+1, Parent, wish I had mod points. For thousands of years, there has always been an end-of-the-world crisis. The human species is quite resilient and innovative when motivated properly.:)
Why did you get re-scanned between connections? Usually I arrive at a gate in the secure area, and walk (or run) to another gate, still within the secure area.
I think this is really cool but it seems impractical. Aircraft are very expensive to maintain and you'll need a pilot certificate to fly this. It's probably cheaper to have a car and rent a plane (or, depending on the cost of this thing, just buy a used 172). The usable load is very low, as well (hopefully that 330lbs number is in addition to fuel).
I also look at this from the perspective of being a "dual-purpose" vehicle; most of which are mediocre. A common example might be a dual-sport motorcycle. It's not a great motorcycle and it's not a great dirtbike, but it can do both. Just from the looks (wings all folded up, blocking vision out of the rear windows, etc) this is not going to be a practical car. I guess we'll see how good of an airplane it will be. My question is, what problem does this solve? You drive to the airport, unfold the wings, then get out of the car and do your pre-flight? How is that different from getting out of your car and doing your pre-flight on your regular aircraft?
Either way, this seems like a neat invention. I think they'll have trouble selling 200 of these, especially if they are priced similarly to normal small aircraft, but it would be really cool to see this thing in person.
Did you read the article? Because if you did, instead of rushing to bash my post, you'd see that it mentions things like Goldfish. It also specifically refutes the point your posts makes in the second paragraph. So your point is that keeping goldfish in a tank for the first year of their life is so inhumane and instead, I should buy goldfish from my neighbor and put them in a tank instead?
You are thinking of this from the perspective of a poor little puppy from a puppy mill stuck in a shop window. I agree, that's a terrible thing, and that's what the original (which was still absurd) was meant to prevent. However, this law has been expanded to include pretty much all animals. It's so absurd and so ridiculous that I can't believe people (you?) would take this seriously.
What it boils down to is we have people who are butt-hurt that the majority of Americans don't care about the feelings of a fish or the feelings of the rat they are going to feed to their python. So these people are trying to push their worldview on everyone else - regardless of the fact that "treating animals like commodities" is something that humans have been doing since the first creature was domesticated.
So yeah, I do get your point, I did read the article, and I think you are dead wrong. These people are off-their-rocker PETA wackos that don't want anyone to own any pets, ever. In fact, other sources go on to say that "eventually, there would likely be no more tropical fish or other exotic pets in San Francisco (except those imported illegally). Purebred dogs and cats might become a thing of the past as well."
What does biology have to do with this? Many pets are specifically bred to be sold. If there are no buyers, people are not going to breed these animals (they don't want to be stuck with four macaws, or six puppies). The ones that do breed will turn in to strays. Sounds a lot better.
I'm using a Vaio S that gets 7+hr battery life in Windows, and under 2hr battery life in Fedora. The big problem that I see with this laptop is that Fedora is not utilizing the "hybrid" graphics system, and it is constantly running off of the graphics card instead of the integrated graphics (in windows, this brings the battery life to under 2 hours, as well). It would be nice to be able to switch that permanently to integrated to get the battery life.
There is a reason that less than 1/5 of one percent of the US population are pilots. It's not easy, it requires a lot of work, and it's very expensive (40-50 hours in a cheap cessna at $100/hr plus ~$35-45/hr for an instructor). There are even less instrument rated pilots (about 200,000 less) who are certificated to fly in poor weather/visibility. The problem isn't the "autopilotable" part (flying along a route), it's weather, navigation, landing, emergency procedures. Most people simply won't do it, it's far easier to drive a car.
I am unsure of how this design will handle an engine-out situation. A fixed-wing aircraft will have some glide ratio (9:1, 7:1, whatever) and a helicopter will autorotate. What happens with this design? It looks like it would just become a brick.
50 cents/gb seems extremely cheap. I use data constantly and haven't gone over 2gb. Do you think VZW would really go for charging me $1 instead of the 30 or 40 bucks they are charging now?
Well, I can't do anything other than type out my experience but it works out of the box on my home network and my work's network. In fact, I have ILSPY on my network share, and used it yesterday from someone else's machine. For reference, the latest ILSPY requires.NET4.0 and the utilities that I talked about previously were built on.NET2.0.
Verizon uses CDMA not GSM, so there are no SIM cards to switch; it's all done with a unique identifier on the phone. I think Sprint is the only other US network that utilizes CDMA.
This is not true at all. I've written a few utilities which are run by people throughout my company directly from my network share. As long as you have.NET installed, it works just fine.
The good news is, the smart kids will - given the opportunity - teach themselves. It's really interesting how many times I hear stories similar to my own. In fact, I was talking to one guy who got his start programming the same way that I did: a hand-me-down TRS80 in elementary school.:)
Really? Not available? That's funny. I have a few reference books on my kindle, and a few books written by scientists. There are thousands of non-fiction books available for Kindle.
Re:Dramatic effect and scientific precision
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
You probably get more minerals in your water drinking out of a stream than you would this stuff. I guess nature should be scolded for adding salt to the water.
