always been at war with
King Henry the VIII". As far as evolution standing the test of time,
evidence for evolution goes back millions (okay you got me, billions?)
of years. Although, I'm sure that as we learn more, the theory will
be changed to better fit the new facts.
But that's kind of the point.
I think the GOP just gets a worse rap than the Democrats. But it's not because their individual goals are different than the Dems. It's just that when it comes to screwing the vast majority of the American people (~99% of us), the GOP is so much better at it than the Dems ;).
You just have to change the rules.
Two men enter and the one that comes out alive, loses.
we are conditioning people to accept more and more oppression.
its an unstated goal.
That's not the goal. It's an effect, certainly, but not the goal. Politicians are not comic book villains. They have very clear goals in mind: money and power.
Getting people to accept more oppression gives politicians more power
Perhaps you should include engineers from the real world in your deliberations. The IETF has consistently and adamantly refused to accept that NATs exist for security reasons (NOT JUST TO SAVE ADDRESSES!!) and are not going to go away with IPv6. In that regard, please stop inventing protocols that require a masters degree thesis to pass through NATs. (Thesis here: http://www.minisip.org/publications/Thesis_LaTorreYurkov_feb2006.pdf)
Perhaps, many within the IETF understand that NATs exist to generate more address space and they also provide some firewall-like security features. Perhaps some of them might even think that when the additional address space needs are unnecessary, the use of NATs as a firewall is also unnecessary. You might even just use, I don't know, something that is explicitly a firewall and not bother NATing.
If you really want security, having a device which functions explicitly for security might be better than, "Hey, I'm doing this NAT thing because I want more address space at home instead of that stinking single static (most people dynamic, sigh) IP my ISP is giving me. But now that I have 18 quintillion IP addresses at home I can't possibly get rid of NAT and use a firewall that blocks incoming connections because, ..., Bueller?"
My googlefu may be poor. I'd like to think that since I did this a few months ago, it has become more available since then. But it could be that my searching just kind of sucked. I had two problem though. One is that of the places saying they support DNSSEC, I had a very difficult time figuring out what that meant (they'll let you enter records on there site, you can have records in your own DNS (duh), or you can actually upload your DS records to your parent in some fashion). For the most part it looked like I would have to register domains at registrars to find out.
Time (maybe even laziness) was the other issue, particularly after a few conversations with the help contacts at different places. I figured I didn't want to spend the time to go from one person who has no idea what DNSSEC is to the next, to another, to finally someone who knows what it is but tells me they don't support it. I was pretty discouraged. Godaddy was the first one I found that had online instruction about what they did (upload DS records using a web based tool) so I went with them. But I figured there must be other choices. It didn't occur to me to ask slashdot at the time. But it did when the godaddy buyout came up.
This is good to know. When I looked at dyndns a few months ago, I was unable to find away to upload DS records to my parent. In fact, this appeared to me to be a registrar that would only support DNSSEC if it managed the DNS (which would already put it ahead of most at the time). I'm hoping this is a fairly recent change and it wasn't just my failure to figure it out at the time. I was a bit disappointed too, because I really like dyndns. It seems to me to be one of the more professional registrars (more interested in being a good registrar than in trying up-sell everything).
I have no points to mod up the parent, but I would like to ask the same question.
Does any other registrar support DNSSEC?
I've looked at register.com, 1and1, and dyndns, but godaddy was the only one that supported DNSSEC (and it was even simple to configure).
she had been using an Asian-style vegetable peeler to try to pry open the door, when the aforesaid burlies saw the peeler they "thought it was a cleaver" and as we know two large men are no match for a distraught 89 pound woman! The officers, "fearing for their lives" opened fire and shot the lady many, many times (cops NEVER shoot to wound or disable) at point blank range!
I don't really like defending the police. There are many cases of abuse. But this is a bad example. The Asian-style vegetable peeler in this case was in the shape of a cleaver with a 6" blade (10" overall) at the bottom and a second peeling blade in the middle. A picture I found of it was here:
http://protectsanjose.blogspot.com/2009/09/rose-by-any-other-name.html
An 88 pound woman could severely injure and/or kill two grown men with that. IIRC, she was coming at them with it held over her head. If someone was coming at me like that, I'd consider my life at risk. Now, I don't know what happened before that. I.e., police seem to have a need to 'dominate' any situation and I could imagine that behavior making an agitated person more agitated. There may have been a way to handle the situation leading up to the shooting better (I just don't know). But once she was coming at them with that thing, I can easily understand them thinking their life was in danger.
