WTF, this is Wal-Mart's fault how, exactly? Christ, I don't blame Wal-Mart if the Denver city council is willing to sell their souls at the altar of Wal-Mart, I blame the Denver city government. If this is really a problem, the local constituents should recall their representatives. And if they don't do that, well, the people have spoken... it still ain't Wal-Mart's fault.
Seriously. I've never understood why people look at their jobs *as* their life, as opposed to simply a part of it. I make a point of leaving at 5, and never taking my work home with me unless it's absolutely necessary. Working 12 hours a day and leaving nothing for yourself is a miserable way to live, and it doesn't *have* to be that way.
but hey there has to be a limit for when a consumer becomes lower quality than tolerable and phone/pda as a music player is it.
Uhh... I think it's safe to say that you're not an average consumer with average expectations, given you're willing to spend *$500* on a pair of headphones. Personally, I find the audio quality of my Palm TX coupled with my Shure E2Cs to be more than adequate.
Actually, it's funny you should say that, because, depending on where you live, there may be laws which may make it illegal for companies to refuse to deal. In the case of US law, I found this reference on Refusal to Deal. And here's the Canadian version.
The fundamental goal of these laws it to prevent anti-competative actions by a company or group of individuals. In this particular example (assuming it was a US company), this may apply if the 'cake' manufacturer refused to deal with grocery store A but did deal with grocery store B in order to restrict competition in some fashion.
If you sit five people down to count marks on 100,000 pieces of paper you will not get one result.
You don't. You break the votes up into, say, 2,000 groups of 50. Then take as many people as you want and count the votes in each group. Record the results as you go. Then add.
Seriously, there is no reason manual recounts should be anything but 100% repeatable. Will they take a long time? Sure, unless you can recruit lots of people. But there's no reason it can't be a reliable fallback in the case of close elections w/ automated counting systems.
Isn't it traditional to have a similar number of testers as developers? I know we mostly do, anyway.
Actually, it depends on the organization. I've certainly heard of a 3:1 developer-to-tester ratio cited as a good target to shoot for, though I unfortunately have no references to provide.
Because I'd have sworn I paid for a telephone connection. If Google can provide me a telephone connection, why exactly should they be paying the ISP I already paid? Because you need a phone line at each end.
Yeah, and with the Internet, you need a 'net connection on each end. And guess what? Each end pays. Google pays for their connection, I pay for mine. That should be the end of it. The carriers in between? Well, they get paid via peering agreements.
But charging *Google* because *I* accessed their website, specifically? That's plain old fashioned money grubbing.
I'm not saying this is great, and that the business model doesn't need to change, but if everyone switched to VoIP and dropped their normal phone lines, all the telecomms would go bankrupt, and all of their infrastructure would fail, and the Internet would fragment.
Uhhh... no. Google already pays on a per-gigabyte basis (well, I assume, anyway). If VOIP was implemented, then they would consume more bandwidth, and would be charged comparably more. What you say is true if the telcos were using their telephony business to subsidize their data business, but if that's the case, they should fix *that* problem by charging Google more for the bandwidth their using (and *not* by differentiating based on the service they're providing... that would be anticompetative).
On a final note, this idea that we all deserve a lot of inexpensive bandwidth is unreasonable.
Then how did we get by so far? Are the telcos and cable providers all going bankrupt? Because they must be, if what you say is true. Alternatively, they're overcharging for their other services (telephony, etc) and subsidizing their broadband business, but that's their own damn fault.
Or maybe the real truth is that building the infrastructure incurs a tonne of upfront cost, but once that outlay is complete, the maintenance costs are significantly lower, and are easily recouped by providing customers (business and residential) with bandwidth, in addition to valuable services.
Yeah, I had a very similar problem with my Palm. Solution? Get a separate inline volume control. Then turn the device volume up and turn the inline volume down. This effectively increases the impedence of the line, thus cutting out the noise. Voila! Also useful for crappy airline jacks or other places where they have stepped volume.
