The fact that this article is categorized as "humor" doesn't make the elitism any less inherent. We should be educating people about the importance of software maintenance, not bashing them for being "morons" because they don't want to know the technical stuff. To most people, computers are a tool to get a job done, not a religion. Windows makes it easy to do most jobs. Therefore, most people are pretty happy with Windows.
First of all, this particular article was a response to that press release by Symantec. Sometimes sarcasm is a good way to put the overly serious in their place. "NEW LINUX VIRUS!!! LINUX VULNERABLE LIKE WINDOWS!!!!" yeah, right, whatever. Please don't ignore the legitimate aspects of the humor in this article.
Second, I bet that every group of people who are "in the know" about anything have their own bodies of humor. Ever insulted Britney Spears or her fans because you have much better taste in music than that? Yeah, I though so. Even if you didn't, I bet about half the population of the U.S. has:) Likewise, I certainly do call the electrician when my refrigerator breaks, and I bet he has jokes about dumbasses like me ("Here, try turning the knob the other way.") Why should the computer-literate SlashDot crowd be any different? Humor helps build a sense of community among people with similar interests, and in many cases helps relieve stress (ever wonder why there are so many tech support humor sites out there?) So let it be! It's just a joke.
On a related note, I'd also like to point out that the whole "Linux is a religion to most of its users" thing is not only a myth, but it's actually gotten in the way at my job. I've had problems with people refusing to use the Linux machines at work even when there are good reasons to use them, then accusing me of just being a "Linux fanatic" when I push the issue, even when I'm ultimately proven right. I do not doubt that the small vocal minority you see on newsgroups and SlashDot is probably not representative. On SlashDot you see a lot of arguments about controversial topics, which is probably the real reason why so everyone seems so angry. Still, there are plenty of reasonable people in the Linux community. Spend some time reading comp.os.linux.hardware (and not comp.os.linux.advocacy!) and you'll see what I mean. So please, give the "Linux users are fanatical jerks" thing a break already! The stereotype is making it hard on those of us who generally are nice guys:)
I wonder if Scientists ever play practical jokes on each other and sneak into the lab to make the Atomic Clock blink 12:00
Actually, they set one atomic clock to 12:0000000000000, and the other to 12:0000000000001, and wait for the other scientists see this and have a heart attack.
Heh, in my experience, it's quite to the contrary. Anyone with half a brain turns off nearly all, if not all services to stop script kiddies like you =]
Yes, but does this resemble the "real-world situation"? In a world full of sysadmins-with-half-a-brain, there would probably only be a few dozen crackers.:)
I mean, let's be honest. Most crackers are just looking for easy targets. They'd never be able to get into a reasonably hardened system. Fortunately, there are lots of easy targets out there. To most of these guys, that's what cracking is -- capturing easy targets. Get a half-dozen of them under your control, and you can make a decent DDoS attack, or you can really, really obscure your location while you hunt for more. There's a reason why more people hunt deer than lions -- you get more trophies at less risk to yourself!
So earlier today I went to look for what I would need to upgrade my system. I need CPU, RAM and a motherboard. AMD is supposed to be the price / performance king right? Comparing an Athlon 1600+ vs a P4 1.6 with roughly compareable (feature wise) MSI motherboards and 256 MB RAM I will save 55 Canadian dollars, about 30 US, with the AMD system. Before this price cut.
Note that the highest speed P4s (2.2Ghz and up) have no Athlon equivalent, yet the high end where the largest price cuts are taking place. The article says a price cut of 29% on a 2.4 Ghz P4 will occur. Does this cut affect AMD at all? Compare that to the 12% cut on a 1.7 Ghz P4. Does 12% close the gap between the P4 and Athlon? Not according to Pricewatch -- presently $85 US for the Athlon 1700+, $141 US for the P4!
