The passwords and redlining thing is a mystery to me. Is there some way to embed a password in a document so as to bring down the FCC? What could that magic word be? drop database;
Assuming a reasonably modern machine, software RAID will be at least as fast - if not faster - than hardware RAID.
I disagree. Do you have any numbers to back this up? Depending on the RAID type, I believe that your comment is pretty far off the mark. For things like RAID 5, hardware is far better than software. First of all, RAID 5 is very heavily dependent on bitwise operations (speciafically XOR). Modern general purpose CPU's are indeed very fast, but have never been as good as certain specific tasks (like XOR) as purpose-built chips. This is exactly why we have things like RAID controllers and cryptographic chips.
I cannot conceive of any reason whatsoever why anyone would spend money for a hardware RAID controller in a home server context.
Again, when using RAID 5, software is far slower than hardware, especially for transaction access. Further, if you're doing any kind of caching, you won't get battery-backed cache without a hardware solution.
Then again, if someone is just trying to do RAID 1, you may be right. However, have you considered that the home server might want to boot to a RAID array? Does your OS support that in software?
6-bit LCD panels are VERY common, especially those advertised as having especially low response times. Usually if there is any way to tell, it is because they're listed as displaying 16.2 million colors (vs 16.7 million for an 8-bit panel).
My math isn't very good, but 6-bit displays should produce about 262,144 colors, not 16.2 million. Assuming that 6-bit means that each subpixel can accept a 6-bit value for the shade/intensity, which means that it can display 64 shades of red, blue, or green (depending on the color of the subpixel). 64^3 (64 shades of red+blue+green) comes out to 262,144 colors.
An 8-bit panel, on the other hand, can accept 8-bit values for each of its three color registers. That's 256 shades for each red, blue, and green. Combining the values can be represented as 256^3 is 16,777,216 possible colors.
I agree, that the criminalization is the chief cause for the massive inflation of price, and indirectly leads to the criminal behavior that has created so many victims. So that brings us to the argument that if drugs were legal, people wouldn't have to do all sorts of evil things to feed thier addiction or habit. The fact is, that if pot were sold in walmart, my brother may not have ended up being around the people that lead him into coke, and eventually crack. The problem for people who DO get adicted in a decriminalized environment is they WILL NOT degrade to the point of needing treatment to slow or stop thier usage. If a crack addict can buy a pound of crack for $10 at walmart, they would smoke it as fast as they could. This would obviously leave a person unable to work to provide for thier needs (or thier families needs) and thier addiction. It turns into a viscious cycle. Eventually they will just smoke themselves to death.
That is an interesting and original argument. I think that given the two choices, I'd take the latter -- legalization.
In any case, I don't think that I agree with your analysis of how addiction works. With many drugs, an addiction can be maintained. This is certainly the case with cigarettes. The user just takes the requisite dose to achieve the desired feeling. Eventually, the user just takes an amount sufficient to avoid withdrawal symptoms. This can carry forward to quite a few other types of chemical addiction.
Furthermore, I've also read that the long-term pathology of heroin, one of the most insidious drugs available, is relatively benign. I'm feeling too lazy to find this reference again, so I guess that I'll just have to leave this as anecdotal. Aside from overdose and infection issues, a long-term heroin user can kick the habit and completely recover (physically). Overdoses tend to be caused by heroin of inconsistent purity that makes dosage difficult to calculate. The risk of infection (particularly HIV/AIDS) can be mitigated by ensuring a clean supply of needles and safe injection practices. Again, the worst problems revolve around the laws themselves.
In the end, you're left with some of the problems with the drugs when you legalize them. I agree with this 100%. The problem is that with the current laws, we've still got all of the original problems from when drugs were legal. The laws have simply failed to fixed them. On top of this, we have to deal with all of the additional problems that the law creates: The criminal empires that spawn around the illegal trade. Prohibition causes inflated prices which turns chemical-dependent users to crime in order to afford their habits -- both property and violent crime. The black market is not controllable, illegal drug money has been linked to things like financing terrorism and other crime.
You're right, it's a complicated situation and is not something that can be resolved overnight. I don't think that any major change like that should be changed overnight. I do believe, however, that we should start moving in the right direction.
I'm sorry about the situation with your family member, I am not unsympathetic to your situation. However, people who are drug addicts must really want to get help. While drug treatment doesn't exactly have a stellar record, quite a few people have been able to overcome addiction with help. I wish you the best of luck.
