Anyone notice how when everyone was saying global warming was seven or eight years ago, Slashdot was all for the Kyoto protocol. And now that the tide of scientific consensus is overwhelmingly saying that global warming exists and is a real problem, Slashdot is now saying it's fake?
The Slashdot 'community' contains many story submitters with differing opinions. Those stories are judged by multiple editors who also have differing opinions. Furthermore, the topic of global warming has a multitude of facets, with a multitude of people subscribing to each of those facets. Slashdot editors and submitters seem to be trying to do the responsible thing by not simply suppressing an unpopular viewpoint (which is what the article happens to be about).
Environmentalists tend to polarize issues, and this issue doesn't need to be polarized. Polarization of issues like this precludes any rational discussion and instead forces people to choose sides In my opinion, scientists shouldn't be about choosing sides. Neither the article nor the synopsis claims that global warming is fake. The article says that those who dissent with the popular opinion tend to be intimidated into silence. In any case, I don't think that Slashdot is saying anything here other than reporting a story. Maybe it coincides with an editor's viewpoint, maybe it doesn't. To me, it looks like they're reporting on another viewpointe. What's wrong with that?
Regarding your hint: Popularity, or lack thereof has very little to do with facts.
I prefer to smoke a spliff before playing a game like GTA. Does that suggest that for some, the converse of the study is true. ie: smoking marijuana leads to violent video games?
More often then not, those huge investments they made were only done because they were granted a monopoly in specific regions.
You might want to do some reading on different types of monopolies. They may technically have a monopoly in the area because nobody else built a broadband network in the area, but is it impossible for another player to get into that region? Personally, I serously doubt it. This is not a case of anti-competitive behavior. In fact, these providers may price themselves out of business. I'm just suggesting that we should let our system do it's job and weed out the rip-off artists by itself.
I think the issue here is that ISPs and telco's are going to make your access to google slower if google doesn't pay them. They're confused about who their customers are, and seem to think google should pay them for access to me, while I'm already paying them for access to google.
In this case, regulation has not proven necessary. Why regulate something when it hasn't shown that it needs regulation? So ISP's are making unreasonable demands. Why can't they? It's their network and their business. They should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with it. Similarly, the players on the other end have already told the ISP's to go to hell. Where is the problem here? Is it just because you're outraged and you don't like their business practice? Just because you don't like a business practice doesn't mean that it should be illegal. ISP's should be allowed to charge in any way they see fit, as they made gigantic investments in the infrastructure. If the demands are unreasonable, the market will work it out. The market is working it out now, so what are you so alarmed about?
Yes, please do. You could go to one of the conferences NASA holds there, or to visit Altus Air Force Base, where a bunch of "dumb Okies" teach Air Force pilots how to fly their jets to protect your freedom to make stupid bigoted statements on Slashdot. Or maybe you could meet some of thost stupid backwoods morons like astronauts Dr. Shannon Lucid, William Pogue, Owen Garriott, or any of the many other astronauts from Oklahoma. Or former Ambassador to the UN Jean Kirkpatrick. Or visit the birthplace of Wiley Post, who among other things discovered the jet stream and invented the space suit. Or visit the spaceport.
/me excitedly runs around the room, while clanging together pots above his head and screams "Oklahoma! Oklahoma! Oklahoma! Oklahoma!"
Backward compatibility is practically non existent when it comes to science software in Windows. We are still running windows 98/95 (hell we running DOS) to run our instruments because either the companies were small and don't upgrade like larger shops or they don't support the instrument anymore.
I can second this. It seems like a long time since I was a student, but in college, most of our computer controlled equipment was controlled by DOS boxes for exact same reasons that the parent poster pointed out. The "newer" ICP-MS (link for those who care) is still controlled by Windows NT 4.0 running on DEC Alphas. Last I heard, the old colormetric spectrometers are still controlled by DOS. It probably wouldn't take much to run the application(s) on a more modern OS, as those connections tended to be either serial or SCSI, but it's just not supported by the manufacturers anymore. they tend to not work with modern Windows because modern Windows doesn't like software talking directly to devices. In that case, it's hardly Microsoft's fault, they just answered a call for a more stable OS, and made these devices accessible via their API and digitally signed drivers. The fact is that for many low volume specialized marketplaces (scientific equipment included), keeping software updated tends to be a low priority. I'm sure that one could chase down the manufacturer and get all of the necessary specs to roll your own modern control software...but most universities either don't have the budget for this, or the stomach to manage a custom development project for a piece of (nearly worthless) old equipment. They'd rather wait for a member of their faculty to get a huge grant and buy swanky new equipment when they need it. (I suppose that the manufacturers know this too, which explains why equipment quickly becomes unsupported).
