Don't invest loaned money. Pay back the loan. If you loose your investment, you're not out you're money, you're out the bank's money. And you won't even have anything to show for it.
You just described my father in law. He used to constantly be buying new machines. Then he put in a router with a firewall. His purchasing has slowed considerably, although I'm betting he'll buy a new one soon.
But they're all ideas for sites I could make money from, so I won't. This just reaffirms that Slashdot is primarily made up of people without a creative thought in their heads.
This is based upon why people said they got into accidents. Which goes back to the first rule of cell phones and drunk drivers. People always think they're driving far better than they are. So of course talking on a cell phone is not going to be listed.
Uh, yes. Blitzed does mean significantly impaired. There are some people who, while completely blitzed can drive perfectly. The problem is the majority can't. I was meaning to draw a similar line to cell phone use. There may be a few who can drive perfectly. There may even be 50%. But my own observation seems to indicate that there are at least 50% who drive worse than if they were well over the legal BAL.
And why not give the same test to drunk drivers? I mean some people can drive perfectly while completely blitzed. We still for some reason haven't provided a test for this...
Gotta be a "global warming is a hoax" guy too. What part of the science behind this study do you not understand?
1) Driving drunk is illegal 2) People talking on phones are more dangerous than drunk drivers
This is science. You may be the best drunk driver in the world. We still put you in prison. Obviously we need to do the same with cell phones. Because they are more dangerous. You are correct that there should be studies about loud stereo systems, changing CDs, changing radio stations. Oh wait! There have been. Here's one http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/20/driving.study/ind ex.html. And look, Cellphones are right up there with drowsiness and reading while driving.
Cell phone drivers are worse than drunk drivers. If you'd stop talking on your cellphone you'd be able to deduce this without a scientific study pretty quickly.
The Republican Congress is obviously intent on doing nothing until Elections this fall when they will fall out of power, and we perhaps can start having votes on issues more important than whether they like the media or whether they think the war in Iraq is going well. I think those kind of votes are called legislating, which I think technically is what they're supposed to be doing. Although I guess it's good for the nation that they can't be bothered to actually do that. Now if we could just get them to stop spending money like it's going out of style...
Re:Still my Pentium favourite
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I remember what fun it was to run this on my 486DX/33 with 16MB of RAM, while all my friends with their 486SX2/66 which should have completely schooled my machine(and did on every other game) were left in the dust. Good times.
For the love of pete! Please read the article. They're not saying that it was this hot 400 years ago! They're saying that's as far as they can reliably measure weather. This is like me saying that the latest Intel chip is the fastest computer built in 100 years, and you responding that 100 years ago there was a faster or equally fast computer. All of us on Slashdot know that's nonsense, but you feel the need to make the exact same logical jump with this article. 400-x000 years ago are just thresholds for how reliable the scientists feel their measurements are.
I used to have a liberal representative, but thanks to Tom Delay I now have Lamar Smith, or Mr. AT&T as I call him. Apparently my neighborhood of Austin high-tech workers share goals with San Antonio telecom workers and Suburban Houston oil engineers. Or not. Listen kids, this is what we've learned from the Republicans. If you rig the system you can fix the districts so that no one gets a representative. It's brilliant and a win-win for corporations.
Yes, that's correct. But what are the risks of being wrong? We all know that we have to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels no matter how cheap they may be. We know that as we have denser cities we have to work harder to keep air polution levels low (see also the black smog that covered London in the mid twentieth century). So you're saying that I'm not doing the correct cost-benifit analysis. But your analysis is exceedingly short-term. And at a certain point you have to say - is it more important that our poor can drive gas guzzlers, or that they have decent lifespans because we've cleaned up air pollution? There are always costs. Economics focuses far too often on the industrial costs, but there are other massive costs. What are the costs to the US economy providing Asthma and Allergy care, especially indegent care? Of treating various cancers? Of birth defects? Why is it that health care costs are skyrocketing even as the cost of everything from transistors to paper is dropping? What are the costs to the economy of having workers stuck in cars for 2 hours of unproductive commute time every day? Couldn't we have more productive rested workers, who could potentially work during their commute with better public transportation with network connectivity? The real question you have to ask, is what happens to the US economy when our extreme waste starts catching up with us? It has to catch up with us. There are basic laws of physics involved here. We can't have more matter than we start with. We can't have everyone in India, China, Canada, Europe, and the United States living at the same standard of living that the US is now. There simply aren't enough resources to go around. The markets are going to hurt the poor dispraportionatly however this shakes out (and quite frankly the markets are always hurting the poor). It's our job to elect politicians and start moving the government into the future. The free market won't do it for us.
Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it
on
Arctic Sea Level Falling?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, but nearly all of the "actions" I've heard recommended for dealing with global warming are just common sense, and would have other benefits. It's not as though someone has decided we should take an enormous glacier from the arctic ocean and drive it down to the equator to try to cool things off, change the orbit of the earth to be further from the sun, or some other fanciful suggestion. They're suggesting things like using less fossil fuels, looking into alternative energy, and reducing pollution and industry waste. I mean you cannot deny that any of these things are positive unless you're an industry shill. And they're actions we can safely take today, until we understand fully the science tomorrow.
No this is where all you pro-teleco morons are wrong. It's not "their infrastructure". It's infrastructure that was built with our cooperation. We gave them the ability to build that infrastructure on public lands. And the reason they had the capital to build it at all was because they were a monopoly. And they are going back to being a monopoly. I know that Republicans have become the party of saying one thing and believing another, but you guys are so out of touch it's unreal. How in the world could having a monopoly phone company lower prices? How can you call 3 competitors in a market "competition". That's not competition. That's a situation wherein eventually one of the competitors will buy the next biggest one, and drive the third one out of business. It's a time bomb. You must have legislation to have free markets. Otherwise all markets tends toward monopoly. Always.
Re:Art is about creativity, not rote coding
on
The Art of SQL
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
He used the word correctly. It is a real word, unlike "actionable". Just because a word has been overused in bizarre contexts, doesn't mean it can no longer be used in the correct one.
No he's right. The demand really is there. Especially to find the guy who you won't be afraid of firing. There are still plenty of anti-social perl guys who don't believe in carriage returns out there who can't get a job. It's the high performance, perltidy running, OOP guys who are in demand.
Also: at the 3rd paragraph, this guy admits he's a socialist, so his credibility to talk about freedom is GONE.
Yeah, Canada and Scandinavia have no freedom at all.
new companies would start laying more fiber to grab some of the profits, and the increased competition would bring prices back down in the long run
Who are these new companies with the assests to lay fiber? Where does one find the assets to lay fiber? You are describing the worlds most costly and risky startup. Are you honestly saying that more than one company will lay fiber to my house so that I have choices? This isn't something where you can make bookstore analogies. We are talking about implementing critical infrastructure that requires massive government cooperation. The same government that is already in the pocket of what will soon again be AT&T. Why in the world would the government even let you put in more fiber? It would be a loss to AT&T, jobs would be lost. Their lobbyists would make sure you couldn't get the proper permits.
Listen, I think it's possible that in a free market your ideas could work. But the United States is not a Free Market, and every day it approaches something much more akin to Communism than a free market. We have a few, politically connected corporations that control all of our major industries. If a serious competitor does pop up, it doesn't lead to a reduction in prices. It leads to the dominant player buying the competitor to ensure that prices stay up, or it leads to the dominant player slashing prices to the bone to eliminate all competition, and then bringing prices back up once they have established a dominant position. Stop spouting your "free market leads to lower prices" nonsense, it's religion not reality.
Or even easier. In IE Go to Internet Options, click on accessbility and specify your own stylesheet. The Web Developer Extension for Firefox allows you to specify a user defined stylesheet also. That way you can style the whole site rather than just a few pages.
How many fewer WinXP licenses would Microsoft sell if they didn't have a 85% market share with IE? I personally know hundreds of developers who would not be using windows if they didn't have to test IE compatability. If I extrapolate my extremely unscientific studies I could assume that about half of the developers in the world would not be using Windows if they didn't have to keep IE compatability. Not to mention the number of people who can't switch because their bank site is IE only...