Incidentally, the cheapest price for an Athlon 1600+ on Pricewatch is $81. For the P4 1600, it's $129. That's a difference of $48 US -- a bit larger than what you suggested. And what about the difference in memory costs? Does the new "Northwood" P4 perform as well with DDR as RAMBUS, or do you need to spend a bit more and buy RAMBUS memory to get its performance up to Athlon levels?
Also, I have to wonder if most buyers would consider power consumption or stability when buying (even though they should!) Do most buyers know anything about them at all? Even with just a $30 US difference, I bet most people would still buy the Athlon.
Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally. Get used to it. For example, society considers it illegal AND immoral to sexually assault someone. But gee, who are they to tell YOU what to do, right?
Technically, this type of law doesn't have to be supported on moral grounds. If the law simply states that each person has equal rights, then sexual assault can be made illegal without morality coming into it. The person committing the assault is taking away the rights of the victim (by restraining them against their will for a period of time, for example) which is not permitted within the doctrine that each person has the same rights.
The litigious behavior of the survivors or the survivor of an injury is sufficient to check the behavior of theme parks.
Not yet it hasn't.
For all the people who cannot seem to accept responsibility for their choices, here is a heavy chain and instructions on how to permanently chain your self to your bed. Now the rest of the world can live without your insanity.
I accept responsibility for my informed choices (and uninformed ones which are my fault, of course). If information is intentionally withheld ("No, this ride won't hurt ya!") or important information is not acted upon ("This ride could be dangerous, but it would be bad for business to fix it."), then I have reason to be angry.
Incidentally, would you like to buy my old stove? It has some little electrical problems which might cause a fire at some po... I mean, it's old, but still works! Interested?
Trend? I see incomplete data. Also a self-fulfilling prophecy. Where are statistics about ridership versus injuries?
Self-fulfilling prophecy? How so? Ridership vs. injuries? If this or that roller coaster applies enough G-forces to cause damage once, why can't it do the same again? Incomplete data? Well, yes. Of course, you can't include every detail. There isn't an autopsy on every G-force related death, for example. The question should be whether there's enough data to prove a point? (And if not, should more research be done?)
"If a drug caused 58 cases of brain damage, it would be pulled!" Do some research. Do you know how many thousands of deaths each year are attributed to very popular FDA approved OVER THE COUNTER drugs? Do Tylenol and Asprin ring a bell?
What were you just saying about statistics on usage vs. injury (or something like that)? Plus there's a benefits vs. risks issue. If aspirin (for example) might prevent you from having a heart attack, maybe it's worth the risks. Even the benefit of preventing a little pain might be worth a miniscule risk (no risk at all for normal, healthy people, I suspect). What are the benefits of roller coasters? A few minutes' fun? That's not much of a benefit to gamble against permanent injury.
Besides, aspirin bottles are covered with warnings. Aren't most of those deaths caused by misuse of the drug (taking it regularly over a long period of time without a doctor's recommendation, taking way too much) or by drug interactions, or by otherwise ignoring the warnings? Perhaps if roller coasters had warning signs about potentially causing brain damage (like they do about not riding if you have a heart condition), then I'd agree with you. If informed riders want to ride roller coasters despite the risks, then sure. But of course it would probably take legislation to require signs on roller coasters which apply more than a certain amount of G-force on riders...
Why don't you work on banning alcohol which causes orders of magnitude more deaths and permanent injuries than something as insignificant as roller coaster.
Because they tried that once and it caused more problems than it prevented? Besides, why waste time finding out exactly which cause of death is most dangerous? Why not just deal with them as they come up?
Don't you understand that we have much greater problems to worry about in this country and regulating roller coasters is not the best place to spend our tax dollars right now?
See, if I took the time to sort through and rank every problem with this country I could think of, I'd never spend any time solving them! My rule is more like "Anything that causes deaths is a problem and should be addressed", even if it's only 8 deaths so far. Yes drugs and cars are more dangerous than roller coasters, but the former can save lives, and the latter are vital to our economy -- and of course, they both already have lots of safety regulations applying to them!