However, you can live off of Mac 0S 9 or Mac 10.x with no problems, but malware and viruses make Windows a tough challenge to keep the laboratory running with these old systems.
Both system types present their own special set of problems. In either case, however, in any large enough environment, a support team is necessary. With a good support team (whether it's corporate IT, or University IT), malware/viruses can be easily managed. Regardless of how great a platform is, end users will need help. Some kind of support staff is a must. If an organization is either unwilling or unable to hire the necessary staff to keep the gears turning; it's not the OS's, hardware, or software's fault. Some software may help manage their issues, but the problems will never go away. Rather, they tend to resurface later, usually presenting some kind of snowball effect.
The sad part is that a large number of slashdotters will convince themselves that this type of thing is good despite the fact that the site is very clearly engaged in theft.
Actually, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment that they are engaged in theft. They are a site which allows users to upload trackers. Trackers do not contain any protected IP, they simply point to where the IP can be found.
Their actions are similar to pointing out the location of a brothel to an stragner. Sex with a prostitute (for money) may be illegal, however, pointing out where one can acquire a prostitute's services is not illegal. These guys at the Pirate Bay aren't even pointing out where the illegal activity is taking place. They are hosting a bulletin board where people can come and post this information.
Am I convinced that this is a "good" thing? I can't say that. Should it be legal? I certainly believe so. I'm surprised that the activity that TPB is engaged in is not legal in the United States. Perhaps is has to do with our strong tradition of copyright protection.
You're not doomed.. for starters, you can always let off steam in private and off-the-record. Have a few drinks with your coworkers (and NOT the boss) once a week just to get it off your chest.
Actually, I'd recommend against this. If your position carries any kind of senority, complaining in front of your coworkers is pretty unprofessional, and will only serve to tear your group apart and make your new boss' job more difficult.
If you have real concerns about your group and want to do the professional thing, then you have two options: 1: Bring up your concerns with your new boss or 2: Find another job.
Anything else is petty, unprofessional, unfair to the new boss, and may create an unfriendly office culture. If you choose to leave, remember that it is never a good idea to burn your bridges behind you. Always leave on good faith, even if you believe that you employer is not acting in good faith or unfairly.
i'd argue that cell phones are worse. In the past year I've had some close calls with other cars on many occasions. When I glance at the driver 9 out of 10 of them were people yapping away on their cell phones, usually forgetting to turn their heads left, right, and/or behind them.
I think that we'd probably both agree that it's not the technology that's at fault. It's the drivers themselves. We're not all bad drivers (and we're certainly not all good drivers) -- however, many of us are easily distracted from driving. It doesn't matter what it is: cell phones, Nav systems, passengers, climate control, beverages, or a newspaper (yeah, I saw some jerk reading the newspaper while driving on my way to work last week). Some people are simply distractable while behind the controls of an automobile.
There is no easy solution, but I believe that scaling back speed enforcement and enforcing other traffic laws might be a good start. People who weave in and out of lanes without signaling (or without intending to) are usually not paying attention to their driving. It doesn't matter what they're doing that's causing them to weave. They're not driving well and should probably be cited for it. Education would probably also help, but I'm just not sure that mandating real driver education is entirely possible in the US. Our wide-open culture wouldn't allow it.
I was also wondering what the local drug dealer's union thinks about the way that they're treated in the GTA franchise. I mean, I must have killed hundreds of those guys in GTA. They pack guns, but they carry so much more money than the street ho's. In fact, given the cash that drug dealers carry and the lack of cash that the ho's carry, it's not even worth killing the ho's. It's just a possibility in the game...just like killing anyone else. Won't someone please think of the drug dealers?
Here's another idea. It's not possible to have any fun and avoid offending people. Apparently, that's just how things are going now. How about asking people who are offended by certain forms of entertainment to avoid using said forms of entertainment? Those who whine -- we can just call them assholes, ignore any further whining, and simply be done with it?
I'm against govt paying for the Net (or anything) but unless things have changed a lot most of the telco system in the US is govt subsidized already so it sucks that it is slow and shitty and that we're letting these companies become rich off of it. Recent laws making it illegal to set-up coops and such for creating better access are what really annoys me.
I don't know that much about the US government's involvement in private networks and the phone/internet system...but I was under the impression that those networks are privately funded/built, but they're federally regulated. Furthermore, the lines may live on/cross over land owned and leased by the federal/state governments, which subjects them to further federal regulation.