I really don't understand this point of view, whatsoever. Most of the people I know who "decided" to become worthless junkies didn't really decide anything at all. They are generally uneducated, poor, and enmeshed in a flawed social strata or group. A lot of them don't, and never will, fully understand what they are doing to themselves, their loved ones, and society as a whole. The idea that everything is a rational choice is a myth, which should have gone away long ago.
What you're insinuating is that privileged people who come from affluent areas have the background to make a conscientious decision to use mind altering substances. However, those from a disadvantaged background can't possibly comprehend the risks that they're taking. Therefore, the government must decide for all of us which substances are legal to ingest, and which aren't.
Bullshit. That strikes me as elitist. IMO, we are free to do with our minds what we want, regardless of our socio-economic situation. I tend to agree with you that absolute freedom is bullshit. However, you're coming awfully close to a straw man argument with that. I don't think that anyone in that thread said that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want to anyone else they want. The idea(l) is that people can do to themselves what they please.
In the case of mind altering substances, my personal feeling is that they are what I just called them: mind altering substances. If I choose to use a substance to alter my mind, that should be my decision. If conscious thoughts are simply an electro-chemical reaction, and 'drugs' alter those to produce interesting and different reactions, how is drug prohibition any different than government-induced thought control?
I know, it's a stretch. However, it doesn't really matter which way you look at it. I still feel that my body is my body, and I may do with it as I please. Similarly, I also believe that suicide should be 100% legal.
While I'm on this topic, I have some questions for you. Can you show me how drug prohibition has worked? Or is this more about drawing a line in the sand? Can you show me how drug prohibition hasn't ruined more lives than it's saved?
This was brought up on the radio this morning. The point that was made was that most violent criminals grow out of it (or die, i guess), don't see a lot of 70 year old gang bangers, do you? The exception is sex offenders. They get out of jail, then it's back to being a perverted scumbag. Personally, I think they should bring back public stoning to deal with them, but that will never happen.
I'm not sure about this. Do you have any numbers to back up that recidivism is higher for sex offenders than for other crimes? I know that you don't say it exactly, but it's a common thread to state that sex offenders are more likely to re-offend than other criminals.
After some quick research, it appears that this is FUD spread by the law-and-order types. This article, by the USDOJ suggests that "sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense -- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders".
The article also states that sex offenders are more likely to commit sex crimes in the future than non-sex offenders. However, people need to be careful about the unsubstantiated "facts" that we throw out. We would like to believe that all of the people who we throw in jail are predators and always will be. This isn't always the case. Thinking like this might make us feel better, but feeling better doesn't solve any problems. That kind of thinking leads to laws which will (in some municipalities) lead to ex-cons living under bridges. This isn't justice, and it seems that this will put people in a hopeless situation which may make them feel a need to break another law just to survive. This could create a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy, where we make sex offenders re-offend just so we can say that there's an unstoppable recidivism problem among sex offenders and create more unreasonable laws.
I've also gotta ask, if they're not going to commit these crimes again, but still have dirty thoughts about children; do they still belong in jail...for their thoughts? Does this create a slippery slope, or is it OK because we're saving the children?
Ever heard of a live axle? They only phased those out a little while ago (they are still used in some cars), and in this case the diff is definitely unsprung weight. IRS is a relatively recent invention.
Go re-read my post. I specifically mentioned the rear diff in the context of independent rear suspension. IRS is *not* a recent invention, unless you consider 35 years to be recent. In terms of the history of cars, it's not even relatively recent. You're right that not all RWD cars have IRS, but at this point, I believe you're knit picking.
My point was the unsprung weight has a meaningful affect on handling, and that hub-mounted electric motors add unsprung weight. What was yours again?
An in-hub motor would eliminate the axle, which is at least partially unsprung weight. It would also eliminate any center differential; often this too is unsprung weight. So the unsprung weight situation isn't definitely worse, and could sometimes be a bit better.
I don't have much of an engineering background, so I can't do the math on this. However, axle weight is negligible considering that much of the mass is inboard and much of its weight is supported by the differential. Contrary to your statement, differentials are (almost) always bolted to a frame. This is not unsprung weight. Especially in a RWD car with an independent rear suspension. In this case, it's the outer CV's that tend to 'count' towards unsprung weight. It's at the outer extreme of the car. Finally, center differentials are generally only used for torque differential between front and rear wheels in AWD vehicles. These are definitely mounted to a hard point. Finally, I'd wager that in-hub motors weigh significantly more than an axle half-shaft + CV joints.
