-They are I'm not sure about that. For me the perfect use of this thing would be to buy copies of the dozens of coding reference books I've bought in dead-tree form over the years. Toss it in my briefcase and I'm ready for the office, a trip, or home. Unfortunately, the technical books listed (I didn't look at all of them) are only a couple of dollars cheaper than their dead-tree alternative. The Kindle edition of _Core Java 2, Volume I_ is $31 while the dead-tree, paperback version is $34. Are you telling me that the cost to print, ship, and warehouse a 784 page book is only $3?
I'm confused... The terrorist is in the theater? Where's the bomb? Is the bomb also in the theater? The theater is crowded therefor it is possible that the terrorist enjoys popular movies. Or, maybe, it is opening weekend? Is it that Vince Vaughn movie about elves and Santa Claus? In any case, perhaps the terrorist is a movie buff. If he's really into movies he might be the kind of person who always turns off his cell phone before entering a movie; especially a crowded one. Just because he's a terrorist doesn't mean he's also rude.
However, perhaps he is a rude terrorist. You claim that you can MAKE him talk on the phone and tell you where the bomb is. Why did he take your call? Does he have a custom ringtone for your calls so he knows it's you? An even better question: why do you have this terrorist's cell phone number and why does he have a custom ringtone for you? Are you, MillionthMonkey, a terrorist? Are you on his Friends and Family network? I'm really disappointed in you. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces are fighting in Iraq and you've got terrorist on your Friends and Family network! You are a disgrace to this country!
Why don't you get off of your prayer rug and realize that the American people are not your enemy, Abdul, I mean, MillionthMonkey. We believe in Live and Let Live and the Pursuit of Happiness. Also, don't blow up our Vince Vaughn Christmas movies! When Bill O'Reilly talked about the War on Christmas this is not what he meant. In fact, though I haven't checked recently, I think that Bill O'Reilly is often opposed to terrorist acts!
So, for the sake of Vince Vaughn, Bill O'Reilly, and Christmas movies everywhere I implore you, MillionthMonkey, to talk to your terrorist friends and convince them to not wind up their ticking time bombs. Give Peace a Chance!
To build a hypothesis on geek stereotypes, I'd say that there are 10 types of people in the world: those who use a cell phone to convey information and those who use a cell phone to talk. They are not necessarily the same thing. The first type make their call, convey their information, and hang up. The second type use phones to fill up time or as an enjoyable diversion from day to day activities. If I'm alone, I may take a magazine to lunch and read. The second type may take their cell phone to talk. The problem is that my reading a magazine doesn't interfere with someone's talking on a cell phone, but the converse is not necessarily true.
I'm trying to avoid value judgments here. Its basically the difference between introverts and extroverts or salespeople and tech types. It's two different cultures that happen to occupy the same land. It's a classic example of the tech types coming up with a technical "solution" to a cultural "problem".
Actually, it's more likely that cell phone jammers will save lives since many of the IEDs are actually detonated by cell phone calls.
New bumper stickers / Republican debate points: "Cell Phone Jammers Save Lives", "Win the War on Terror! Jam Cell Phones", "Love your Country; Jam a Cell Phone!", "Terrorists Use Cell Phones", "Unjammed Cell Phones Sink Ships"
Do a google search for "real employment rate". Various citations from 23% (creepy blog), to 5.6% (Heritage Foundation), to 10% to 13% (Slate.com article).
They all seem to pick and chose their assumptions, but so does the "official" unemployment rate.
This may not be perfectly applicable to your anecdote, but I saw this quote from a writer of The Wire and it's been echoing in my head as I've been reading all the posts about the pros and cons of automation:
"The Wire," Simon often says, is a show about how contemporary American society--and, particularly, "raw, unencumbered capitalism"--devalues human beings. He told me, "Every single moment on the planet, from here on out, human beings are worth less. We are in a post-industrial age. We don't need as many of us as we once did. So, if the first season was about devaluing the cops who knew their beats and the corner boys slinging drugs, then the second was about devaluing the longshoremen and their labor, the third about people who wanted to make changes in the city, and the fourth was about kids who were being prepared, badly, for an economy that no longer really needs them. And the fifth? It's about the people who are supposed to be monitoring all this and sounding the alarm--the journalists. The newsroom I worked in had four hundred and fifty people. Now it's got three hundred. Management says, 'We have to do more with less.' That's the bullshit of bean counters who care only about the bottom line. You do less with less." Are we becoming a society where we just need less people? Except, of course, as consumers...