That's sort of what worked me up over the article in general. How would it serve anyone but the telcos to introduce regulation like this? Similarly, the co-op regulation does seem a little nutty as well.
Other parts of the world have as high as gigabit DSL.
First: Where is Gb DSL available? That's pretty impressive. Link?
Second: How much does it cost?
Third: Who pays for it? Is it subsidized?
I'd prefer that my 'net lines not be government subsidized. That opens a whole lot of doors that I'm not all that comfortable with, such as Internet taxes and censorship (it's easier to censor, because they own the lines).
The reason why the US has the residential services that we do is because most telcos and cable companies wanted to use their existing infrastructure to the curb. This means a co-ax cable network or a pair of thin copper wires. This way they can re-use their multi-billion dollar infrastructure without having to duplicate the effort and costs.
In countries which either didn't have this existing network in place, or were heavily subsidized -- a new fiber network could be built. Here, telcos and cable companies wanted to use existing networks. Once there was real competition, it becomes justifiable to build a new fiber to the curb network (ie Verizon FIOS).
Personally, I disagree with your benchmark that WAN and LAN speeds should be identical. A 5 Mb/s synchronous connection is anything but a 'shit connection'. Bandwidth is cheap, but not that cheap (especially for residential bandwidth). It sounds like you're being pretty idealistic there. How much would you expect to pay per month for a 100 Mb/s uplink?
So, this controversial issue that has been debated by scientists for some years now, and has not been shot down as preposterous even after trying, is merely some "conventional wisdom" spread by half-literate teenagers on par with "masturbation leads to blindness".
So you're saying that it shouldn't be questioned, like any other science? Why this and no other science? At this point, global warming is treated as if it were conventional wisdom, and anyone with any lingering questions are passed off as if they were an industry shill or a die-hard Republican...which (IMO) is bullshit. That's not how science is done. Consensus is bullshit as well. Science doesn't work like that. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a bunch of half science coming from two extremes, at the expense of an objective search for the truth. This thing is so emotional that everyone has an agenda.
Given the fact that an objective search for truth has given way to a political match -- popular knowledge of global warming has become 'conventional wisdom'. 99% of the people who argue about it don't even understand what they're arguing about. Instead, they're pissed that they, and their fellow humans impact the planet. The other 1 percent is only just beginning to understand it, and still don't have a very thorough understanding of climate science (it is a relatively new science). Obviously, it's not PC to point this out...because the PC people don't want the rest of us to ask questions that don't support their assertions.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the term conventional wisdom. It's generally not spread by half-literate teenagers. It's typically started by quite-literate and usually respected people (usually those who claim to be experts), and accepted by other people (also usually literate) who have either failed to ask the right questions, or have been beaten into submission by PC thugs who insist that they're right at the expense of all those who still have questions which remain unanswered. They just accept it, and consider anyone who openly questions their conventional wisdom to be some sort of dummy (or industry shill/conservative republican).
I'm not arguing for or against anything -- except that this is an overly emotional issue, and nearly everyone involved has demonstrated a clear agenda. The issue is quickly falling outside the realm of science.
In other news, Max Born advises people to keep on smoking and eating only McDonalds burgers until they have personally verified and reproduced the scientific data suggesting smoking 20 a day and weighing 30 stone is unhealthy, and taken a degree in cardiology. After all, those suggestions that obesity, smoking, and a lack of exercise aren't good for you were probably heard through the media.
Your satire is so well placed, because everyone knows that conventional wisdom is so often correct, especially when left unquestioned.
It appears that these aren't your arguments, and you're just replying based on your understanding of the situation...so if my remarks sound argumentative, I may not be arguing with you, but the argument itself -- for discussion's sake.
1. Fighting a battle they can win: The common myth that most video games are for the under age crowd makes it easy for those not in the know to blunder and assume that if the parent hasn't seen the material they'll suddenly be shocked at the mere concept. In the case of the movie the parent may have taken an interest in the film and seen it. This would lead them to both a more informed choice as to letting their children watch and also make it easier to dismiss claims that are too far fetched.
This is still not rational. The boxes are clearly labeled. The problem is not with the packaging, labeling, or concept. It comes down to uninvolved parenting, and then overplayed shock when they learn what their children asked them to buy.
2. The context of the violence: Reservoir Dogs shows crooks who kill a police officer and end up being killed themselves for it and other crimes. It's not really an attempt to glamorize or make cop killing seem acceptable. While I have not played 25 to Life I have played GTA:SA and I must say, when push comes to shove killing a police officer is sometimes easier than running from one. In a sense the game makes it seem like cop killing is sowhat exceptable where most films show it as something negative. Not too many films glamourize the killing of legitimate police officers. And certainly the cops have complained about that in the past too.