If unsprung weight really mattered, we'd mount the brakes inboard. The Hummer H1 and HMMWV are about the only vehicles to bother with this. This is not accurate. Unsprung weight is very important for handling and road feel. In the case of brakes, cooling is generally more important than saving unsprung weight. Disc brakes turn kinetic energy into heat energy. For repeated heavy use, cooling becomes a major issue. This car has inboard brakes, and apparently, the designer/builder has been dealing with overheating issues. Brakes are mounted in the wheel for simplicity and ease of cooling.
In fact, 99.9% of cars that use disc brakes use heavy cast iron rotors. The ultra-expensive new(ish) ceramic and/or carbon rotors are generally used for their heat dissipation qualities and longevity. The weight savings are a bonus.
In any case, contrary to your statement, unsprung weight is very important when it comes to handling. Try driving a regular Miata, and then one with heavy 17" wheels and tell me the unsprung weight isn't important to handling. There are obvious compromises made in the design and implementation of things like brakes, tires, wheels, and suspension components to serve other interests (cost, longevity, etc). None of these change the fact that unsprung weight matters.
Perhaps I took your statements out of context. I'm not trying to get in your face about this. I just don't think that your statements are accurate. Ever worked on a road race or autocross car?
I highly doubt the cops anywhere in the US would not bat an eye to people going 15 mph over the speed limit, it's too much of an easy source of revenue.
I used to make the same generalization about fines being a significant source of revenue until I read that it doesn't work like that everywhere.
It may well be the case that many police departments are required to aggressively enforce traffic laws in order to generate revenue for the state or municipality. However, I was very surprised to find out that in Fairfax County, VA, fines and forfeitures only account for 0.5% of revenues (see pie-chart on page 2). This is by far the most populous county in the state of Virginia, and traffic enforcement by county police is very heavy.
Obviously, this is only one example. However, it shows that not all police departments enforce traffic laws for revenue enhancement.
Wait, so Bob and Mallory are the same person?!? My head a-splode.
Funny, yes, but referring to Alice, Bob, Charlie etc as the role-players in various communication scenarios is pretty much a part of the folklore of cryptography.
Yes, Mallory is part of that nomenclature as well. It's kind of the joke...nevermind.
Sorry about the "slick," bub. I'm just bitter that I did the math right, yet you got all the karma.
And just to rub it in, Mr. +5, you tell me that you didn't even have to spend five years and $50,000 on an education to get where you are. psh.
LOL - sorry man. If it makes you feel any better, I actually did get an overpriced college education. I guess that they didn't teach me how to read carefully...or maybe I didn't pay attention during that part.:)
If it helps, I take no pleasure in karma whoring and will gladly renounce my +5 funny.
I hereby renounce the +5 funny on my post! It was totally lame because the math was wrong.
I can't think of any way to resolve that conflict: anything that allowed you to make excerpts or backups or format-shift would also be used to make things freely available P2P. There are frequent calls for "a new business model", usually by non-musicians calling for musicians to give up on selling CDs as a way to make a living. And I can hardly imagine how that's supposed to apply to movie studios: will the next Indiana Jones movie come out in the form of Harrison Ford and Sean Connery dropping by the local playhouse in hopes of selling some Indiana Jones tee-shirts?
Most musicians don't make a living on album sales anyway. Unless they're extremely successful and well promoted, most musicians tour to subsidize their album costs. Most of the revenue made from album sales is generated when you go to a show and buy it directly from the band. The musicians who suffer most are already extremely successful. Not that they don't deserve to continue earning, but it's certainly not even a small percentage of musicians who are affected. Mostly guys like Lars Ulrich who haven't had to struggle to turn a buck in a few decades.