We might get supply and demand, but I doubt that's what we want. Supply and demand would lead to corporate barons running feifdoms, always looking for the cheapest labor. You would work until you were no longer useful, and then you would die because there would be no healthcare. Corporations would love it. They would be able to get the cheapest labor possible. The problem is that cheap labor and products would destroy the buying power of consumers. So we'd either have to go to war to get more resources (rape and plunder war), or corporations forcing government to go into even further debt to subsidize consumers buying their products (an extension of what goes on now). Supply and demand is very effecient, but it's like darwinism. If it's unbalanced things move out of whack quite quickly. Corporate corruption will always ensure that supply and demand won't work. Because ultimately someone will do something that is not in the best interests of the market, causing the downfall of others, and ultimately the destruction of the markets. Supply and demand is a capitialist utopia. What has to happen is much akin to what the US has now (however imperfect). You must have a healthy educated workforce, subsidised by a mixture of government and private business, or else you will have no one to buy products. You must have enough government regulation that corruption does not go unchecked and equity moves properly through the system. If you do not have that balance then eventually the corporations will have no market, or the people will have no jobs. Once the people have no jobs they will demand action of their government which will result in regulation and subsidised health care and education. It's a chicken and egg situation. The best thing to do is try to have the happiest, healthiest employees and hope your competitors will rise to meet you. Because racing to the bottom just destroys everyone, as evidenced by the fact that wal*mart is now trying to become target (a company that does things slightly better). They've managed in a couple of decades to gut all of the future profit growth out of their core business. That's not genius. That's sad.
I'm quite sure it is. No one talks about it, but I'm pretty sure that IBM is writing off the cost of developing products like Cloudscape when they donate them to the Apache Group. Suddenly your millions of dollars of wasted revenue becomes a tax writeoff. It's brilliant. Corporate benevolance is almost always related to decreasing tax liability. See also Employee Stock Options.
Hey, I'm not shouting. And quite frankly it's a pet peeve. I'm sure you have one. Like people who leave their grass long, or the guy who parks his boat on the street, or whatever. I happen to almost get run off the road by cell phone users on a daily basis, often get slammed into by distracted cell phone users while walking, and often have a movie interrupted by a cell phone user. So I don't like people with cell phones, and I carry one now... for emergencies. As for the commercial aspects. I expect it will be like anything. People who want to go to nice theaters will find that cell phones are blocked. People that want to go see blockbusters in theaters decorated in Purple, Orange and neon will find the usual crowd scenes from the WWE. I guess some people like the community of the movie experience.
Hell no, I wouldn't spend on those frivolous programs. I'd give it for welfare and social security. You Republicans would start bitching something fierce when your granpappy starts sleeping on your front porch.
True, which is why probably you cell phone users will eventually have to start watching movies only at home. People who want to sit quietly in a movie with no cellphone noise are the vast majority (or teenagers who are going to go regardless), so probably the cellphone allowed theaters will become the bargain cinemas and lower end theaters at the end of their lifecycle. And really I don't care about this as much in the movie theater chains. I go mostly to theaters that show independent movies, and that by and large have patrons who know how to turn off their cell phones. My main concern are places with live performance such as theatrical theaters, operas, ballets, etc. Where it is NEVER acceptable for a cell phone to go off, and can in certain situations cause performers to become distracted and possibly harm themselves (if in a fight scene, or dance). Those places should (and probably will) become cell phone free as soon as possible. And the reason I don't care about your emergencies is that for thousands of years mankind has been able to do things without being contactable in emergencies 24/7. This is not a right, nor is it a need. If you worry that much about the people who might contact you with an emergency, stay home by the phone and worry. Stay out of our public places. If your employer makes you have a 24/7 contract get a new job. I'm not getting paid by your employer to be disturbed by you.