I should really just shell out the cash and get a good set of earplug/earbud combo headphones that block external noise. Do these things really work at 50% volume?
Just to echo the other poster's statement, "yes". I got the Shure E2C's and I'd never go back Superior sound quality, awesome noise isolation. Perfect for riding the bus, road trips, or flights.
LOL. Well, in all seriousness, if one is concerned about this, you could spend a couple bucks more and get a higher-quality one. I know Shure sells the PA235. They include that as part of the E5C bundle, which is their top-tier canalphone, so I can only assume it's of decent quality.:)
For the most part, the reason people crank their music up so loud is to drown out ambient noise. Standard buds are *horrible* for sound isolation. Not only do they allow plenty of ambient noise in, but they waste energy leaking sound out, which also has the effect of annoying the people around you.
The solution? Either get a good set of cans, or buy canalphones. Personally, I picked up a set of Shure E2C's. Expensive? Yes. But the sound isolation is *amazing*. I can drive these phones at easily half the power of my old buds and still be able to hear my music perfectly while dropping ambient noise at least 10-15 db. As an added side effect, they have excellent sound quality, particularly at their price point. They're worth every penny, IMHO. And for things like long road trips or flights, they're a life saver.
Wow... that's interesting, I have the exact opposite experience... I really enjoy a face-to-face games. As for reviewing, the act of replaying a game is actually a very good memory exercise. But, hey, to each his/her own.:)
Then again, if you don't participate in a club, odds are good you can't find sufficient opponents to make owning a set practical.
If you think you'll be playing the game long-term, you should consider getting a Go set if you don't already have one. A decent set can be had for as little as $60 of $70, and let me tell you, playing Go with a real board and real stones is far different experience from playing on the computer. It allows you to appreciate the esthetics of the game, as well as the strategy. And there's nothing like the sound of stones clicking on a wooden board.:)
'course, the other option is to see if there's a local club. Granted, this may be more than you're currently prepared for, but clubs provide the opportunity to play against people face to face, probably offer group lessons to weaker players, and provide opportunity to play teaching games with high-level players.
Actually, that's probably not true. If you look at the actual numbers, you'll see that Iraq supplies less oil to the US than Nigeria, ffs. Moreover, the war itself has basically wiped out Iraq's oil production capacity, which runs contrary to the whole "iraq-for-oil" idea.
Now, don't get me wrong, I feel the war in Iraq was a *gigantic* mistake. But it's a grave error to dumb down the motivations for the war to a single issue like this. All it does is muddy the waters, preventing us from *really* understanding what's going on.
As far as abortion goes, IMO either it has human rights or it doesn't, and if it does that it has them in full and equal to any other human. I'm of the opinion that they don't, but I realize some people do. What I don't understand is the intermediate stages where the fetus has the right to life - except if it is incest or rape or whatever. Either it has, or it hasn't, or you're saying that some right of the mother overrides the most fundamental right there is - the right to life itself. I can't make such "half-human" rights make sense.
This is such a silly issue. Another Slashdotter made a point I'd never considered, and it closes the issue for me: We already determine when a life ends. Brain death. Most people, medical professionals, etc believe that life ends when brain activity ceases. Hence the term "brain dead". So, why don't we use the same standard to decide when life begins?
The problem is, this isn't isn't about *fact*. This is about religion. People talk about fetuses having "souls", even though they have no developed brain. But if that's the case, then there's no way we should be allowed to stop resuscitating people who are brain dead because, apparently, brain activity is not the end-all and be-all of life.
Way to not counter my point. But, hey, I'll just try again.
How can you trust something with an abundace of power to apply compulsary rules
That "something" is something I *voted* for. I have direct control over it's operation. That's the joy of a democracy. If that doesn't work, blame your fellow citizens... your system of government is only as broken as you make it.
something whose only power is to offer you a product?
