And that's all true. What you're apparently confused about is that, despite what the average American seems to think, "getting ahead" does not mean "living beyond ones means". It doesn't mean "spending money on useless crap", or "being house poor", or "owning a car I can't really afford".
Put another way, if you're living in such a way that you can't afford to spontaneously lose half your income (eg, a severe illness or injury, loss of a job, etc), then you're doing something wrong.
Incidentally, I speak from experience, in that I live with my wife in a house we own, and if either one of use were to lose our job, it would not be catastrophic (though it would be less comfortable).
Not to be racist, but these "bad" parents tend to be single black women.
Ever consider that, given these were inner city schools, that the probability was simply higher that it was a single black women? Correlation vs causality and all that...
Well, according to the US department of energy, some fuel cell systems achieve efficiencies upwards of 80%. According to this, a cutting edge coal gasification plant achieves 45-50% thermal efficiency. Meanwhile, here (oddly, I had troubling Googling for a more authoritative link), you see a gasoline ICE achieves around 25-30% efficiency. So, in the end, hydrogen is a win.
But, the thing you really need to understand is that efficiency isn't *really* the point, anyway. The real reason to use hydrogen is that:
a) You can leverage alternative fuel sources. You can't power a gasoline engine with solar cells, a wind farm, or a nuclear power plant. With hydrogen, you can.
b) You can easily leverage new technologies as they come available (such as coal gasification).
c) You can more easily upgrade a few thousand power plants with newer technology, both to improve efficiency and to reduce harmful pollutants. Upgrading millions of cars, not so easy.
And lastly:
d) It reduces the dependency on fossil fuels, which, as we reach peak oil (assuming we haven't already) is going to be *vital*.
No, what you/should/ do is make sure to enable -Wall, and then ensure your code compiles without warnings. Any decent compiler would tell you, in this case, that you were using an assignment as a truth statement.
Well I'll be damned... and you're not using funky URL-rewriting tricks or anything? Something must have changed in the Apache implementation since I'd last looked this this stuff. I stand throughly corrected.:)
WTF... I thought HURD switched over to the L4 microkernel. What gives?
Re:Haldeman deserves it for sure...
on
2006 Nebula Awards
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I don't get it. Are you implying that young science fiction authors must be better than new? Or that age somehow makes one a poorer writer? Honestly, I just don't understand your point. Personally, I would think age would bring a certain amount of perspective, particularly in the science fiction arena. Not to mention the additional time to refine one's writing style.
I'm Canadian, and we happen to have a long tradition and record of apathy about everything, and non-interference since we generally don't care what's happening.
That's pure bullshit. I think our many distinguished war veterans, not to mention our peacekeepers, who are currently engaged in Afghanistan, and who have served in many war torn areas in an attempt to provide stability and security, would beg to differ. Do we unilaterally invade other countries? No. But that hardly makes us apathetic.
LOL, that was the whole point!:) You won't be able to make it work. At least, certainly not with Apache. See that Apache doc link I posted elsewhere. Apache, with HTTP*S*, will always pick the first virtual host, due to limitations imposed by SSL.
make sure they understand that those things do matter and need to be fixed.
This is, I think, an incredibly important point. There is a very interesting parallel between good programmers (specifically, programmers who produce high quality, maintainable code), and good writers: they care. A good programmer understands that the goal of writing code isn't *just* to solve the problem at hand. A good programmer cares about things like form and style, maintainability and readability. Similarly, a good writer realizes that writing is about more than just recording ideas. It's about creating something that's clear, concise, and expressive.
Thus, if you want to create a good writer, you must start off by convincing them that it *matters*. Everything you write, whether it be a technical document or some code you've created, is an expression of yourself, and hence is something you should take great pride in. I even use this principle when authoring emails: everthing I write is drafted, proofread, reorganized, and proofread again before I allow other eyes to see it, because I realize that my writing influences the way people view me and my work.