It's easy for me and it's easy for you - it's even easy to use once it's set up (assuming they are vigilant). But if I told my (very non-geek) girlfriend to encrypt her e-mails, she would have no clue on where to start. I could certainly help her but the problem is that not everyone has someone to ask or would even care enough to do so (obvious, since most people don't encrypt their email).
I definitely agree that everything should be encrypted, it has a great deal of benefits (aside from my opinion that cryptography is just fascinating). It's problematic though, since most people don't think that way - now we're back at square one, how am I supposed to send an encrypted e-mail to someone without a public key? Even if they had one, we still run into some problems with people not paying attention to what they are doing (did they verify that the fingerprint I gave them matched before they trusted my public key? Not likely).
I think computer security in general is far removed from many people's minds outside of paying their 40$/yr to Symantec. E-Mail encryption? They simply don't care.
That's actually really creepy, more so since the email was just a joke email.
I always stick to the "email is not secure" motto. Encrypt something that needs to be protected. If the person doesn't screw around with e-mail encryption (let's be honest, it's not easy and most people would give up on it; they don't think there is a need), then I'll at least use an encrypted zip/rar file and stick it in my public dropbox. They can get it there.
That's not entirely true. Quite a few banks out there subscribe to services that act as bank-account specific "credit reports". If you owe a bank money (overdrawn accounts, fees, bounced checked, etc), they can report you to these types of services and other banks may not be willing to open an account for you.
Granted, some bank out there WILL give you an account but some will not.
Please go to red hat's web site and download a copy of RHEL for free; just tell them you don't want support. Won't that work? No? How are they still in business with companies like Oracle taking their software, rebranding it, and selling it?
The point is, it can be done. Does that mean it is a great business model? No. I work for a software company and our business would fail if we licensed our software under GPL (mainly because our competitors would be able to take code that was difficult to develop in order to comply with government regulations).However, even under a "public domain after you've squeezed the money out" model, we would never release our software because we are continually building on it. It's the core of our business.
What are you talking about? With most open source licenses, I can sell it as-is as long as I make the source code available. I can modify it to my heart's content and sell that modified version.
If everyone followed your model, things like GNU/Linux would never exist. We have companies like Red Hat raking in $900m+, certainly making a profit, using software that isn't theirs (copyleft software).
Slashdot Mirror
+1, Parent, wish I had mod points. For thousands of years, there has always been an end-of-the-world crisis. The human species is quite resilient and innovative when motivated properly. :)
Oh, man. That sounds like a huge pain in the neck.
Why did you get re-scanned between connections? Usually I arrive at a gate in the secure area, and walk (or run) to another gate, still within the secure area.
I think this is really cool but it seems impractical. Aircraft are very expensive to maintain and you'll need a pilot certificate to fly this. It's probably cheaper to have a car and rent a plane (or, depending on the cost of this thing, just buy a used 172). The usable load is very low, as well (hopefully that 330lbs number is in addition to fuel).
I also look at this from the perspective of being a "dual-purpose" vehicle; most of which are mediocre. A common example might be a dual-sport motorcycle. It's not a great motorcycle and it's not a great dirtbike, but it can do both. Just from the looks (wings all folded up, blocking vision out of the rear windows, etc) this is not going to be a practical car. I guess we'll see how good of an airplane it will be. My question is, what problem does this solve? You drive to the airport, unfold the wings, then get out of the car and do your pre-flight? How is that different from getting out of your car and doing your pre-flight on your regular aircraft?
Either way, this seems like a neat invention. I think they'll have trouble selling 200 of these, especially if they are priced similarly to normal small aircraft, but it would be really cool to see this thing in person.
Did you read the article? Because if you did, instead of rushing to bash my post, you'd see that it mentions things like Goldfish. It also specifically refutes the point your posts makes in the second paragraph. So your point is that keeping goldfish in a tank for the first year of their life is so inhumane and instead, I should buy goldfish from my neighbor and put them in a tank instead? You are thinking of this from the perspective of a poor little puppy from a puppy mill stuck in a shop window. I agree, that's a terrible thing, and that's what the original (which was still absurd) was meant to prevent. However, this law has been expanded to include pretty much all animals. It's so absurd and so ridiculous that I can't believe people (you?) would take this seriously. What it boils down to is we have people who are butt-hurt that the majority of Americans don't care about the feelings of a fish or the feelings of the rat they are going to feed to their python. So these people are trying to push their worldview on everyone else - regardless of the fact that "treating animals like commodities" is something that humans have been doing since the first creature was domesticated. So yeah, I do get your point, I did read the article, and I think you are dead wrong. These people are off-their-rocker PETA wackos that don't want anyone to own any pets, ever. In fact, other sources go on to say that "eventually, there would likely be no more tropical fish or other exotic pets in San Francisco (except those imported illegally). Purebred dogs and cats might become a thing of the past as well."