This isn't a snap judgment. I've had years to think it over. Simple solution. You go to the cell phone allowed theater. People who never have emergencies that can't wait 2 hours go the cell phone not allowed theater. What's the problem?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't invest loaned money. Pay back the loan. If you loose your investment, you're not out you're money, you're out the bank's money. And you won't even have anything to show for it.
You just described my father in law. He used to constantly be buying new machines. Then he put in a router with a firewall. His purchasing has slowed considerably, although I'm betting he'll buy a new one soon.
But they're all ideas for sites I could make money from, so I won't. This just reaffirms that Slashdot is primarily made up of people without a creative thought in their heads.
This is based upon why people said they got into accidents. Which goes back to the first rule of cell phones and drunk drivers. People always think they're driving far better than they are. So of course talking on a cell phone is not going to be listed.
Uh, yes. Blitzed does mean significantly impaired. There are some people who, while completely blitzed can drive perfectly. The problem is the majority can't. I was meaning to draw a similar line to cell phone use. There may be a few who can drive perfectly. There may even be 50%. But my own observation seems to indicate that there are at least 50% who drive worse than if they were well over the legal BAL.
And why not give the same test to drunk drivers? I mean some people can drive perfectly while completely blitzed. We still for some reason haven't provided a test for this...
Gotta be a "global warming is a hoax" guy too. What part of the science behind this study do you not understand?
d ex.html. And look, Cellphones are right up there with drowsiness and reading while driving.
1) Driving drunk is illegal
2) People talking on phones are more dangerous than drunk drivers
This is science. You may be the best drunk driver in the world. We still put you in prison. Obviously we need to do the same with cell phones. Because they are more dangerous.
You are correct that there should be studies about loud stereo systems, changing CDs, changing radio stations. Oh wait! There have been. Here's one http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/20/driving.study/in
Cell phone drivers are worse than drunk drivers. If you'd stop talking on your cellphone you'd be able to deduce this without a scientific study pretty quickly.
The Republican Congress is obviously intent on doing nothing until Elections this fall when they will fall out of power, and we perhaps can start having votes on issues more important than whether they like the media or whether they think the war in Iraq is going well. I think those kind of votes are called legislating, which I think technically is what they're supposed to be doing. Although I guess it's good for the nation that they can't be bothered to actually do that. Now if we could just get them to stop spending money like it's going out of style...
Yeah, I remember what fun it was to run this on my 486DX/33 with 16MB of RAM, while all my friends with their 486SX2/66 which should have completely schooled my machine(and did on every other game) were left in the dust. Good times.
For the love of pete! Please read the article. They're not saying that it was this hot 400 years ago! They're saying that's as far as they can reliably measure weather. This is like me saying that the latest Intel chip is the fastest computer built in 100 years, and you responding that 100 years ago there was a faster or equally fast computer. All of us on Slashdot know that's nonsense, but you feel the need to make the exact same logical jump with this article. 400-x000 years ago are just thresholds for how reliable the scientists feel their measurements are.
I used to have a liberal representative, but thanks to Tom Delay I now have Lamar Smith, or Mr. AT&T as I call him. Apparently my neighborhood of Austin high-tech workers share goals with San Antonio telecom workers and Suburban Houston oil engineers. Or not. Listen kids, this is what we've learned from the Republicans. If you rig the system you can fix the districts so that no one gets a representative. It's brilliant and a win-win for corporations.
Yes, that's correct. But what are the risks of being wrong? We all know that we have to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels no matter how cheap they may be. We know that as we have denser cities we have to work harder to keep air polution levels low (see also the black smog that covered London in the mid twentieth century). So you're saying that I'm not doing the correct cost-benifit analysis. But your analysis is exceedingly short-term. And at a certain point you have to say - is it more important that our poor can drive gas guzzlers, or that they have decent lifespans because we've cleaned up air pollution? There are always costs. Economics focuses far too often on the industrial costs, but there are other massive costs. What are the costs to the US economy providing Asthma and Allergy care, especially indegent care? Of treating various cancers? Of birth defects? Why is it that health care costs are skyrocketing even as the cost of everything from transistors to paper is dropping? What are the costs to the economy of having workers stuck in cars for 2 hours of unproductive commute time every day? Couldn't we have more productive rested workers, who could potentially work during their commute with better public transportation with network connectivity?