This makes no sense...so -- it comes down to the difficulty of killing a police officer and getting away with it? The developers created a fantasy-crime world, there has to be some use of illusion and editoral flexibility here, no? I mean -- what is a fantasy-crime game when everything is realistic? Would GTA be as cool if cops tried to stop you for speeding? I still don't see how this actually matters anyway -- it has not been shown to increase violence in any meaningful way (remember, we're experiencing record low violent and nonviolent crime over a 40 year period). Further, Reservior Dogs did not consider the cop-killing a negative. In fact, there was a scene when a robber was asked by another robber how many people were killed during a botched robbery. The thief mentioned how many police officers they killed, the other character asked again "any real people?" Remember also that the cop killers were the protagonists, and most of the protagonists shot each other.
Regardless, when children play cops and robbers, are there real consequences for shooting at police officers? Do the "robbers" get arrested for assult with a deadly weapon, attempted murder of a police officer, fleeing the scene of a crime, and resisting arrest (not to mention the crime of theft)? How come nobody is up in arms that? Is it because the violence is simulated? How is violence not simulated in video games?
In any case, people are welcome to complain about anything...but I'm glad to point out that their arguments are specious. These are indeed pretty lame (and probably the best I've heard).
I know that the posting said 'ban' and the article actually discusses a boycott, but even the NLEG's language is pretty unreasonable:
"It is absolutely unconscionable that game makers are enabling young people--or anyone--to dramatize shooting and killing as a form of entertainment while officers and innocent people are dying in real-life on our streets every day."
How is it unconscionable to dramatize this when we have critically acclaimed films which do the same thing (for example, Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs). Do we hold video games and movies to different standards? Why? Is there real data which shows that video games actually make people more violent than movies do? If that data exists, do they account for the huge decreases in violent crime in the US?
Check out this graph. They seem the believe that electricity used by future TV's will grow faster than the amount of new TV's on the market. I am skeptical of this claim, since it seems to suggest that newer TV's will be more power hungry than the older ones. Does this not account for the new LCD, plasma, and projection (DLP, LCD, and LCoS), which should use significantly less electricity than their CRT coutnerparts?
In any case, looking at the graphs and trying to extrapolate the numbers, it looks like there's a projected 11 and 22% increase in the number of TV's in GB from 2000 to 2020, which (they claim) represents a 50% and 70% increase in power consumption by TV's. The numbers don't work out in any logical fashion, and don't represent the use of new, lower power technology that will almost certainly replace most new CRT's over the next 15 years.
This is beginning to sound like a bit of alarmism...which is sadly typical in the news (especially when it comes to issues of fear, including issues like terrorism or especially the environment and conservation).
Also, another bit of potential stupidity:
"In the end, there has to be costs in the form of manufacturers paying something to recognize the damage they are causing."
This is just silly, because the manufacturers will just pass this cost along to the consumer. The statement is a clear attempt to obfuscate the ultimate payor for the new regulations.
This article leads me to the question of whether or not most people are able to question anything when it comes to conservation because it's not PC to question environmental rhetoric.
I think that your comments characterize many companies, but really do not apply to all for-profit companies. Really, adherence to your rule tends to be determined by the culture of the company...and the culture (in this light) is really defined by management -- from the top down.
In a publicly traded company, unhappy shareholders/directors could just as easily fire management to change the culture, but in many cases, the culture of the company is responsible for its success. The same goes for a privately held company, except that in many cases, a private company's management owns the majority of the shares.
I suppose that the term culture is pretty vague in this sense. However, when it comes down to things like virtues within an organization, culture really tends to define those. Honesty and integrity are virtues that are either engrained in the culture, or they just aren't, and an organizations actions clearly follow these ideals (or lack therein). The same goes for customer service. Again, these tend to be enforced from the top on down. Some private companies care very deeply about the societal impact on their actions. As companies grow larger, management sometimes feels like it can't put principles before profit because there is either too much money at stake, too many shareholders, or too many employees whose families depend on the company's success(remember that in tough times, employees go first). However, there are still large organizations who feel that their success depends upon the implementation of their core values.
Also remember an important fact related to this discussion. Most businesses are small businesses -- this includes your corner store (if you happen to live in an urban locality where not every shop is a megastore Wal-Mart or Starbucks). These tend to be family run, and while the workers look out for each other (and their profits), there still are a set of well-defined principles. It's not *all* about the bottom line...but I can't argue that it's not important. It's certainly what drags me out of bed every morning.