Uhh... that proves nothing. The exact same content is served when visiting either domain, so there's no proof that the server is actually serving material from different virtual hosts. In fact, I would contend that this is proof it *doesn't* work, as, just as the Apache docs suggest, the server is probably just picking the first vhost entry.
Second, even if I'm mistaken about the above, this does demonstrate another problem with name-based virtual hosting and SSL: the certificate is signed for a specific domain name. In this case, when I visited https://www.xesia.com/ I got an error from my browser, because the certificate is for www.fone-me.com.
Yeah... and those are definitely the only two options. There's no possible way they could provide innovative new features while maintaining the essence of the user interface. That's just nuts. No one's ever done that. *cough*OS X*cough*
I'm just not a big fan of letting the courts decide who wins.
Umm, you may not be aware of this, but capitalism is not perfect. Monopolies are an example of a break down in capitalism. Anti-trust laws are an attempt to prevent such things from occuring, in order to ensure a healthy economy. Now, you may disagree with this, but personally, I would rather not go back to the days of Standard Oil and Bell.
If I make a GM car, I'll be damned if Im gonna put a Ford satellite system in it becasue OnStar is proprietary
That's a terrible example! First of all, it isn't even analagous to this situation. Second, GM isn't a monopoly. What part of "monopolies play by a restricted set of rules" don't you understand?
You may call it two markets,
Err... who *doesn't* call it two markets? There's the web browser market, in which IE and Firefox are players. And there's the web search market, in which Google all but owns the space, and is making billions as a result. How is it at all difficult to understand that a) MS wants a piece of the pie, and is willing to leverage their monopoly position to get it, and b) Google wants to stop MS from doing just that, because it has no recourse, aside from a legal battle, thanks to MS's monopoly on the desktop.
Yes, they DO! Jebus, people. Microsoft has a *monopoly*. As a monopoly, they are held to a more strict set of rules than other companies. One of those rules is that they are not allowed to use their monopoly position in order to force their way into another market. In this case, they're attempting to leverage their desktop/web browser monopoly in order to force their way into the web search market. This is *illegal*, and Google would be foolish not to point this out.
Quit whining like a little pansy. IE is a Microsoft product, so it should be able to put whatever search it wants on there.
WRONG! Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly. This automatically means that certain rules apply to Microsoft that do not apply to other companies. One of those rules is that they can't leverage their monopoly position in order to take over another market. In this case, they're attempting to force their way into the web search market by leveraging their desktop and web browser monopoly. If this was any other company, Google wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, but in this case, they have a legitimate grievance, and the government should sit up and take notice. After all, this is exactly the kind of crap that got MS in trouble in the first place.
First of all, yes, doctors help with chronic health conditions... chronic doesn't mean "almost dead". It means persistent. A doctor can assist in identifying medications, lifestyle changes, and so forth, which can assist in such conditions.
Second, way to completely miss my other, I think more important point, that being that market forces, you know, that almight invisible hand that capitalists love to worship, dictate that emergency rooms should be shut down because they aren't profitable.
a) An emergency room visit doesn't solve a chronic health condition. b) There are hospitals in the US that are shutting down their emerg wings because of the costs incurred by the very law you're citing.
Name-Based Virtual Hosting is a very popular method of identifying different virtual hosts. It allows you to use the same IP address and the same port number for many different sites. When people move on to SSL, it seems natural to assume that the same method can be used to have lots of different SSL virtual hosts on the same server.
It comes as rather a shock to learn that it is impossible.
The reason is that the SSL protocol is a separate layer which encapsulates the HTTP protocol. So the SSL session is a separate transaction, that takes place before the HTTP session has begun. The server receives an SSL request on IP address X and port Y (usually 443). Since the SSL request does not contain any Host: field, the server has no way to decide which SSL virtual host to use. Usually, it will just use the first one it finds, which matches the port and IP address specified.