No they're not, they just better understand the argument
than you do apparently, and Google's conclusion doesn't disagree with
them.
I think everyone agrees C++ can theoretically perform
faster, but as Google notes you need to perform a lot of optimisations
by hand which requires a lot of time, and a high degree of skill to
perform.
I would suggest you re-read the article (or read it). The conclusion
was that a simply written C++ was much faster (almost an order of
magnitude) than a simply written java program. Your argument would
follow that Java could theoretcially perform as fast as simple
un-optimized C++ but it would require a high degree of skill and time
to make it that way. I.e., everyone should write their code in C++.
The 'optimized' C++ speed was not shown, nor the 'optimized' Java (it
just mentioned that the optimized Java was as fast as the simple C++).
Now, the test was a narrowly defined test. And speed performance is
not always the most important feature of a software project (maybe not
even the majority of the time). So I think this test shows what most
people already know. C/C++ is faster than Java. But then, for many
(most?) projects, it doesn't matter that much and other language
features can be more important (ease of development, familiarity,
etc...).
How about this? This is my proposal for IPv5. Whack another two octets onto the front of your addresses, so that the entire 0.0.0.0.0.0/48 block is reserved for IPv4 use - if the first two octets are zeroes, it's IPv4 over IPv5.
...
Anyone know how to set up a RFC?
Yes, got to www.ietf.org. Become active in that organization and try to start a work group (or find one where this RFC would be applicable), write and submit your RFC. Of course, the main problems: no one is implementing it at ISPs, no one is implementing in hardware, compatibility issues, ISPs won't implemented until they have too (i.e. they believe they lose money without it or believe they will make more money with it), everyone one and Dilbert's mother will have an idea of what to add / change in your proposal before anyone accepts it and actually does any of the above. If you're extremely successful, you end up with a bastardized IPv4 that will take longer for anyone to use than IPv6 (i.e. which is already defined and available in modern devices), does less, and has a much smaller address space than IPv6. I'm not thinking it would be a big win.
If you want IPv6 before lame, slow ISPs finally get it, try using tunnels through someone like,
http://tunnelbroker.net/
I've been using Hurricane Electric to tunnel IPv6 for years and it works well.
- Jail a person because they have sold drugs
- Jail a person because they force people to sell their bodies
- Jail a person because they ran over someone else while drunk
One of those things is not like the other...
Interesting, the oddball I would have picked is the one above that does not have a person actively doing something to second person that the second person doesn't want.
FWIW considering we're fairly far off topic at this point and of course the 'I am Spartacus' line is a Hollywood invention. But Spartacus was assumed to have died in the final battle without his body being found/known. His 'I am Spartacus' followers that lived were not very lucky either, six thousand of the slave army that Spartacus led were crucified after the battle (and placed all along the main drag into Rome). I don't think they (the man?) had any qualms about dealing with large groups of 'anonymous' people, even in the Bronze Age.
If you're not paying for a service, then you are the product being sold.
You write that as though being a "product" somehow dehumanizes you, and yet at the same time you're creating a false sense of self-worth. Why is it a problem if I'm the "product"?
Not the GP, but it does dehumanize you. Try saying this,
I threw that product in the trash when I was done with it.
I threw Mary in the trash when I was done with her.
Unless you're a sociopath, the second one should have some serious negative connatations. Although I would agree that being a 'product' might not be all bad. It may be a trade off that's worth it. I would argue that generally the productising of humans is not transparent. The majority of people being treated that way don't realise it, or its full implications, and often don't have a choice whether to be treated that way or not. It is inherently flawed and bad for society unless it is very carefully done.
The plus side it is possible to recover. Unfortunately dumb asses in congress want to cut taxes, renew tax breaks, and stop government programs.
When you're on the verge of bankruptcy, reducing waste and increasing income is precisely how you do recover. On a national level that means cut taxes and eliminate wasteful government jobs programs.
I can see what you mean by waste, 'eliminate wasteful government jobs programs' (although when that is a very tiny part of the federal budget, by itself it won't do much, military, SocSec and medicaid/medicare are the really big items). But since it's our government going bankrupt, I don't think 'increasing incomes' = 'cut taxes' will do what you think it will do. Ever time we've tried it in the past 30 years, government debt goes up, median income goes down. Our government loses and the only people that gain are people in the top %5-%10 income bracket (and the only big gains are in the top %1). To me it sounds like the building of a crappy surf society where most of us lose.