Another thing to remember is that you can apply the same rules to people. People donate to charity, but isn't there usually a personal motive there. Maybe the motive was to feel good about oneself, or to not appear like a robber-baron (but instead, a great philanthropist). Just about everything that we do comes down to incentives. People are really no different than businesses in this sense. Just about everything that I do benefits me. If I do something nice for my girlfriend, maybe I'll get something extra-special for her. If I do something nice for my mom, I'll feel good about myself, I'll make her feel good, and maybe I'll have a sense of satisfaction for making up for my difficult adolescence. Giving my change to the guy who hangs out at the bodega outside of my apartment might make me sleep a little better at night knowing that I have a home/job/health/money when he doesn't. Not-for-profit organizations aren't necessarily altruistic either. There's always a motive...and it usually benefits those who work towards it in some way, otherwise, what's the point of getting up in the morning?
Since all of my ideas have already been stated, I'll offer a dumb trucker joke. It works better recited, but I'll try to convey it in text:
A queer couple is hitchhiking on the side of I-80, trying to get across the country to California. A big, friendly trucker stops to pick them up. He offers them a ride all the way to California, and they gladly hop in. After some time on the road and enough idle chit-chat to break the ice, one of the queer gentlemen says "oh my god, I have to fart".
The truck driver is completely unphased and says "go nuts!". The queer guy raises a cheek and emits a drafty sound, like "paaahhhhhhhhh". The second queer guy looks at his partner and giggles.
"That's not a fart! That's barely even a breeze." His partner turns back to face him.
"Can you do any better?" he asked. The second hitchhiker groans and strains and emits a slightly louder (but still barely audible) "paaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh".
The big trucker lets a hearty laugh out and asks "who the hell taught you boys how to break wind?" Listen to this! The driver raises an eyebrow, as if he were contemplating his flatulence. After a short pause, he emits a loud, resonating fart that seemed to shake the entire cab. There is a slightly uncomfortable moment of silence. The queer couple look at each other and giggle, then they say to each other in unison "viiiirgin!"
So I know what 0, 1, 5, and 0+1 are, but not 6, 10 and 50. Care to enlighten those of us who are too lazy to Google?
I don't know RAID 6 and 50 well enough to explain them, so the link will do the job. While I'm at it, they can do 10 (compare it to 0+1 to understand better)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah -- you're right. It is a different Slashdot than it was 8 years ago.
I still disagree with you, there is definitely no /. consensus on this topic. Read the discussion and you will see varied opinions here.
The Slashdot 'community' contains many story submitters with differing opinions. Those stories are judged by multiple editors who also have differing opinions. Furthermore, the topic of global warming has a multitude of facets, with a multitude of people subscribing to each of those facets. Slashdot editors and submitters seem to be trying to do the responsible thing by not simply suppressing an unpopular viewpoint (which is what the article happens to be about).
Environmentalists tend to polarize issues, and this issue doesn't need to be polarized. Polarization of issues like this precludes any rational discussion and instead forces people to choose sides In my opinion, scientists shouldn't be about choosing sides. Neither the article nor the synopsis claims that global warming is fake. The article says that those who dissent with the popular opinion tend to be intimidated into silence. In any case, I don't think that Slashdot is saying anything here other than reporting a story. Maybe it coincides with an editor's viewpoint, maybe it doesn't. To me, it looks like they're reporting on another viewpointe. What's wrong with that?
Regarding your hint: Popularity, or lack thereof has very little to do with facts.
I prefer to smoke a spliff before playing a game like GTA. Does that suggest that for some, the converse of the study is true. ie: smoking marijuana leads to violent video games?
You might want to do some reading on different types of monopolies. They may technically have a monopoly in the area because nobody else built a broadband network in the area, but is it impossible for another player to get into that region? Personally, I serously doubt it. This is not a case of anti-competitive behavior. In fact, these providers may price themselves out of business. I'm just suggesting that we should let our system do it's job and weed out the rip-off artists by itself.
In this case, regulation has not proven necessary. Why regulate something when it hasn't shown that it needs regulation? So ISP's are making unreasonable demands. Why can't they? It's their network and their business. They should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with it. Similarly, the players on the other end have already told the ISP's to go to hell. Where is the problem here? Is it just because you're outraged and you don't like their business practice? Just because you don't like a business practice doesn't mean that it should be illegal. ISP's should be allowed to charge in any way they see fit, as they made gigantic investments in the infrastructure. If the demands are unreasonable, the market will work it out. The market is working it out now, so what are you so alarmed about?