Still, a nice payday for Comcast. I'm actually shocked that it's that cheap! Everything I've seen of government contracting would have led me to think that Comcast would charge $1000/foot for the coax + $350 an hour for the "trained monitoring engineers". If the FBI is really getting wiretaps for just $1000 a piece, I'll applaud them for their negotiating ability.
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Don't mod the parent "off topic". It's possible that God is posting AC. Check the bottom of of the thread to see if the last post is AC as well.
Suppose the story said that liberals were 81.37% more likely than conservatives to have ADD, what then?
Well, as a liberal in this hypothetical situation, I would have said that the study deserves an in-depth review of the look at the pretty birds, I wonder what's for dinner tonight, is there anything good on television, I don't like spinach, I'm bored.
I was looking at the volunteering page and I didn't understand the part about the web server. I have a web server that gets almost no load (it's mostly personal stuff) can I let it be an NTP server and still use it as a web server for myself? Or, does it end up being a dedicated NTP machine?
...in the sense that somebody working at a law firm is going to have a much better health plan than somebody working at a supermarket.
I'm going to go off on a tangent here.
While this is definitely true, the current situation is even worse. Back through the 1970s or 80s that law firm would have have had a team of janitors, a building manager, receptionists, and accountants on staff. It is very likely that today, however, all of those non-core functions have been outsourced to the lowest bidder who, because they are the lowest bidder and wants to stay competitive, is unlikely to offer health insurance. The people in that law firm with good health benefits consists mostly of lawyers and para-legals. It's kind of like saying, "the citizens of Dubai are very wealthy"; it's true, of course, but ignores the huge population of non-citizen guest workers in that country.
A good employee would have opened the envelopes, copied all the personal information into the junk mail, telemarketing, and spam lists and THEN shredded the rebate forms.
I wasn't sure if you were accusing me of being a comment whore? But, I did a search for Oink on Google and Oink.me came up as an invitation only bit torrent directory service for music? It looks like it's unavailable but the link redirected to Oink.cd.
In any case, I appreciate the link, but I'm not so much looking for places to get free music (I can afford to buy music that I like) but a trustworthy place to discover new music.
The AC response was interesting but it has a similar problem. I can go to Pandora and enter in a band I like and find similar music or I can go to Amazon and get a "you liked X, you should try Y" suggestions. In both cases, however, I feel like I'm only making incremental movements into new music and I still feel like I may miss out on whole movements.
And don't ask me what that current music is - I'm 35 and I already find myself listening to my old stuff more than the current stuff. When I saw the title of the thread (Does Going Digital Mean Missing Music?) I thought the above quote was going to be the focus of the discussion. Instead of whether MP3 is reducing the fidelity of the music, I'm more concerned about the music I'm missing because it's easier to buy some hit from my childhood and teen years on iTunes than it is to find some new, possibly challenging, music.
To a certain extent, this is another aspect of the tyranny of choice. Given a limited amount of time and a near infinite number of options, I find myself retreating to the tried and true. An occasional new band makes it through the filters through some non-standard channel (that video by OK Go, for example) but for the most part I find myself re-buying the old hits from 10 and 20 years ago.
I'm also in my mid-thirties. Where should I go to find the music that is new and relevant? The radio is a non-starter since there is no college radio in my town, MTV is just reality television every time I happen to check it out, I'm not hip enough to hang out at the local record shop, and at the iTunes store I can't tell which bikini-clad singer actually has talent and which is a corporate creation in the 20 seconds of preview that they give me.