However, the point about the music industry having to change their business plan still stands, but for slightly different music than IP theft. Before the days of digital music, the major labels did a number of things: Find promising artists who were previously unrecorded and finance the album production and distribution. Then, the labels provide financing and expertise for marketing/promotion. One of the most expensive parts of production, pricey studio time has been greatly reduced by the advent of cheap digital recording equipment. I've seen enthusiast digital recording studios scrapped together from used ebayed gear which would have made an old professional studio tech blush. The latter end of production/distribution is now extremely cheap (potentially) as well, since nobody has to pay to press discs and arrange distribution to vendor channels. This can be done via online music services now with very little up-front costs. In this new environment, the only thing that the big recording labels can bring to the table is the promotion, which they're very good at. Like it or not, to stay in business, their model is going to have to change. The power is in the hands of the musicians.
Your sig is reasonably accurate, as I pointed out to the dude who claimed otherwise. There is no "Charlie" present in the path of the conversation, only a non-sentient mechanical device, over which Bob has absolute control, and his range of attacks on that device is limited only by Bob's creativity and imagination. "Charlie" would only be present in the path of the message if he was indeed a live, sentient person with all the rights and privileges of one. Wait, so Bob and Mallory are the same person?!? My head a-splode.
"I swear you honor, my computer came up with it randomly"
I'm not certain, but I believe odds of 3.4e+38 to one qualify as "beyond a reasonable doubt." To most, 1 in 2^32 doesn't look very remote. That's what, like 1 in 64, right?;)
TFA concludes by blaming it on Apple. I'm no Apple fanboy, but I don't see that at all. Unless I am misreading TFA, everything worked fine until the patches and updates were installed. I would suggest those are the problem. If they were Tablet updates, that's where the blame lies. If they were Vista updates, then the problem is there.
And i agree, this is a support call, not news on/.
You're probably right. At the same time, the free Apple Quicktime player for Windows has always righteously sucked. Maybe some undeserved-for-the-situation bad press is what they need.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Kids picked on him in middle school. No one stood up for him.
Kids picked on him in high school. No one stood up for him.
Kids picked on him in college. He bought guns, and killing people.
The only time he every really stood up for himself was when he turned violent. And at that point it was too late. I think it's the culture of indifference that caused this to grow inside an emotionally unstable loner. It has nothing to do with the music he listened to, games he played, or lack of prayer in schools. Society did nothing more than try to ignore him, while he finally refused to be ignored. And in a tragic and unforgivable way, we all stood up to finally pay attention to what he had to say.
Did kids pick on him in college? It sounded to me that his interpersonal problems involved his being awkward around women moreso than being picked on. Furthermore, he was (to use the technical term) fucking nuts.
I don't think that this is the same case as the Columbine shootings.
I don't disagree that the situation likely had little to do with the music he listened to or the video games that he played.
Unless you are told/informed/read other wise, a network is NOT public. It's no different than seeing an unlocked door. You wouldn't just walk in and look around would you?
Depending on the circumstances, going into someplace uninvited through an unlocked door would, at most, make you guilty of trespassing, and in many places there are rules specifying how the property, in the absence of other indicators (like a locked door or fence), has to be posted in order to establish reasonable cause for a person trespassing to know that they weren't supposed to be there. (In most places you're fine until either someone tells you to leave, or you should have known that you shouldn't be there by something a reasonable person would understand, e.g. a sign, fence, door, or gate.)
So even if the door analogy is close to being appropriate, which I'm not sure it is, it's hardly a cut-and-dried issue.
Here's a better analogy: If someone runs a hose out to the street and leaves the water running, is it alright to drink from it? What about washing your car with it? Does their lack of understanding of faucet operation have anything to do with the legitimacy of your using the water?
Wow, that's a first. The Bush administration usually just assumes expanded powers with less oversight, and then claim that they had those powers in the first place (followed by blaming the whistle blowers).
Anyway, I sure hope that they don't get expanded powers with less oversight. Maybe it's based on my predisposition to distrust the Bush administration, but they sort of earned that on their own over time. It seems to me that these guys are the reason why we have oversight. Actually, if you look at history, FISA was designed to protect us from the Bush administration (indirectly, of course). Some of Bush's cabinet members also served in President Nixon's cabinet. Many of FISA's provisions were written because of the Nixon administration's abuses against American citizens. The same guys that were screwing us over then are running the show now, and are claiming that we don't need to be protected anymore -- the same guys. I sure hope that they don't get what they're asking for.
In other words, pirate a whole bunch of shit. That's pretty much what everyone assumes when you're downloading 4+GBs a day. It's not surprising that those who steal (excuse me, "infringe copyright") the most are the ones who complain the loudest about how their $39.95 a month should entitle them to a private T3 line with no bandwidth caps.