The real question you have to ask, is what happens to the US economy when our extreme waste starts catching up with us? It has to catch up with us. There are basic laws of physics involved here. We can't have more matter than we start with. We can't have everyone in India, China, Canada, Europe, and the United States living at the same standard of living that the US is now. There simply aren't enough resources to go around. The markets are going to hurt the poor dispraportionatly however this shakes out (and quite frankly the markets are always hurting the poor). It's our job to elect politicians and start moving the government into the future. The free market won't do it for us.
Yes, but nearly all of the "actions" I've heard recommended for dealing with global warming are just common sense, and would have other benefits. It's not as though someone has decided we should take an enormous glacier from the arctic ocean and drive it down to the equator to try to cool things off, change the orbit of the earth to be further from the sun, or some other fanciful suggestion. They're suggesting things like using less fossil fuels, looking into alternative energy, and reducing pollution and industry waste. I mean you cannot deny that any of these things are positive unless you're an industry shill. And they're actions we can safely take today, until we understand fully the science tomorrow.
No this is where all you pro-teleco morons are wrong. It's not "their infrastructure". It's infrastructure that was built with our cooperation. We gave them the ability to build that infrastructure on public lands. And the reason they had the capital to build it at all was because they were a monopoly. And they are going back to being a monopoly. I know that Republicans have become the party of saying one thing and believing another, but you guys are so out of touch it's unreal. How in the world could having a monopoly phone company lower prices? How can you call 3 competitors in a market "competition". That's not competition. That's a situation wherein eventually one of the competitors will buy the next biggest one, and drive the third one out of business. It's a time bomb. You must have legislation to have free markets. Otherwise all markets tends toward monopoly. Always.
He used the word correctly. It is a real word, unlike "actionable". Just because a word has been overused in bizarre contexts, doesn't mean it can no longer be used in the correct one.
No he's right. The demand really is there. Especially to find the guy who you won't be afraid of firing. There are still plenty of anti-social perl guys who don't believe in carriage returns out there who can't get a job. It's the high performance, perltidy running, OOP guys who are in demand.
Also: at the 3rd paragraph, this guy admits he's a socialist, so his credibility to talk about freedom is GONE.
Yeah, Canada and Scandinavia have no freedom at all.
new companies would start laying more fiber to grab some of the profits, and the increased competition would bring prices back down in the long run
Who are these new companies with the assests to lay fiber? Where does one find the assets to lay fiber? You are describing the worlds most costly and risky startup. Are you honestly saying that more than one company will lay fiber to my house so that I have choices? This isn't something where you can make bookstore analogies. We are talking about implementing critical infrastructure that requires massive government cooperation. The same government that is already in the pocket of what will soon again be AT&T. Why in the world would the government even let you put in more fiber? It would be a loss to AT&T, jobs would be lost. Their lobbyists would make sure you couldn't get the proper permits.
Listen, I think it's possible that in a free market your ideas could work. But the United States is not a Free Market, and every day it approaches something much more akin to Communism than a free market. We have a few, politically connected corporations that control all of our major industries. If a serious competitor does pop up, it doesn't lead to a reduction in prices. It leads to the dominant player buying the competitor to ensure that prices stay up, or it leads to the dominant player slashing prices to the bone to eliminate all competition, and then bringing prices back up once they have established a dominant position. Stop spouting your "free market leads to lower prices" nonsense, it's religion not reality.
Or even easier. In IE Go to Internet Options, click on accessbility and specify your own stylesheet. The Web Developer Extension for Firefox allows you to specify a user defined stylesheet also. That way you can style the whole site rather than just a few pages.
How many fewer WinXP licenses would Microsoft sell if they didn't have a 85% market share with IE? I personally know hundreds of developers who would not be using windows if they didn't have to test IE compatability. If I extrapolate my extremely unscientific studies I could assume that about half of the developers in the world would not be using Windows if they didn't have to keep IE compatability. Not to mention the number of people who can't switch because their bank site is IE only...