Anyway, what makes you think that a restriction on roller coaster G-forces would cost the government anything? Maximum G-force could be just another form to fill out. Testing the specifications of the roller coaster would be the job of the builders. Making sure they're under the limit would take two seconds for some bureaucrat. And how many roller coasters are built every year anyway? Last year 79 new roller coasters opened in the world (see www.rcdb.com). Doesn't exactly sound like a massive job to me.
Today in terms of safety expenditures, we spend $0.0021 per mile for airlines, $0.00015 per mile for automobiles. If we spend $0.00015 per mile on roller coasters we would only be spending $75,000 per year. In 1997 there were 21920 auto fatalities, 3 roller coaster fatalities.
A restriction on the maximum G-force a roller coaster rider should experience should be enforced one time per roller coaster -- during the building phase probably, or during initial safety testing. It's not a per-mile thing. I assume you were thinking about costs of regulating roller coasters in general, not just G-forces applied, right?
It just makes me angry when people focus on extremely rare, freak problems.. like people making such a fuss about school shootings, or shark attacks last summer. Statistically speaking, these things simply do not happen! Why don't we focus on a real problem?
Ever heard of this thing called a trend? Quoting from Senator Markey's report:
At that time, Rep. Markey noted that 14 of the 15 cases had occurred in the 1990's, which he noted coincided with a building boom in the roller coaster industry that was leading to a sharp increase in the average speed and force designed into the rides.
Here's the problem. If high-G roller coasters can already cause harm, and yet roller coasters are only getting faster, how much more damaging will the next generation of roller coasters be? That's why it might be a good idea to set limits now!
Quoting from the MSNBC Article:
"We have right now in America, a roller coaster arms race where each amusement park advertises that they have the fastest, the most dangerous ride," says Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
If there's any truth to this statement, then I can sure see how this could become a big problem.
Assuming it's not a big problem now, that is. If a drug caused 58 cases of brain damage, it would be pulled! People may expect a few side effects from a drug, like drowsiness. But brain damage? That's a little too much! Likewise, the vast, vast majority of people expect that the worst thing that'll happen to them when they go on a roller coaster is that they'll get dizzy and puke afterwards. If they end up suffering permanent harm, there's a problem.
The ironic part is whether the digitized versions will last/be usable longer then the clay tablets.
What are you talking about? Of course the tablets will last longer.
I wonder if this is really true. Sure, those tablets last a long time in the ground, but can they survive one good earthquake in California? Petrified dinosaur bones last millions of years in the ground, but they've been known to get damaged and destroyed, even once they're in a museum.
Then again, maybe Mail/System Admins could install some AV software with daily updates and the Outlook Security Patch [google.com] along with a backend server (Exchange or OpenMail [now Samsung Contact]) that can implement server-side policies to prevent users from overriding and running executables anyway.
With this done, viruses and worms have little effect.
And the constant reminders to your user-base of proper e-mailing habits does eventually sink in.
And if there's a street near your house with lots of potholes and cracks, you can get larger tires, better shocks for your car, and instruct your passengers to hold on tight when you turn onto that street.
Or you can just take another street:)
Getting the city to fix the potholes isn't a bad idea either.
The solution is all you people who want laws, throw your money into a corporation, and COMPETE.
If you can do it for cheaper, THEN DO IT.
Isn't that what print cartridge refillers are doing? Finding a way to sell print cartridges cheaper through recycling?
So they do that, then the printer companies start adding technology to their cartridges which does nothing much (how will a smart chip stop a person from throwing an empty cartridge in the trash, exactly?) except kill off the cartridge refiller market.
The solution to this is... more competition!
Huh?
I, myself, can not. I looked at the cost of getting it all to work. There is no way to do it. Since they know you won't pay $600 for a printer, and $5 for cartridges, they do it the way they have to do it to make a profit, albeit a small one.
If the printer makers can't make a profit off the printers without having the cartridge market locked in, shouldn't they either raise prices or go out of business? Isn't that what competition is? The market changes, and you either adapt or die?