Nobody thinks that they're entitled to a private T3 line. They just want what they paid for - if a company advertises "unlimited" and "always on", then the service should be unlimited and always on. They don't want a representative to inform them of an unpublished policy after a service contract was signed.
I don't think that we need to go through the exercise of coming up with legitimate uses for that bandwidth. While there are lots of people who pirate video out there, there are also quite a few people who use all of the bandwidth for legitimate purposes. What bothers me (and so many others) is that the prevailing attitude with technology is that regulations can be passed and enforced against 'abusers', and anyone else who is swept up by the regulations is a vast minority who nobody really cares about anyway. Look at the DMCA -- it affected Linux users who wanted to watch DVD's on their Linux PC's. The DMCA was largely a lobbying effort to give content owners piece-of-mind that their digital content was protected under the law. The vast minority of users who had a legitimate problem with the law were pretty much ignored.
What is happening here is really no different. I don't care what it looks like to anyone. I'm only concerned with the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that these sweeping policies are screwing over legitimate users with BS prima facie evidence. Lame.
Why is Best Buy purchasing Speakeasy? Speakeasy is a highly regarded voice and data services provider with national coverage whose values align well with those of Best Buy. Best Buy is seeking to accelerate the growth of Best Buy For Business (BBFB) by providing core communications solutions for small businesses. Speakeasy's array of products offer a simple, understandable value proposition to small business owners, and gives BBFB the opportunity to build and maintain a regular, recurring relationship with customers.
FWIW, Best Buy For Business is a significantly different operation from the Best Buy retail outlets. Obviously, the retail Best Buy is a bummer, while BBFB has been willing to cut their margins and get me great pricing on enterprise networking equipment. They're doing whatever is necessary to get into the lucrative business sales. If this is the case, the buyout may not be the end for Speakeasy. Then again, BB could easily just gut Speakeasy and take over their voice services.
I neither believe in your lord nor demons. Daemons, on the other hand...I believe in them, they are my *nix services.
So what makes you so sure that there's only one God? Just because other people say so? Because it's written in some text? Do you have a shred of evidence for this beyond what's written in the bible?...or do you believe everything that you read? There are quite a few people who believe or have believed in lots of different gods. Why are you more right than them?
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck that shit!
I disagree. Do you have any numbers to back this up? Depending on the RAID type, I believe that your comment is pretty far off the mark. For things like RAID 5, hardware is far better than software. First of all, RAID 5 is very heavily dependent on bitwise operations (speciafically XOR). Modern general purpose CPU's are indeed very fast, but have never been as good as certain specific tasks (like XOR) as purpose-built chips. This is exactly why we have things like RAID controllers and cryptographic chips.
Again, when using RAID 5, software is far slower than hardware, especially for transaction access. Further, if you're doing any kind of caching, you won't get battery-backed cache without a hardware solution.
Then again, if someone is just trying to do RAID 1, you may be right. However, have you considered that the home server might want to boot to a RAID array? Does your OS support that in software?
The difference between 262,144 "actual" and 16.2 million via dithering is the crux of the lawsuit in TFA.
Right on. I missed that dithering boosts claims up to 16.2 million. My bad. :)
My math isn't very good, but 6-bit displays should produce about 262,144 colors, not 16.2 million. Assuming that 6-bit means that each subpixel can accept a 6-bit value for the shade/intensity, which means that it can display 64 shades of red, blue, or green (depending on the color of the subpixel). 64^3 (64 shades of red+blue+green) comes out to 262,144 colors.
An 8-bit panel, on the other hand, can accept 8-bit values for each of its three color registers. That's 256 shades for each red, blue, and green. Combining the values can be represented as 256^3 is 16,777,216 possible colors.
That is an interesting and original argument. I think that given the two choices, I'd take the latter -- legalization.
In any case, I don't think that I agree with your analysis of how addiction works. With many drugs, an addiction can be maintained. This is certainly the case with cigarettes. The user just takes the requisite dose to achieve the desired feeling. Eventually, the user just takes an amount sufficient to avoid withdrawal symptoms. This can carry forward to quite a few other types of chemical addiction.