Because I have *no control* over that corporation. Can I have some amount of control over, say, Walmart, by limiting where I spend my dollars? Yes. But in the world of massive conglomerates, it's virtually impossible to differentiate between "good" corporations and "bad" corporations. Moreover, if all corporations are "bad" (which, in the absence of regulation, is what would happen, thanks to the fact these are business entities which bow to a single god: profit), then there is no way for me to affect their behaviour, aside from extracting myself from the process entirely.
Worse yet, the tendency of capitalism is toward monopoly (proven by the steady merging of telcos, among other things), and unchecked, ultimately we would be left with a system containing some limited number of massive corporations which we are completely unable to control... unfortunately, even with government regulation, we're already running down that path, though that's mainly thanks to the SEC who is, apparently, unwilling to limit the size of corporate mergers these days... which, come to think of it, just proves my point.
EMTALA requires hospitals to treat emegency cases; useless for chronic conditions and for preventative care. And they can still bill you and try to squeeze whatever payment they can from you.
And the best part about this? Because of the cost burden (it's private, thus subject to a board who wants profits, etc), many hospitals are simply shutting down their emergency wards. Yay privatized healthcare!
Yeah, great! Instead, the government would be so small that it wouldn't be able to protect the citizens from exploitation by the corporation. And what's the solution to this? Government regulation. Regulation which can be manipulated by... the uber-powerful corporations.
Face it, your pie-in-the-sky libertarian magic is simply not realistic. There is no perfect, solution here. Although, things like limiting campaign contributions, which amount to legalized bribary, would be a good start.
Re:I've had this for a few years
on
A Look at IPTV
·
· Score: 1
Sort of. Suscribing to a channel takes time and then, as the channel is MPEG2/TS here (France), you need to wait the next I-Frame.
'course, it should be noted that this is a problem for any MPEG2-based video solution, including those provided by cable and satellite operators.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF, this is Wal-Mart's fault how, exactly? Christ, I don't blame Wal-Mart if the Denver city council is willing to sell their souls at the altar of Wal-Mart, I blame the Denver city government. If this is really a problem, the local constituents should recall their representatives. And if they don't do that, well, the people have spoken... it still ain't Wal-Mart's fault.
Yeah! We've gone all the way from the middle-left to the... middle-right! Unbelievable. ;)
Seriously. I've never understood why people look at their jobs *as* their life, as opposed to simply a part of it. I make a point of leaving at 5, and never taking my work home with me unless it's absolutely necessary. Working 12 hours a day and leaving nothing for yourself is a miserable way to live, and it doesn't *have* to be that way.
but hey there has to be a limit for when a consumer becomes lower quality than tolerable and phone/pda as a music player is it.
Uhh... I think it's safe to say that you're not an average consumer with average expectations, given you're willing to spend *$500* on a pair of headphones. Personally, I find the audio quality of my Palm TX coupled with my Shure E2Cs to be more than adequate.
Actually, it's funny you should say that, because, depending on where you live, there may be laws which may make it illegal for companies to refuse to deal. In the case of US law, I found this reference on Refusal to Deal. And here's the Canadian version.
The fundamental goal of these laws it to prevent anti-competative actions by a company or group of individuals. In this particular example (assuming it was a US company), this may apply if the 'cake' manufacturer refused to deal with grocery store A but did deal with grocery store B in order to restrict competition in some fashion.
If you sit five people down to count marks on 100,000 pieces of paper you will not get one result.
You don't. You break the votes up into, say, 2,000 groups of 50. Then take as many people as you want and count the votes in each group. Record the results as you go. Then add.
Seriously, there is no reason manual recounts should be anything but 100% repeatable. Will they take a long time? Sure, unless you can recruit lots of people. But there's no reason it can't be a reliable fallback in the case of close elections w/ automated counting systems.
Isn't it traditional to have a similar number of testers as developers? I know we mostly do, anyway.
Actually, it depends on the organization. I've certainly heard of a 3:1 developer-to-tester ratio cited as a good target to shoot for, though I unfortunately have no references to provide.
Those companies spend billions developing, testing, and getting FDA approval on a single drug.
No, the real problem is that they spend ridiculous amounts of money *advertising* their products.