I can second this. It seems like a long time since I was a student, but in college, most of our computer controlled equipment was controlled by DOS boxes for exact same reasons that the parent poster pointed out. The "newer" ICP-MS (link for those who care) is still controlled by Windows NT 4.0 running on DEC Alphas. Last I heard, the old colormetric spectrometers are still controlled by DOS. It probably wouldn't take much to run the application(s) on a more modern OS, as those connections tended to be either serial or SCSI, but it's just not supported by the manufacturers anymore. they tend to not work with modern Windows because modern Windows doesn't like software talking directly to devices. In that case, it's hardly Microsoft's fault, they just answered a call for a more stable OS, and made these devices accessible via their API and digitally signed drivers. The fact is that for many low volume specialized marketplaces (scientific equipment included), keeping software updated tends to be a low priority. I'm sure that one could chase down the manufacturer and get all of the necessary specs to roll your own modern control software...but most universities either don't have the budget for this, or the stomach to manage a custom development project for a piece of (nearly worthless) old equipment. They'd rather wait for a member of their faculty to get a huge grant and buy swanky new equipment when they need it. (I suppose that the manufacturers know this too, which explains why equipment quickly becomes unsupported).
Both system types present their own special set of problems. In either case, however, in any large enough environment, a support team is necessary. With a good support team (whether it's corporate IT, or University IT), malware/viruses can be easily managed. Regardless of how great a platform is, end users will need help. Some kind of support staff is a must. If an organization is either unwilling or unable to hire the necessary staff to keep the gears turning; it's not the OS's, hardware, or software's fault. Some software may help manage their issues, but the problems will never go away. Rather, they tend to resurface later, usually presenting some kind of snowball effect.
Actually, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment that they are engaged in theft. They are a site which allows users to upload trackers. Trackers do not contain any protected IP, they simply point to where the IP can be found.
Their actions are similar to pointing out the location of a brothel to an stragner. Sex with a prostitute (for money) may be illegal, however, pointing out where one can acquire a prostitute's services is not illegal. These guys at the Pirate Bay aren't even pointing out where the illegal activity is taking place. They are hosting a bulletin board where people can come and post this information.
Am I convinced that this is a "good" thing? I can't say that. Should it be legal? I certainly believe so. I'm surprised that the activity that TPB is engaged in is not legal in the United States. Perhaps is has to do with our strong tradition of copyright protection.
IANAL
Actually, I'd recommend against this. If your position carries any kind of senority, complaining in front of your coworkers is pretty unprofessional, and will only serve to tear your group apart and make your new boss' job more difficult.
If you have real concerns about your group and want to do the professional thing, then you have two options: 1: Bring up your concerns with your new boss or 2: Find another job.
Anything else is petty, unprofessional, unfair to the new boss, and may create an unfriendly office culture. If you choose to leave, remember that it is never a good idea to burn your bridges behind you. Always leave on good faith, even if you believe that you employer is not acting in good faith or unfairly.
I think that we'd probably both agree that it's not the technology that's at fault. It's the drivers themselves. We're not all bad drivers (and we're certainly not all good drivers) -- however, many of us are easily distracted from driving. It doesn't matter what it is: cell phones, Nav systems, passengers, climate control, beverages, or a newspaper (yeah, I saw some jerk reading the newspaper while driving on my way to work last week). Some people are simply distractable while behind the controls of an automobile.
There is no easy solution, but I believe that scaling back speed enforcement and enforcing other traffic laws might be a good start. People who weave in and out of lanes without signaling (or without intending to) are usually not paying attention to their driving. It doesn't matter what they're doing that's causing them to weave. They're not driving well and should probably be cited for it. Education would probably also help, but I'm just not sure that mandating real driver education is entirely possible in the US. Our wide-open culture wouldn't allow it.
I was also wondering what the local drug dealer's union thinks about the way that they're treated in the GTA franchise. I mean, I must have killed hundreds of those guys in GTA. They pack guns, but they carry so much more money than the street ho's. In fact, given the cash that drug dealers carry and the lack of cash that the ho's carry, it's not even worth killing the ho's. It's just a possibility in the game...just like killing anyone else. Won't someone please think of the drug dealers?
Here's another idea. It's not possible to have any fun and avoid offending people. Apparently, that's just how things are going now. How about asking people who are offended by certain forms of entertainment to avoid using said forms of entertainment? Those who whine -- we can just call them assholes, ignore any further whining, and simply be done with it?