There are numerous other ways to print in color. I bought an HP Color LaserJet 4500. I print everything. The damn thing is a personal printer for me, and it runs ALL the time. The cost over the past year? Maybe $200, including tons of toner (thousands of pages printed). I love it. I will NEVER go back to Ink Jet.
As a side note, there's a market for recycled laserjet cartridges as well. I wonder how long that'll last...
I have a 1.3GHz Athlon, and it's fairly cool. With a Volcano 7, I haven't managed to get it above 50C (and that's in a room that was at about 30C). No wind tunnel needed. In fact, since it rarely got about 45C, I swapped out the fan with a quieter but less powerful one (40CFM, not sure how many dB), and it still rarely goes about 45C. My brother's Celeron (a 566, not overclocked) runs at about the same temp with the stock heatsink.
My point is that, while Athlons do run pretty dang hot, all you really need is a decent heatsink and good normal case cooling (I have those same 40CFM fans as the front and rear case fans).
Get this: name me 10 subject that would get 99% approval among the population? heck even TAX CUT wouldn't get 99% because some people would be affraid of the system collapsing, etc etc... but SPAM? come on... if it's not 99% it's going to be 99.9%.
My question is: Why is the system so slow about it?
Because some people would consider Spam to be speech (as in "free speech"), which makes it a Constitutional issue. And the courts are slow (or "deliberate", to spin it more positively).
I can't believe slashbots are still arguing about the modularity of Windows. Noone ever said it technically wasn't. Simply that integration means there are too many dependecies to reasonable remove IE from windows without crippling related subsystems (the help system etc).
The reason we're still debating the modularity of Windows is that some people insist of thinking of "modularity" in terms of libraries, while everyone else is thinking of "modularity" in terms of functionality.
Yes, IE is modular in the sense that it's a bunch of libraries (which are also used by the rest of the OS) and a small executable, not a huge executable with everything built in. Still, most people consider web browsers to be applications, and you should be able to remove any application from the OS without making it nonfunctional, because applications are not a necessary part of the system. Removing an application should be no different than removing am ISA- or PCI-based sound card (Compare this to a system with a sound card "integrated" into the motherboard...)
The real problem, I think, is a terminology disagreement between Windows developers and everyone else. Maybe "modularity" is the wrong way to explain the relationship between IE and Windows. Maybe "integration" would be better? The fact that IE is "integrated" into Windows so deeply is a problem, and MS should be able to produce a version of Windows without an "integrated" version of IE?
If an extra billion comes in from a SciFi tax then the politicians will reduce traditional NASA funding by a billion so they can spend that money elsewhere.
On the other hand, aren't those anti-smoking advertisements you see on television (at least in California) funded by taxes on cigarettes? It certainly is possible for a tax on a product to actually be used to fund related projects.
Also, as many people pointed out in one form or another, if the NASA gets more money from a sci-fi tax than it presently gets from Congress, then its budget would actually increase, even if all of NASA's other sources of funding were cut off.
Either way, if Congress used this tax to shift funds from NASA to (for example) funding cancer research, that would be just as well, at least as far as I'm concerned! Would they? Who knows. As always, the devil is in the details.
Maybe we'll be less tolerant of racism, child abuse, slavery, dictators, monopolies, pollution...
I suspect that racism, child abuse, etc would fall into the category of the "600-1000 dead Nigerians" example given by the article. We'd hear about it one day, then it would be gone from the news the next, leaving us basically unchanged except for a broad sense of guilt. I believe the article called it "omnipotent guilt".
In other words, no, a global media doesn't make us less tolerant of racism, child abuse, etc. We just get to hear about it briefly. That's the article's argument, I think.
I just want to point out that there might be some ethical issues. I am sure there are some simple arguements that can point out the cost to implement the hole in the wall system vs. the cost to feed/educate/clothe a number of children.