We might get supply and demand, but I doubt that's what we want. Supply and demand would lead to corporate barons running feifdoms, always looking for the cheapest labor. You would work until you were no longer useful, and then you would die because there would be no healthcare. Corporations would love it. They would be able to get the cheapest labor possible. The problem is that cheap labor and products would destroy the buying power of consumers. So we'd either have to go to war to get more resources (rape and plunder war), or corporations forcing government to go into even further debt to subsidize consumers buying their products (an extension of what goes on now). Supply and demand is very effecient, but it's like darwinism. If it's unbalanced things move out of whack quite quickly. Corporate corruption will always ensure that supply and demand won't work. Because ultimately someone will do something that is not in the best interests of the market, causing the downfall of others, and ultimately the destruction of the markets. Supply and demand is a capitialist utopia. What has to happen is much akin to what the US has now (however imperfect). You must have a healthy educated workforce, subsidised by a mixture of government and private business, or else you will have no one to buy products. You must have enough government regulation that corruption does not go unchecked and equity moves properly through the system. If you do not have that balance then eventually the corporations will have no market, or the people will have no jobs. Once the people have no jobs they will demand action of their government which will result in regulation and subsidised health care and education. It's a chicken and egg situation. The best thing to do is try to have the happiest, healthiest employees and hope your competitors will rise to meet you. Because racing to the bottom just destroys everyone, as evidenced by the fact that wal*mart is now trying to become target (a company that does things slightly better). They've managed in a couple of decades to gut all of the future profit growth out of their core business. That's not genius. That's sad.
I'm quite sure it is. No one talks about it, but I'm pretty sure that IBM is writing off the cost of developing products like Cloudscape when they donate them to the Apache Group. Suddenly your millions of dollars of wasted revenue becomes a tax writeoff. It's brilliant. Corporate benevolance is almost always related to decreasing tax liability. See also Employee Stock Options.
Hey, I'm not shouting. And quite frankly it's a pet peeve. I'm sure you have one. Like people who leave their grass long, or the guy who parks his boat on the street, or whatever. I happen to almost get run off the road by cell phone users on a daily basis, often get slammed into by distracted cell phone users while walking, and often have a movie interrupted by a cell phone user. So I don't like people with cell phones, and I carry one now... for emergencies.
As for the commercial aspects. I expect it will be like anything. People who want to go to nice theaters will find that cell phones are blocked. People that want to go see blockbusters in theaters decorated in Purple, Orange and neon will find the usual crowd scenes from the WWE. I guess some people like the community of the movie experience.
Hell no, I wouldn't spend on those frivolous programs. I'd give it for welfare and social security. You Republicans would start bitching something fierce when your granpappy starts sleeping on your front porch.
True, which is why probably you cell phone users will eventually have to start watching movies only at home. People who want to sit quietly in a movie with no cellphone noise are the vast majority (or teenagers who are going to go regardless), so probably the cellphone allowed theaters will become the bargain cinemas and lower end theaters at the end of their lifecycle.
And really I don't care about this as much in the movie theater chains. I go mostly to theaters that show independent movies, and that by and large have patrons who know how to turn off their cell phones. My main concern are places with live performance such as theatrical theaters, operas, ballets, etc. Where it is NEVER acceptable for a cell phone to go off, and can in certain situations cause performers to become distracted and possibly harm themselves (if in a fight scene, or dance). Those places should (and probably will) become cell phone free as soon as possible.
And the reason I don't care about your emergencies is that for thousands of years mankind has been able to do things without being contactable in emergencies 24/7. This is not a right, nor is it a need. If you worry that much about the people who might contact you with an emergency, stay home by the phone and worry. Stay out of our public places. If your employer makes you have a 24/7 contract get a new job. I'm not getting paid by your employer to be disturbed by you.
This isn't a snap judgment. I've had years to think it over. Simple solution. You go to the cell phone allowed theater. People who never have emergencies that can't wait 2 hours go the cell phone not allowed theater.
What's the problem?