Furthermore, I've also read that the long-term pathology of heroin, one of the most insidious drugs available, is relatively benign. I'm feeling too lazy to find this reference again, so I guess that I'll just have to leave this as anecdotal. Aside from overdose and infection issues, a long-term heroin user can kick the habit and completely recover (physically). Overdoses tend to be caused by heroin of inconsistent purity that makes dosage difficult to calculate. The risk of infection (particularly HIV/AIDS) can be mitigated by ensuring a clean supply of needles and safe injection practices. Again, the worst problems revolve around the laws themselves.
In the end, you're left with some of the problems with the drugs when you legalize them. I agree with this 100%. The problem is that with the current laws, we've still got all of the original problems from when drugs were legal. The laws have simply failed to fixed them. On top of this, we have to deal with all of the additional problems that the law creates: The criminal empires that spawn around the illegal trade. Prohibition causes inflated prices which turns chemical-dependent users to crime in order to afford their habits -- both property and violent crime. The black market is not controllable, illegal drug money has been linked to things like financing terrorism and other crime.
You're right, it's a complicated situation and is not something that can be resolved overnight. I don't think that any major change like that should be changed overnight. I do believe, however, that we should start moving in the right direction.
I'm sorry about the situation with your family member, I am not unsympathetic to your situation. However, people who are drug addicts must really want to get help. While drug treatment doesn't exactly have a stellar record, quite a few people have been able to overcome addiction with help. I wish you the best of luck.
What you're insinuating is that privileged people who come from affluent areas have the background to make a conscientious decision to use mind altering substances. However, those from a disadvantaged background can't possibly comprehend the risks that they're taking. Therefore, the government must decide for all of us which substances are legal to ingest, and which aren't.
Bullshit. That strikes me as elitist. IMO, we are free to do with our minds what we want, regardless of our socio-economic situation. I tend to agree with you that absolute freedom is bullshit. However, you're coming awfully close to a straw man argument with that. I don't think that anyone in that thread said that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want to anyone else they want. The idea(l) is that people can do to themselves what they please.
In the case of mind altering substances, my personal feeling is that they are what I just called them: mind altering substances. If I choose to use a substance to alter my mind, that should be my decision. If conscious thoughts are simply an electro-chemical reaction, and 'drugs' alter those to produce interesting and different reactions, how is drug prohibition any different than government-induced thought control?
I know, it's a stretch. However, it doesn't really matter which way you look at it. I still feel that my body is my body, and I may do with it as I please. Similarly, I also believe that suicide should be 100% legal.
While I'm on this topic, I have some questions for you. Can you show me how drug prohibition has worked? Or is this more about drawing a line in the sand? Can you show me how drug prohibition hasn't ruined more lives than it's saved?
I'm not sure about this. Do you have any numbers to back up that recidivism is higher for sex offenders than for other crimes? I know that you don't say it exactly, but it's a common thread to state that sex offenders are more likely to re-offend than other criminals.
After some quick research, it appears that this is FUD spread by the law-and-order types. This article, by the USDOJ suggests that "sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense -- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders".
The article also states that sex offenders are more likely to commit sex crimes in the future than non-sex offenders. However, people need to be careful about the unsubstantiated "facts" that we throw out. We would like to believe that all of the people who we throw in jail are predators and always will be. This isn't always the case. Thinking like this might make us feel better, but feeling better doesn't solve any problems. That kind of thinking leads to laws which will (in some municipalities) lead to ex-cons living under bridges. This isn't justice, and it seems that this will put people in a hopeless situation which may make them feel a need to break another law just to survive. This could create a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy, where we make sex offenders re-offend just so we can say that there's an unstoppable recidivism problem among sex offenders and create more unreasonable laws.
I've also gotta ask, if they're not going to commit these crimes again, but still have dirty thoughts about children; do they still belong in jail...for their thoughts? Does this create a slippery slope, or is it OK because we're saving the children?
Go re-read my post. I specifically mentioned the rear diff in the context of independent rear suspension. IRS is *not* a recent invention, unless you consider 35 years to be recent. In terms of the history of cars, it's not even relatively recent. You're right that not all RWD cars have IRS, but at this point, I believe you're knit picking.
My point was the unsprung weight has a meaningful affect on handling, and that hub-mounted electric motors add unsprung weight. What was yours again?