You made that word up didn't you? Come on, admit it :D
Please tell me you weren't serious about this... have you honestly not heard of the word prophylactic?
Because I'd have sworn I paid for a telephone connection. If Google can provide me a telephone connection, why exactly should they be paying the ISP I already paid? Because you need a phone line at each end.
Yeah, and with the Internet, you need a 'net connection on each end. And guess what? Each end pays. Google pays for their connection, I pay for mine. That should be the end of it. The carriers in between? Well, they get paid via peering agreements.
But charging *Google* because *I* accessed their website, specifically? That's plain old fashioned money grubbing.
I'm not saying this is great, and that the business model doesn't need to change, but if everyone switched to VoIP and dropped their normal phone lines, all the telecomms would go bankrupt, and all of their infrastructure would fail, and the Internet would fragment.
Uhhh... no. Google already pays on a per-gigabyte basis (well, I assume, anyway). If VOIP was implemented, then they would consume more bandwidth, and would be charged comparably more. What you say is true if the telcos were using their telephony business to subsidize their data business, but if that's the case, they should fix *that* problem by charging Google more for the bandwidth their using (and *not* by differentiating based on the service they're providing... that would be anticompetative).
On a final note, this idea that we all deserve a lot of inexpensive bandwidth is unreasonable.
Then how did we get by so far? Are the telcos and cable providers all going bankrupt? Because they must be, if what you say is true. Alternatively, they're overcharging for their other services (telephony, etc) and subsidizing their broadband business, but that's their own damn fault.
Or maybe the real truth is that building the infrastructure incurs a tonne of upfront cost, but once that outlay is complete, the maintenance costs are significantly lower, and are easily recouped by providing customers (business and residential) with bandwidth, in addition to valuable services.
The synergy between the Windows OS and the Treo platform certainly creates an exciting new paradigm shift
Are you an astroturfing marketdroid?
Yeah, I had a very similar problem with my Palm. Solution? Get a separate inline volume control. Then turn the device volume up and turn the inline volume down. This effectively increases the impedence of the line, thus cutting out the noise. Voila! Also useful for crappy airline jacks or other places where they have stepped volume.
I should really just shell out the cash and get a good set of earplug/earbud combo headphones that block external noise. Do these things really work at 50% volume?
Just to echo the other poster's statement, "yes". I got the Shure E2C's and I'd never go back Superior sound quality, awesome noise isolation. Perfect for riding the bus, road trips, or flights.
LOL. Well, in all seriousness, if one is concerned about this, you could spend a couple bucks more and get a higher-quality one. I know Shure sells the PA235. They include that as part of the E5C bundle, which is their top-tier canalphone, so I can only assume it's of decent quality. :)
Just pick up a separate in-line volume controller. I picked one up for six bucks, IIRC. Works great.
For the most part, the reason people crank their music up so loud is to drown out ambient noise. Standard buds are *horrible* for sound isolation. Not only do they allow plenty of ambient noise in, but they waste energy leaking sound out, which also has the effect of annoying the people around you.
The solution? Either get a good set of cans, or buy canalphones. Personally, I picked up a set of Shure E2C's. Expensive? Yes. But the sound isolation is *amazing*. I can drive these phones at easily half the power of my old buds and still be able to hear my music perfectly while dropping ambient noise at least 10-15 db. As an added side effect, they have excellent sound quality, particularly at their price point. They're worth every penny, IMHO. And for things like long road trips or flights, they're a life saver.
Wow... that's interesting, I have the exact opposite experience... I really enjoy a face-to-face games. As for reviewing, the act of replaying a game is actually a very good memory exercise. But, hey, to each his/her own. :)
Then again, if you don't participate in a club, odds are good you can't find sufficient opponents to make owning a set practical.