Wow, do we work for the same company?? I work for a smallish business that's divided into two offices, one in Canada and one in the US, separated by a two hour time difference, and we've recently incorporated those exact tools into our workflow. IRC has been invaluable, allowing realtime, quick feedback on issues when the need arises without being overly obnoxious (unlike many IM clients). And recently, we've begun making serious use of a Wiki for authoring technical material, as it drastically lowers the barrier for generating and publishing content for consumption by the technical staff.
Incidentally, MeatballWiki has a great page that summarizes the role that wikis can play in a corporate environment here. It's worth a read if you're thinking about deploying something like this.
And frankly, it is damned unpatriotic to spread these kinds of lies about Bush.
This is a troll, right? Please... please, let this be a troll. I mean, I've heard of people using the word "unpatriotic" when describing criticisms of the President, someone who is, to put it mildly, the most important person in the entirety of the United States to criticize. But I kinda hoped it didn't actually happen. But here you are, doing exactly that.
So I have a question. What the fuck is wrong with you? Your president isn't a superhero. He isn't infallible. He most certainly isn't above criticism. And he's the last person you should be trying to protect, because it's part of his *job* to be criticized, and it's the job of the electorate to criticize him, to ensure that he's doing the job he was elected to do. It is *not* the job of the electorate to wrap themselves in the flag, plug their ears, and sing the national anthem to themselves while simply trusting their elected representatives to do their jobs properly.
"Unpatriotic"... it makes me sick to see people using that word in order to shut down others. "Incorrect", "misinformed", those are good reasons, and very well maybe be a valid criticism of the GP. But "unpatriotic"? That's simply a fallback position... kinda like "communist".
Slashdot Mirror
And that's all true. What you're apparently confused about is that, despite what the average American seems to think, "getting ahead" does not mean "living beyond ones means". It doesn't mean "spending money on useless crap", or "being house poor", or "owning a car I can't really afford".
Put another way, if you're living in such a way that you can't afford to spontaneously lose half your income (eg, a severe illness or injury, loss of a job, etc), then you're doing something wrong.
Incidentally, I speak from experience, in that I live with my wife in a house we own, and if either one of use were to lose our job, it would not be catastrophic (though it would be less comfortable).
and unemployment is near an all time low.
Well, that all depends on how you jigger the numbers...
Not to be racist, but these "bad" parents tend to be single black women.
Ever consider that, given these were inner city schools, that the probability was simply higher that it was a single black women? Correlation vs causality and all that...
Well, according to the US department of energy, some fuel cell systems achieve efficiencies upwards of 80%. According to this, a cutting edge coal gasification plant achieves 45-50% thermal efficiency. Meanwhile, here (oddly, I had troubling Googling for a more authoritative link), you see a gasoline ICE achieves around 25-30% efficiency. So, in the end, hydrogen is a win.
But, the thing you really need to understand is that efficiency isn't *really* the point, anyway. The real reason to use hydrogen is that:
a) You can leverage alternative fuel sources. You can't power a gasoline engine with solar cells, a wind farm, or a nuclear power plant. With hydrogen, you can.
b) You can easily leverage new technologies as they come available (such as coal gasification).
c) You can more easily upgrade a few thousand power plants with newer technology, both to improve efficiency and to reduce harmful pollutants. Upgrading millions of cars, not so easy.
And lastly:
d) It reduces the dependency on fossil fuels, which, as we reach peak oil (assuming we haven't already) is going to be *vital*.
No, what you /should/ do is make sure to enable -Wall, and then ensure your code compiles without warnings. Any decent compiler would tell you, in this case, that you were using an assignment as a truth statement.
Well I'll be damned... and you're not using funky URL-rewriting tricks or anything? Something must have changed in the Apache implementation since I'd last looked this this stuff. I stand throughly corrected. :)
Make GNU Mach use more up to date device drivers.
WTF... I thought HURD switched over to the L4 microkernel. What gives?