I don't have much of an engineering background, so I can't do the math on this. However, axle weight is negligible considering that much of the mass is inboard and much of its weight is supported by the differential. Contrary to your statement, differentials are (almost) always bolted to a frame. This is not unsprung weight. Especially in a RWD car with an independent rear suspension. In this case, it's the outer CV's that tend to 'count' towards unsprung weight. It's at the outer extreme of the car. Finally, center differentials are generally only used for torque differential between front and rear wheels in AWD vehicles. These are definitely mounted to a hard point. Finally, I'd wager that in-hub motors weigh significantly more than an axle half-shaft + CV joints.
If unsprung weight really mattered, we'd mount the brakes inboard. The Hummer H1 and HMMWV are about the only vehicles to bother with this. This is not accurate. Unsprung weight is very important for handling and road feel. In the case of brakes, cooling is generally more important than saving unsprung weight. Disc brakes turn kinetic energy into heat energy. For repeated heavy use, cooling becomes a major issue. This car has inboard brakes, and apparently, the designer/builder has been dealing with overheating issues. Brakes are mounted in the wheel for simplicity and ease of cooling.In fact, 99.9% of cars that use disc brakes use heavy cast iron rotors. The ultra-expensive new(ish) ceramic and/or carbon rotors are generally used for their heat dissipation qualities and longevity. The weight savings are a bonus.
In any case, contrary to your statement, unsprung weight is very important when it comes to handling. Try driving a regular Miata, and then one with heavy 17" wheels and tell me the unsprung weight isn't important to handling. There are obvious compromises made in the design and implementation of things like brakes, tires, wheels, and suspension components to serve other interests (cost, longevity, etc). None of these change the fact that unsprung weight matters.
Perhaps I took your statements out of context. I'm not trying to get in your face about this. I just don't think that your statements are accurate. Ever worked on a road race or autocross car?
I used to make the same generalization about fines being a significant source of revenue until I read that it doesn't work like that everywhere.
It may well be the case that many police departments are required to aggressively enforce traffic laws in order to generate revenue for the state or municipality. However, I was very surprised to find out that in Fairfax County, VA, fines and forfeitures only account for 0.5% of revenues (see pie-chart on page 2). This is by far the most populous county in the state of Virginia, and traffic enforcement by county police is very heavy.
Obviously, this is only one example. However, it shows that not all police departments enforce traffic laws for revenue enhancement.
Funny, yes, but referring to Alice, Bob, Charlie etc as the role-players in various communication scenarios is pretty much a part of the folklore of cryptography.
Yes, Mallory is part of that nomenclature as well. It's kind of the joke...nevermind.And just to rub it in, Mr. +5, you tell me that you didn't even have to spend five years and $50,000 on an education to get where you are. psh.
LOL - sorry man. If it makes you feel any better, I actually did get an overpriced college education. I guess that they didn't teach me how to read carefully...or maybe I didn't pay attention during that part. :)
If it helps, I take no pleasure in karma whoring and will gladly renounce my +5 funny.
I hereby renounce the +5 funny on my post! It was totally lame because the math was wrong.
Don't they teach counting in college anymore?
Thanks chief ;). I was thinking of a 32-bit key. I stand corrected.
And who ever said that I have a college edjakashun?
Most musicians don't make a living on album sales anyway. Unless they're extremely successful and well promoted, most musicians tour to subsidize their album costs. Most of the revenue made from album sales is generated when you go to a show and buy it directly from the band. The musicians who suffer most are already extremely successful. Not that they don't deserve to continue earning, but it's certainly not even a small percentage of musicians who are affected. Mostly guys like Lars Ulrich who haven't had to struggle to turn a buck in a few decades.
However, the point about the music industry having to change their business plan still stands, but for slightly different music than IP theft. Before the days of digital music, the major labels did a number of things: Find promising artists who were previously unrecorded and finance the album production and distribution. Then, the labels provide financing and expertise for marketing/promotion. One of the most expensive parts of production, pricey studio time has been greatly reduced by the advent of cheap digital recording equipment. I've seen enthusiast digital recording studios scrapped together from used ebayed gear which would have made an old professional studio tech blush. The latter end of production/distribution is now extremely cheap (potentially) as well, since nobody has to pay to press discs and arrange distribution to vendor channels. This can be done via online music services now with very little up-front costs. In this new environment, the only thing that the big recording labels can bring to the table is the promotion, which they're very good at. Like it or not, to stay in business, their model is going to have to change. The power is in the hands of the musicians.