If you think you'll be playing the game long-term, you should consider getting a Go set if you don't already have one. A decent set can be had for as little as $60 of $70, and let me tell you, playing Go with a real board and real stones is far different experience from playing on the computer. It allows you to appreciate the esthetics of the game, as well as the strategy. And there's nothing like the sound of stones clicking on a wooden board. :)
'course, the other option is to see if there's a local club. Granted, this may be more than you're currently prepared for, but clubs provide the opportunity to play against people face to face, probably offer group lessons to weaker players, and provide opportunity to play teaching games with high-level players.
Well that's just flat out wrong. I'm roughly 9 or 10 kyu, and I was playing a 3d just last night with 9 stones and won the game just fine.
Actually, that's probably not true. If you look at the actual numbers, you'll see that Iraq supplies less oil to the US than Nigeria, ffs. Moreover, the war itself has basically wiped out Iraq's oil production capacity, which runs contrary to the whole "iraq-for-oil" idea.
Now, don't get me wrong, I feel the war in Iraq was a *gigantic* mistake. But it's a grave error to dumb down the motivations for the war to a single issue like this. All it does is muddy the waters, preventing us from *really* understanding what's going on.
As far as abortion goes, IMO either it has human rights or it doesn't, and if it does that it has them in full and equal to any other human. I'm of the opinion that they don't, but I realize some people do. What I don't understand is the intermediate stages where the fetus has the right to life - except if it is incest or rape or whatever. Either it has, or it hasn't, or you're saying that some right of the mother overrides the most fundamental right there is - the right to life itself. I can't make such "half-human" rights make sense.
This is such a silly issue. Another Slashdotter made a point I'd never considered, and it closes the issue for me: We already determine when a life ends. Brain death. Most people, medical professionals, etc believe that life ends when brain activity ceases. Hence the term "brain dead". So, why don't we use the same standard to decide when life begins?
The problem is, this isn't isn't about *fact*. This is about religion. People talk about fetuses having "souls", even though they have no developed brain. But if that's the case, then there's no way we should be allowed to stop resuscitating people who are brain dead because, apparently, brain activity is not the end-all and be-all of life.
Way to not counter my point. But, hey, I'll just try again.
How can you trust something with an abundace of power to apply compulsary rules
That "something" is something I *voted* for. I have direct control over it's operation. That's the joy of a democracy. If that doesn't work, blame your fellow citizens... your system of government is only as broken as you make it.
something whose only power is to offer you a product?
Because I have *no control* over that corporation. Can I have some amount of control over, say, Walmart, by limiting where I spend my dollars? Yes. But in the world of massive conglomerates, it's virtually impossible to differentiate between "good" corporations and "bad" corporations. Moreover, if all corporations are "bad" (which, in the absence of regulation, is what would happen, thanks to the fact these are business entities which bow to a single god: profit), then there is no way for me to affect their behaviour, aside from extracting myself from the process entirely.
Worse yet, the tendency of capitalism is toward monopoly (proven by the steady merging of telcos, among other things), and unchecked, ultimately we would be left with a system containing some limited number of massive corporations which we are completely unable to control... unfortunately, even with government regulation, we're already running down that path, though that's mainly thanks to the SEC who is, apparently, unwilling to limit the size of corporate mergers these days... which, come to think of it, just proves my point.
EMTALA requires hospitals to treat emegency cases; useless for chronic conditions and for preventative care. And they can still bill you and try to squeeze whatever payment they can from you.
And the best part about this? Because of the cost burden (it's private, thus subject to a board who wants profits, etc), many hospitals are simply shutting down their emergency wards. Yay privatized healthcare!
Yeah, great! Instead, the government would be so small that it wouldn't be able to protect the citizens from exploitation by the corporation. And what's the solution to this? Government regulation. Regulation which can be manipulated by... the uber-powerful corporations.
Face it, your pie-in-the-sky libertarian magic is simply not realistic. There is no perfect, solution here. Although, things like limiting campaign contributions, which amount to legalized bribary, would be a good start.
Sort of. Suscribing to a channel takes time and then, as the channel is MPEG2/TS here (France), you need to wait the next I-Frame.
'course, it should be noted that this is a problem for any MPEG2-based video solution, including those provided by cable and satellite operators.