I don't know that much about the US government's involvement in private networks and the phone/internet system...but I was under the impression that those networks are privately funded/built, but they're federally regulated. Furthermore, the lines may live on/cross over land owned and leased by the federal/state governments, which subjects them to further federal regulation.
That's sort of what worked me up over the article in general. How would it serve anyone but the telcos to introduce regulation like this? Similarly, the co-op regulation does seem a little nutty as well.
First: Where is Gb DSL available? That's pretty impressive. Link?
Second: How much does it cost?
Third: Who pays for it? Is it subsidized?
I'd prefer that my 'net lines not be government subsidized. That opens a whole lot of doors that I'm not all that comfortable with, such as Internet taxes and censorship (it's easier to censor, because they own the lines).
The reason why the US has the residential services that we do is because most telcos and cable companies wanted to use their existing infrastructure to the curb. This means a co-ax cable network or a pair of thin copper wires. This way they can re-use their multi-billion dollar infrastructure without having to duplicate the effort and costs.
In countries which either didn't have this existing network in place, or were heavily subsidized -- a new fiber network could be built. Here, telcos and cable companies wanted to use existing networks. Once there was real competition, it becomes justifiable to build a new fiber to the curb network (ie Verizon FIOS).
Personally, I disagree with your benchmark that WAN and LAN speeds should be identical. A 5 Mb/s synchronous connection is anything but a 'shit connection'. Bandwidth is cheap, but not that cheap (especially for residential bandwidth). It sounds like you're being pretty idealistic there. How much would you expect to pay per month for a 100 Mb/s uplink?
So you're saying that it shouldn't be questioned, like any other science? Why this and no other science? At this point, global warming is treated as if it were conventional wisdom, and anyone with any lingering questions are passed off as if they were an industry shill or a die-hard Republican...which (IMO) is bullshit. That's not how science is done. Consensus is bullshit as well. Science doesn't work like that. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a bunch of half science coming from two extremes, at the expense of an objective search for the truth. This thing is so emotional that everyone has an agenda.
Given the fact that an objective search for truth has given way to a political match -- popular knowledge of global warming has become 'conventional wisdom'. 99% of the people who argue about it don't even understand what they're arguing about. Instead, they're pissed that they, and their fellow humans impact the planet. The other 1 percent is only just beginning to understand it, and still don't have a very thorough understanding of climate science (it is a relatively new science). Obviously, it's not PC to point this out...because the PC people don't want the rest of us to ask questions that don't support their assertions.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the term conventional wisdom. It's generally not spread by half-literate teenagers. It's typically started by quite-literate and usually respected people (usually those who claim to be experts), and accepted by other people (also usually literate) who have either failed to ask the right questions, or have been beaten into submission by PC thugs who insist that they're right at the expense of all those who still have questions which remain unanswered. They just accept it, and consider anyone who openly questions their conventional wisdom to be some sort of dummy (or industry shill/conservative republican).
I'm not arguing for or against anything -- except that this is an overly emotional issue, and nearly everyone involved has demonstrated a clear agenda. The issue is quickly falling outside the realm of science.
Your satire is so well placed, because everyone knows that conventional wisdom is so often correct, especially when left unquestioned.
It appears that these aren't your arguments, and you're just replying based on your understanding of the situation...so if my remarks sound argumentative, I may not be arguing with you, but the argument itself -- for discussion's sake.
This is still not rational. The boxes are clearly labeled. The problem is not with the packaging, labeling, or concept. It comes down to uninvolved parenting, and then overplayed shock when they learn what their children asked them to buy.
This makes no sense...so -- it comes down to the difficulty of killing a police officer and getting away with it? The developers created a fantasy-crime world, there has to be some use of illusion and editoral flexibility here, no? I mean -- what is a fantasy-crime game when everything is realistic? Would GTA be as cool if cops tried to stop you for speeding? I still don't see how this actually matters anyway -- it has not been shown to increase violence in any meaningful way (remember, we're experiencing record low violent and nonviolent crime over a 40 year period). Further, Reservior Dogs did not consider the cop-killing a negative. In fact, there was a scene when a robber was asked by another robber how many people were killed during a botched robbery. The thief mentioned how many police officers they killed, the other character asked again "any real people?" Remember also that the cop killers were the protagonists, and most of the protagonists shot each other.Regardless, when children play cops and robbers, are there real consequences for shooting at police officers? Do the "robbers" get arrested for assult with a deadly weapon, attempted murder of a police officer, fleeing the scene of a crime, and resisting arrest (not to mention the crime of theft)? How come nobody is up in arms that? Is it because the violence is simulated? How is violence not simulated in video games?