I don't get it. Are you implying that young science fiction authors must be better than new? Or that age somehow makes one a poorer writer? Honestly, I just don't understand your point. Personally, I would think age would bring a certain amount of perspective, particularly in the science fiction arena. Not to mention the additional time to refine one's writing style.
Yeah, except with products like mklinux, the kernel is run as a single server over the microkernel, which kinda defeats the whole purpose.
And, coincidentally, 3.51 specifically was often lauded as the most stable of the NT series of releases...
I'm Canadian, and we happen to have a long tradition and record of apathy about everything, and non-interference since we generally don't care what's happening.
That's pure bullshit. I think our many distinguished war veterans, not to mention our peacekeepers, who are currently engaged in Afghanistan, and who have served in many war torn areas in an attempt to provide stability and security, would beg to differ. Do we unilaterally invade other countries? No. But that hardly makes us apathetic.
LOL, that was the whole point! :) You won't be able to make it work. At least, certainly not with Apache. See that Apache doc link I posted elsewhere. Apache, with HTTP*S*, will always pick the first virtual host, due to limitations imposed by SSL.
Well, just in case I was on crack, I double checked using both Firefox 1.5.0.1 and Lynx 2.8.5rel.1. I visited these two links:
:)
https://www.fone-me.com/
https://www.xesia.com/
Both forward me to '/welcome' and then display the exact same HTML. I can provide screenshots or the downloaded HTML as proof, if you like.
make sure they understand that those things do matter and need to be fixed.
This is, I think, an incredibly important point. There is a very interesting parallel between good programmers (specifically, programmers who produce high quality, maintainable code), and good writers: they care. A good programmer understands that the goal of writing code isn't *just* to solve the problem at hand. A good programmer cares about things like form and style, maintainability and readability. Similarly, a good writer realizes that writing is about more than just recording ideas. It's about creating something that's clear, concise, and expressive.
Thus, if you want to create a good writer, you must start off by convincing them that it *matters*. Everything you write, whether it be a technical document or some code you've created, is an expression of yourself, and hence is something you should take great pride in. I even use this principle when authoring emails: everthing I write is drafted, proofread, reorganized, and proofread again before I allow other eyes to see it, because I realize that my writing influences the way people view me and my work.
I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.3. And I denied the cookie xesia.com tried to set, in case that makes a difference.
Uhh... that proves nothing. The exact same content is served when visiting either domain, so there's no proof that the server is actually serving material from different virtual hosts. In fact, I would contend that this is proof it *doesn't* work, as, just as the Apache docs suggest, the server is probably just picking the first vhost entry.
Second, even if I'm mistaken about the above, this does demonstrate another problem with name-based virtual hosting and SSL: the certificate is signed for a specific domain name. In this case, when I visited https://www.xesia.com/ I got an error from my browser, because the certificate is for www.fone-me.com.
Yeah... and those are definitely the only two options. There's no possible way they could provide innovative new features while maintaining the essence of the user interface. That's just nuts. No one's ever done that. *cough*OS X*cough*
I'm just not a big fan of letting the courts decide who wins.
Umm, you may not be aware of this, but capitalism is not perfect. Monopolies are an example of a break down in capitalism. Anti-trust laws are an attempt to prevent such things from occuring, in order to ensure a healthy economy. Now, you may disagree with this, but personally, I would rather not go back to the days of Standard Oil and Bell.
If I make a GM car, I'll be damned if Im gonna put a Ford satellite system in it becasue OnStar is proprietary
That's a terrible example! First of all, it isn't even analagous to this situation. Second, GM isn't a monopoly. What part of "monopolies play by a restricted set of rules" don't you understand?
You may call it two markets,
Err... who *doesn't* call it two markets? There's the web browser market, in which IE and Firefox are players. And there's the web search market, in which Google all but owns the space, and is making billions as a result. How is it at all difficult to understand that a) MS wants a piece of the pie, and is willing to leverage their monopoly position to get it, and b) Google wants to stop MS from doing just that, because it has no recourse, aside from a legal battle, thanks to MS's monopoly on the desktop.