My sources inside the Department of Justice have revealed a rough draft of these procedures written by Al Gonzonles:
FISA court proceedures, draft 1 1. If, the suspect ever said anything bad about me, President Bush or "tricky" Dick Cheney, 2. Or, the suspect has ever filed a petition to challenge the legality of the warrentless surveillance, 3. Or, I, President Bush, "tricky" Dick Cheney, or the editorial board at Fox News really want the warrentless serveillance to be approved, 4. Then, approval for warrentless surveillance on the suspect is to be approved. It's a surprisingly low bar.
The second paragraph under the chart:
If you look at the debt starting with Truman's term (and remove Roosevelt's WWII debt) the difference between the two parties contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.1% per year. Over the last 57 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by more than a two to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 57 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.47. The page has references for more information.
We should be fair to the earlier Republican presidents since about 2/3rds (about $6 trillion) of the existing $8.9 trillion debt was incurred under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. It looks like Eisenhower, in particular, was an example of a real fiscally conservative Republican.
Wait a minute. Why is it flamebait to declare that Republicans are opposed to taxes but still want to spend tax money on their pet projects. Am I wrong? Since WWII the U.S. debt has increased 3.2% per year under Democratic presidents and 9.7% per year under Republican administrations.
If you're talking about the dividend, that is NOT your tax dollars. Well, we're NOT talking about the dividend. The Economist magazine refers to Alaska as America's welfare state. Some choice comments from that respected magazine:
Federal spending supports a third of all Alaskan jobs...
...the state is paved with pork--from its half-empty high-speed ferries to the $500,000 that the federally-funded Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board gave to Alaska Airlines to paint a giant king salmon on one of its aeroplanes.
...they are wrapped in a thick mink coat of subsidies.
If they property prices were increasing to much you'd think they could buy their own damn bridge rather than have the American taxpayer buy them one. That might mean they have to raise taxes, though and I know how Republican's always expect other people to pay for their pet projects.
1. Because I'm a cynic and I haven't seen a situation where my cynicism isn't justified. Even in relatively green cities like Portland, OR and Seattle, WA the percentage of recycling isn't particularly high. In cities like Baltimore, MD it's almost non-existent. And, even if education could inspire a non-trivial percentage of the population to recycle their electronics, are we going to depend on the government to properly educate the citizens and how are we going to pay for this massive education campaign?
2. True. However, if this is important enough then you have two options:
a) set the deposit so that it completely covers the true cost to not only dispose of the electronics but also to fish all the not-properly disposed of items from the waste stream,
or b) you make it work like Oregon's bottle deposit law where even if I'm too lazy to recycle my monitor that homeless guy will definitely pluck it out of my trash to claim my deposit.
I don't actually disagree with you. The perfect world would have everyone paying to dispose of their electronics and other waste responsibly and, just as important, understand that the price tag at BestBuy is only part of the Total Cost of Ownership. In other words, a magical world where everyone carts their old monitor down to the free-market monitor recyclers and happily pay some money for the privilege.
The problem is (and where most libertarian utopias fall apart) is that without an economic incentive to do "right" that outweighs the convenience of doing "wrong" most people won't. You and I agree that a government solution is not the best possible solution but fail to offer an alternate scenario based on anything but the futile hope that people will take responsibility for their actions.
Good point, calling the recycling program "free" is incorrect. In this case it would be better to call it a deposit on the proper disposal of your electronics. If that $2000 you just spent on your laptop doesn't include the cost to dispose of it then you're basically just assuming welfare from your fellow citizens and/or your descendants to cover the cost of its disposal and cleanup.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused... The terrorist is in the theater? Where's the bomb? Is the bomb also in the theater? The theater is crowded therefor it is possible that the terrorist enjoys popular movies. Or, maybe, it is opening weekend? Is it that Vince Vaughn movie about elves and Santa Claus? In any case, perhaps the terrorist is a movie buff. If he's really into movies he might be the kind of person who always turns off his cell phone before entering a movie; especially a crowded one. Just because he's a terrorist doesn't mean he's also rude.