Quite the scam, eh? In that case, yarrrr, she is quite the scam, maytee.
You're probably right. At the same time, the free Apple Quicktime player for Windows has always righteously sucked. Maybe some undeserved-for-the-situation bad press is what they need.
Kids picked on him in high school. No one stood up for him.
Kids picked on him in college. He bought guns, and killing people.
The only time he every really stood up for himself was when he turned violent. And at that point it was too late. I think it's the culture of indifference that caused this to grow inside an emotionally unstable loner. It has nothing to do with the music he listened to, games he played, or lack of prayer in schools. Society did nothing more than try to ignore him, while he finally refused to be ignored. And in a tragic and unforgivable way, we all stood up to finally pay attention to what he had to say.
Did kids pick on him in college? It sounded to me that his interpersonal problems involved his being awkward around women moreso than being picked on. Furthermore, he was (to use the technical term) fucking nuts.
I don't think that this is the same case as the Columbine shootings.
I don't disagree that the situation likely had little to do with the music he listened to or the video games that he played.
Depending on the circumstances, going into someplace uninvited through an unlocked door would, at most, make you guilty of trespassing, and in many places there are rules specifying how the property, in the absence of other indicators (like a locked door or fence), has to be posted in order to establish reasonable cause for a person trespassing to know that they weren't supposed to be there. (In most places you're fine until either someone tells you to leave, or you should have known that you shouldn't be there by something a reasonable person would understand, e.g. a sign, fence, door, or gate.)
So even if the door analogy is close to being appropriate, which I'm not sure it is, it's hardly a cut-and-dried issue.
Here's a better analogy: If someone runs a hose out to the street and leaves the water running, is it alright to drink from it? What about washing your car with it? Does their lack of understanding of faucet operation have anything to do with the legitimacy of your using the water?
Wow, that's a first. The Bush administration usually just assumes expanded powers with less oversight, and then claim that they had those powers in the first place (followed by blaming the whistle blowers).
Anyway, I sure hope that they don't get expanded powers with less oversight. Maybe it's based on my predisposition to distrust the Bush administration, but they sort of earned that on their own over time. It seems to me that these guys are the reason why we have oversight. Actually, if you look at history, FISA was designed to protect us from the Bush administration (indirectly, of course). Some of Bush's cabinet members also served in President Nixon's cabinet. Many of FISA's provisions were written because of the Nixon administration's abuses against American citizens. The same guys that were screwing us over then are running the show now, and are claiming that we don't need to be protected anymore -- the same guys. I sure hope that they don't get what they're asking for.
Nobody thinks that they're entitled to a private T3 line. They just want what they paid for - if a company advertises "unlimited" and "always on", then the service should be unlimited and always on. They don't want a representative to inform them of an unpublished policy after a service contract was signed.
I don't think that we need to go through the exercise of coming up with legitimate uses for that bandwidth. While there are lots of people who pirate video out there, there are also quite a few people who use all of the bandwidth for legitimate purposes. What bothers me (and so many others) is that the prevailing attitude with technology is that regulations can be passed and enforced against 'abusers', and anyone else who is swept up by the regulations is a vast minority who nobody really cares about anyway. Look at the DMCA -- it affected Linux users who wanted to watch DVD's on their Linux PC's. The DMCA was largely a lobbying effort to give content owners piece-of-mind that their digital content was protected under the law. The vast minority of users who had a legitimate problem with the law were pretty much ignored.
What is happening here is really no different. I don't care what it looks like to anyone. I'm only concerned with the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that these sweeping policies are screwing over legitimate users with BS prima facie evidence. Lame.
FWIW, Best Buy For Business is a significantly different operation from the Best Buy retail outlets. Obviously, the retail Best Buy is a bummer, while BBFB has been willing to cut their margins and get me great pricing on enterprise networking equipment. They're doing whatever is necessary to get into the lucrative business sales. If this is the case, the buyout may not be the end for Speakeasy. Then again, BB could easily just gut Speakeasy and take over their voice services.
I neither believe in your lord nor demons. Daemons, on the other hand...I believe in them, they are my *nix services.
So what makes you so sure that there's only one God? Just because other people say so? Because it's written in some text? Do you have a shred of evidence for this beyond what's written in the bible? ...or do you believe everything that you read? There are quite a few people who believe or have believed in lots of different gods. Why are you more right than them?