What does biology have to do with this? Many pets are specifically bred to be sold. If there are no buyers, people are not going to breed these animals (they don't want to be stuck with four macaws, or six puppies). The ones that do breed will turn in to strays. Sounds a lot better.
What lives will it save? Without the pet industry, these animals would never be born.
I'm using a Vaio S that gets 7+hr battery life in Windows, and under 2hr battery life in Fedora. The big problem that I see with this laptop is that Fedora is not utilizing the "hybrid" graphics system, and it is constantly running off of the graphics card instead of the integrated graphics (in windows, this brings the battery life to under 2 hours, as well). It would be nice to be able to switch that permanently to integrated to get the battery life.
There is a reason that less than 1/5 of one percent of the US population are pilots. It's not easy, it requires a lot of work, and it's very expensive (40-50 hours in a cheap cessna at $100/hr plus ~$35-45/hr for an instructor). There are even less instrument rated pilots (about 200,000 less) who are certificated to fly in poor weather/visibility. The problem isn't the "autopilotable" part (flying along a route), it's weather, navigation, landing, emergency procedures. Most people simply won't do it, it's far easier to drive a car.
I am unsure of how this design will handle an engine-out situation. A fixed-wing aircraft will have some glide ratio (9:1, 7:1, whatever) and a helicopter will autorotate. What happens with this design? It looks like it would just become a brick.
50 cents/gb seems extremely cheap. I use data constantly and haven't gone over 2gb. Do you think VZW would really go for charging me $1 instead of the 30 or 40 bucks they are charging now?
happens to me, too (++). If you use the character codes in the URL it works; for me, I have to use http://slashdot.org/~jonamous%2B%2B
I'm both amused and concerned that I've heard statements similar to the ones that you have made at my own workplace. *sigh*
Well, I can't do anything other than type out my experience but it works out of the box on my home network and my work's network. In fact, I have ILSPY on my network share, and used it yesterday from someone else's machine. For reference, the latest ILSPY requires .NET4.0 and the utilities that I talked about previously were built on .NET2.0.
Verizon uses CDMA not GSM, so there are no SIM cards to switch; it's all done with a unique identifier on the phone. I think Sprint is the only other US network that utilizes CDMA.
This is not true at all. I've written a few utilities which are run by people throughout my company directly from my network share. As long as you have .NET installed, it works just fine.
File > Print
The good news is, the smart kids will - given the opportunity - teach themselves. It's really interesting how many times I hear stories similar to my own. In fact, I was talking to one guy who got his start programming the same way that I did: a hand-me-down TRS80 in elementary school. :)
Really? Not available? That's funny. I have a few reference books on my kindle, and a few books written by scientists. There are thousands of non-fiction books available for Kindle.
You probably get more minerals in your water drinking out of a stream than you would this stuff. I guess nature should be scolded for adding salt to the water.
It's easy for me and it's easy for you - it's even easy to use once it's set up (assuming they are vigilant). But if I told my (very non-geek) girlfriend to encrypt her e-mails, she would have no clue on where to start. I could certainly help her but the problem is that not everyone has someone to ask or would even care enough to do so (obvious, since most people don't encrypt their email).
I definitely agree that everything should be encrypted, it has a great deal of benefits (aside from my opinion that cryptography is just fascinating). It's problematic though, since most people don't think that way - now we're back at square one, how am I supposed to send an encrypted e-mail to someone without a public key? Even if they had one, we still run into some problems with people not paying attention to what they are doing (did they verify that the fingerprint I gave them matched before they trusted my public key? Not likely).
I think computer security in general is far removed from many people's minds outside of paying their 40$/yr to Symantec. E-Mail encryption? They simply don't care.
That's actually really creepy, more so since the email was just a joke email.
I always stick to the "email is not secure" motto. Encrypt something that needs to be protected. If the person doesn't screw around with e-mail encryption (let's be honest, it's not easy and most people would give up on it; they don't think there is a need), then I'll at least use an encrypted zip/rar file and stick it in my public dropbox. They can get it there.
That's not entirely true. Quite a few banks out there subscribe to services that act as bank-account specific "credit reports". If you owe a bank money (overdrawn accounts, fees, bounced checked, etc), they can report you to these types of services and other banks may not be willing to open an account for you. Granted, some bank out there WILL give you an account but some will not.
Please go to red hat's web site and download a copy of RHEL for free; just tell them you don't want support. Won't that work? No? How are they still in business with companies like Oracle taking their software, rebranding it, and selling it? The point is, it can be done. Does that mean it is a great business model? No. I work for a software company and our business would fail if we licensed our software under GPL (mainly because our competitors would be able to take code that was difficult to develop in order to comply with government regulations).However, even under a "public domain after you've squeezed the money out" model, we would never release our software because we are continually building on it. It's the core of our business.
What are you talking about? With most open source licenses, I can sell it as-is as long as I make the source code available. I can modify it to my heart's content and sell that modified version. If everyone followed your model, things like GNU/Linux would never exist. We have companies like Red Hat raking in $900m+, certainly making a profit, using software that isn't theirs (copyleft software).