However, perhaps he is a rude terrorist. You claim that you can MAKE him talk on the phone and tell you where the bomb is. Why did he take your call? Does he have a custom ringtone for your calls so he knows it's you? An even better question: why do you have this terrorist's cell phone number and why does he have a custom ringtone for you? Are you, MillionthMonkey, a terrorist? Are you on his Friends and Family network? I'm really disappointed in you. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces are fighting in Iraq and you've got terrorist on your Friends and Family network! You are a disgrace to this country!
Why don't you get off of your prayer rug and realize that the American people are not your enemy, Abdul, I mean, MillionthMonkey. We believe in Live and Let Live and the Pursuit of Happiness. Also, don't blow up our Vince Vaughn Christmas movies! When Bill O'Reilly talked about the War on Christmas this is not what he meant. In fact, though I haven't checked recently, I think that Bill O'Reilly is often opposed to terrorist acts!
So, for the sake of Vince Vaughn, Bill O'Reilly, and Christmas movies everywhere I implore you, MillionthMonkey, to talk to your terrorist friends and convince them to not wind up their ticking time bombs. Give Peace a Chance!
To build a hypothesis on geek stereotypes, I'd say that there are 10 types of people in the world: those who use a cell phone to convey information and those who use a cell phone to talk. They are not necessarily the same thing. The first type make their call, convey their information, and hang up. The second type use phones to fill up time or as an enjoyable diversion from day to day activities. If I'm alone, I may take a magazine to lunch and read. The second type may take their cell phone to talk. The problem is that my reading a magazine doesn't interfere with someone's talking on a cell phone, but the converse is not necessarily true.
I'm trying to avoid value judgments here. Its basically the difference between introverts and extroverts or salespeople and tech types. It's two different cultures that happen to occupy the same land. It's a classic example of the tech types coming up with a technical "solution" to a cultural "problem".
Actually, it's more likely that cell phone jammers will save lives since many of the IEDs are actually detonated by cell phone calls.
New bumper stickers / Republican debate points:
"Cell Phone Jammers Save Lives",
"Win the War on Terror! Jam Cell Phones",
"Love your Country; Jam a Cell Phone!",
"Terrorists Use Cell Phones",
"Unjammed Cell Phones Sink Ships"
Do a google search for "real employment rate". Various citations from 23% (creepy blog), to 5.6% (Heritage Foundation), to 10% to 13% (Slate.com article).
They all seem to pick and chose their assumptions, but so does the "official" unemployment rate.
I was just hoping that this applied to AT&T's wireless service; it sounds like the perfect "get out of your 2 year contract free" scheme.
Happy to help (god save your soul), I can has cheezburger?
Well, as a liberal in this hypothetical situation, I would have said that the study deserves an in-depth review of the look at the pretty birds, I wonder what's for dinner tonight, is there anything good on television, I don't like spinach, I'm bored.
I was looking at the volunteering page and I didn't understand the part about the web server. I have a web server that gets almost no load (it's mostly personal stuff) can I let it be an NTP server and still use it as a web server for myself? Or, does it end up being a dedicated NTP machine?
I'm going to go off on a tangent here.
While this is definitely true, the current situation is even worse. Back through the 1970s or 80s that law firm would have have had a team of janitors, a building manager, receptionists, and accountants on staff. It is very likely that today, however, all of those non-core functions have been outsourced to the lowest bidder who, because they are the lowest bidder and wants to stay competitive, is unlikely to offer health insurance. The people in that law firm with good health benefits consists mostly of lawyers and para-legals. It's kind of like saying, "the citizens of Dubai are very wealthy"; it's true, of course, but ignores the huge population of non-citizen guest workers in that country.
A good employee would have opened the envelopes, copied all the personal information into the junk mail, telemarketing, and spam lists and THEN shredded the rebate forms.
What do you think these rebates are for, anyway?
I wasn't sure if you were accusing me of being a comment whore? But, I did a search for Oink on Google and Oink.me came up as an invitation only bit torrent directory service for music? It looks like it's unavailable but the link redirected to Oink.cd.
In any case, I appreciate the link, but I'm not so much looking for places to get free music (I can afford to buy music that I like) but a trustworthy place to discover new music.