I do see your point - Google's got no complaint.
Yes, they DO! Jebus, people. Microsoft has a *monopoly*. As a monopoly, they are held to a more strict set of rules than other companies. One of those rules is that they are not allowed to use their monopoly position in order to force their way into another market. In this case, they're attempting to leverage their desktop/web browser monopoly in order to force their way into the web search market. This is *illegal*, and Google would be foolish not to point this out.
Quit whining like a little pansy. IE is a Microsoft product, so it should be able to put whatever search it wants on there.
WRONG! Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly. This automatically means that certain rules apply to Microsoft that do not apply to other companies. One of those rules is that they can't leverage their monopoly position in order to take over another market. In this case, they're attempting to force their way into the web search market by leveraging their desktop and web browser monopoly. If this was any other company, Google wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, but in this case, they have a legitimate grievance, and the government should sit up and take notice. After all, this is exactly the kind of crap that got MS in trouble in the first place.
First of all, yes, doctors help with chronic health conditions... chronic doesn't mean "almost dead". It means persistent. A doctor can assist in identifying medications, lifestyle changes, and so forth, which can assist in such conditions.
Second, way to completely miss my other, I think more important point, that being that market forces, you know, that almight invisible hand that capitalists love to worship, dictate that emergency rooms should be shut down because they aren't profitable.
a) An emergency room visit doesn't solve a chronic health condition.
b) There are hospitals in the US that are shutting down their emerg wings because of the costs incurred by the very law you're citing.
From the Apache docs:
Name-Based Virtual Hosting is a very popular method of identifying different virtual hosts. It allows you to use the same IP address and the same port number for many different sites. When people move on to SSL, it seems natural to assume that the same method can be used to have lots of different SSL virtual hosts on the same server.
It comes as rather a shock to learn that it is impossible.
The reason is that the SSL protocol is a separate layer which encapsulates the HTTP protocol. So the SSL session is a separate transaction, that takes place before the HTTP session has begun. The server receives an SSL request on IP address X and port Y (usually 443). Since the SSL request does not contain any Host: field, the server has no way to decide which SSL virtual host to use. Usually, it will just use the first one it finds, which matches the port and IP address specified.
Wow, do we work for the same company?? I work for a smallish business that's divided into two offices, one in Canada and one in the US, separated by a two hour time difference, and we've recently incorporated those exact tools into our workflow. IRC has been invaluable, allowing realtime, quick feedback on issues when the need arises without being overly obnoxious (unlike many IM clients). And recently, we've begun making serious use of a Wiki for authoring technical material, as it drastically lowers the barrier for generating and publishing content for consumption by the technical staff.
Incidentally, MeatballWiki has a great page that summarizes the role that wikis can play in a corporate environment here. It's worth a read if you're thinking about deploying something like this.
And frankly, it is damned unpatriotic to spread these kinds of lies about Bush.
This is a troll, right? Please... please, let this be a troll. I mean, I've heard of people using the word "unpatriotic" when describing criticisms of the President, someone who is, to put it mildly, the most important person in the entirety of the United States to criticize. But I kinda hoped it didn't actually happen. But here you are, doing exactly that.
So I have a question. What the fuck is wrong with you? Your president isn't a superhero. He isn't infallible. He most certainly isn't above criticism. And he's the last person you should be trying to protect, because it's part of his *job* to be criticized, and it's the job of the electorate to criticize him, to ensure that he's doing the job he was elected to do. It is *not* the job of the electorate to wrap themselves in the flag, plug their ears, and sing the national anthem to themselves while simply trusting their elected representatives to do their jobs properly.
"Unpatriotic"... it makes me sick to see people using that word in order to shut down others. "Incorrect", "misinformed", those are good reasons, and very well maybe be a valid criticism of the GP. But "unpatriotic"? That's simply a fallback position... kinda like "communist".