In any case, people are welcome to complain about anything...but I'm glad to point out that their arguments are specious. These are indeed pretty lame (and probably the best I've heard).
I know that the posting said 'ban' and the article actually discusses a boycott, but even the NLEG's language is pretty unreasonable:
How is it unconscionable to dramatize this when we have critically acclaimed films which do the same thing (for example, Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs). Do we hold video games and movies to different standards? Why? Is there real data which shows that video games actually make people more violent than movies do? If that data exists, do they account for the huge decreases in violent crime in the US?
Check out this graph. They seem the believe that electricity used by future TV's will grow faster than the amount of new TV's on the market. I am skeptical of this claim, since it seems to suggest that newer TV's will be more power hungry than the older ones. Does this not account for the new LCD, plasma, and projection (DLP, LCD, and LCoS), which should use significantly less electricity than their CRT coutnerparts?
In any case, looking at the graphs and trying to extrapolate the numbers, it looks like there's a projected 11 and 22% increase in the number of TV's in GB from 2000 to 2020, which (they claim) represents a 50% and 70% increase in power consumption by TV's. The numbers don't work out in any logical fashion, and don't represent the use of new, lower power technology that will almost certainly replace most new CRT's over the next 15 years.
This is beginning to sound like a bit of alarmism...which is sadly typical in the news (especially when it comes to issues of fear, including issues like terrorism or especially the environment and conservation).
Also, another bit of potential stupidity:
This is just silly, because the manufacturers will just pass this cost along to the consumer. The statement is a clear attempt to obfuscate the ultimate payor for the new regulations.This article leads me to the question of whether or not most people are able to question anything when it comes to conservation because it's not PC to question environmental rhetoric.
I think that your comments characterize many companies, but really do not apply to all for-profit companies. Really, adherence to your rule tends to be determined by the culture of the company...and the culture (in this light) is really defined by management -- from the top down.
In a publicly traded company, unhappy shareholders/directors could just as easily fire management to change the culture, but in many cases, the culture of the company is responsible for its success. The same goes for a privately held company, except that in many cases, a private company's management owns the majority of the shares.
I suppose that the term culture is pretty vague in this sense. However, when it comes down to things like virtues within an organization, culture really tends to define those. Honesty and integrity are virtues that are either engrained in the culture, or they just aren't, and an organizations actions clearly follow these ideals (or lack therein). The same goes for customer service. Again, these tend to be enforced from the top on down. Some private companies care very deeply about the societal impact on their actions. As companies grow larger, management sometimes feels like it can't put principles before profit because there is either too much money at stake, too many shareholders, or too many employees whose families depend on the company's success(remember that in tough times, employees go first). However, there are still large organizations who feel that their success depends upon the implementation of their core values.
Also remember an important fact related to this discussion. Most businesses are small businesses -- this includes your corner store (if you happen to live in an urban locality where not every shop is a megastore Wal-Mart or Starbucks). These tend to be family run, and while the workers look out for each other (and their profits), there still are a set of well-defined principles. It's not *all* about the bottom line...but I can't argue that it's not important. It's certainly what drags me out of bed every morning.
Another thing to remember is that you can apply the same rules to people. People donate to charity, but isn't there usually a personal motive there. Maybe the motive was to feel good about oneself, or to not appear like a robber-baron (but instead, a great philanthropist). Just about everything that we do comes down to incentives. People are really no different than businesses in this sense. Just about everything that I do benefits me. If I do something nice for my girlfriend, maybe I'll get something extra-special for her. If I do something nice for my mom, I'll feel good about myself, I'll make her feel good, and maybe I'll have a sense of satisfaction for making up for my difficult adolescence. Giving my change to the guy who hangs out at the bodega outside of my apartment might make me sleep a little better at night knowing that I have a home/job/health/money when he doesn't. Not-for-profit organizations aren't necessarily altruistic either. There's always a motive...and it usually benefits those who work towards it in some way, otherwise, what's the point of getting up in the morning?
Since all of my ideas have already been stated, I'll offer a dumb trucker joke. It works better recited, but I'll try to convey it in text:
I don't know RAID 6 and 50 well enough to explain them, so the link will do the job. While I'm at it, they can do 10 (compare it to 0+1 to understand better)
RAID 6
RAID 10
RAID 50
I've finally found a use for all those worn-out tinfoil hats!
Now I just need to figure out how to mod the process to protect against pickpockets and muggers?
...or just run VMWare. It's not as quick as a native Windows boot, but still more usable than a PPC emulating X86.
I was close. I love those early 911's. IMO, they're probably the best of the breed. (Corvair woulda been my 2nd guess) :)