The AC response was interesting but it has a similar problem. I can go to Pandora and enter in a band I like and find similar music or I can go to Amazon and get a "you liked X, you should try Y" suggestions. In both cases, however, I feel like I'm only making incremental movements into new music and I still feel like I may miss out on whole movements.
To a certain extent, this is another aspect of the tyranny of choice. Given a limited amount of time and a near infinite number of options, I find myself retreating to the tried and true. An occasional new band makes it through the filters through some non-standard channel (that video by OK Go, for example) but for the most part I find myself re-buying the old hits from 10 and 20 years ago.
I'm also in my mid-thirties. Where should I go to find the music that is new and relevant? The radio is a non-starter since there is no college radio in my town, MTV is just reality television every time I happen to check it out, I'm not hip enough to hang out at the local record shop, and at the iTunes store I can't tell which bikini-clad singer actually has talent and which is a corporate creation in the 20 seconds of preview that they give me.
1. If, the suspect ever said anything bad about me, President Bush or "tricky" Dick Cheney,
2. Or, the suspect has ever filed a petition to challenge the legality of the warrentless surveillance,
3. Or, I, President Bush, "tricky" Dick Cheney, or the editorial board at Fox News really want the warrentless serveillance to be approved,
4. Then, approval for warrentless surveillance on the suspect is to be approved. It's a surprisingly low bar.
The second paragraph under the chart: If you look at the debt starting with Truman's term (and remove Roosevelt's WWII debt) the difference between the two parties contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.1% per year. Over the last 57 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by more than a two to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 57 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.47. The page has references for more information.
We should be fair to the earlier Republican presidents since about 2/3rds (about $6 trillion) of the existing $8.9 trillion debt was incurred under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. It looks like Eisenhower, in particular, was an example of a real fiscally conservative Republican.
I had heard that as well that Stevens is the senator who put the "secret hold" (some sort of Senatorial maneuver) on the legislation for a public database on earmarks. Here's a brief mention with links: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/30/stevens-confir ms-he-placed-secret-hold-on-bill/
Wait a minute. Why is it flamebait to declare that Republicans are opposed to taxes but still want to spend tax money on their pet projects. Am I wrong? Since WWII the U.S. debt has increased 3.2% per year under Democratic presidents and 9.7% per year under Republican administrations.
If they property prices were increasing to much you'd think they could buy their own damn bridge rather than have the American taxpayer buy them one. That might mean they have to raise taxes, though and I know how Republican's always expect other people to pay for their pet projects.
1. Because I'm a cynic and I haven't seen a situation where my cynicism isn't justified. Even in relatively green cities like Portland, OR and Seattle, WA the percentage of recycling isn't particularly high. In cities like Baltimore, MD it's almost non-existent. And, even if education could inspire a non-trivial percentage of the population to recycle their electronics, are we going to depend on the government to properly educate the citizens and how are we going to pay for this massive education campaign?
2. True. However, if this is important enough then you have two options:
a) set the deposit so that it completely covers the true cost to not only dispose of the electronics but also to fish all the not-properly disposed of items from the waste stream,
or b) you make it work like Oregon's bottle deposit law where even if I'm too lazy to recycle my monitor that homeless guy will definitely pluck it out of my trash to claim my deposit.
I don't actually disagree with you. The perfect world would have everyone paying to dispose of their electronics and other waste responsibly and, just as important, understand that the price tag at BestBuy is only part of the Total Cost of Ownership. In other words, a magical world where everyone carts their old monitor down to the free-market monitor recyclers and happily pay some money for the privilege.
The problem is (and where most libertarian utopias fall apart) is that without an economic incentive to do "right" that outweighs the convenience of doing "wrong" most people won't. You and I agree that a government solution is not the best possible solution but fail to offer an alternate scenario based on anything but the futile hope that people will take responsibility for their actions.
Good point, calling the recycling program "free" is incorrect. In this case it would be better to call it a deposit on the proper disposal of your electronics. If that $2000 you just spent on your laptop doesn't include the cost to dispose of it then you're basically just assuming welfare from your fellow citizens and/or your descendants to cover the cost of its disposal and cleanup.