You realize that by those standards, hardly any research should be done at all in the world? And on a related note, by those standards we should all sell our computers and donate the money to charity. I mean, it's amazing how much money is spent on luxuries when some people don't even have food.
Getting back to the topic at hand, I don't think most IRBs actually care about those standards (they don't care how little we pay starving undergrads, for example...) I belive that they are more concerned about preventing physical harm or mental stress to human subjects. As long as no harm is done, and no personal information is reported (e.g. only aggregate statistical data and anonymous examples are used in papers and talks about the study), then this sort of thing should be fine.
Read the article. Some Linux distro developer did:)
I did read the article. And they say they have done it...time will tell.
Well, between "user-friendly" distros like Lycoris, Lindows, and Mandrake (in my opinion), and considering the good work of the KDE and GNOME projects, I'm not so sure that people really need a CLI to use Linux anymore. That is, of course, to use it in the "standard" way (I'm taking about word-processing, not installing hardware). Obviously, this is just my opinion. I'm sure that omeone out there would disagree:)
I really can't argue with that. It seems very reasonable indeed. I do believe that Linux has an over-reliance on the CLI, however. One shouldn't have to use it in order to wordprocess, email, Web browse, etc. One shouldn't have to use it to install or remove software. One shouldn't have to use it to do regular maintenance or disaster recovery either.
I'm not sure why you're thinking that Linux users need a CLI to wordprocess, email or web browse. I sure don't use one to do any of those things. I just use abiword, konqueror and kmail for each of those tasks, respectively. Why do you think people need a CLI to do this stuff on Linux?
As for installing applications, you're right that an awful lot of them to require the use of scripts. Then again, an awful lot can be done with a good GUI front-end to your favorite package manager (e.g. rpm or apt-get). You are right, though, that Linux could improve in this area. Perhaps KDE and/or GNOME should create a standardized installer program?
As for maintainence or disaster recovery... well, it really depends on the type of maintainence/disaster, doesn't it? If your hard drive has been corrupted, you're going to need a recovery disk, which may well be CLI (especially if it's a recovery floppy... it's hard to put a GUI on 1.44MB, not to mention that recovery disks should be as simple as possible to be as reliable as possible). As for "maintainence", I guess I don't know what qualifies. I don't ever defragment or virus-scan my Linux box, and my hard drives (the non-journalled partitions) are checked a-la scandisk every so many bootups. File management? Use kfm or some other graphical browser.
If theres a need to know the CLI in order to recover then I seriously think we need a nicer front-end to the recovery process. A GUI-based recovery disk would be nice.
Well, as people move away from recovery floppies and towards recovery CDs (i.e. using the install disk as a recovery device), I'm sure GUI-based recorery programs will appear. It's just hard (not impossible, but hard) to fit a GUI on a floppy. Certainly all the Linux and Windows recovery (floppy) disks I've seen have been CLI-based.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that this article is categorized as "humor" doesn't make the elitism any less inherent. We should be educating people about the importance of software maintenance, not bashing them for being "morons" because they don't want to know the technical stuff. To most people, computers are a tool to get a job done, not a religion. Windows makes it easy to do most jobs. Therefore, most people are pretty happy with Windows.
:) Likewise, I certainly do call the electrician when my refrigerator breaks, and I bet he has jokes about dumbasses like me ("Here, try turning the knob the other way.") Why should the computer-literate SlashDot crowd be any different? Humor helps build a sense of community among people with similar interests, and in many cases helps relieve stress (ever wonder why there are so many tech support humor sites out there?) So let it be! It's just a joke.
:)
First of all, this particular article was a response to that press release by Symantec. Sometimes sarcasm is a good way to put the overly serious in their place. "NEW LINUX VIRUS!!! LINUX VULNERABLE LIKE WINDOWS!!!!" yeah, right, whatever. Please don't ignore the legitimate aspects of the humor in this article.
Second, I bet that every group of people who are "in the know" about anything have their own bodies of humor. Ever insulted Britney Spears or her fans because you have much better taste in music than that? Yeah, I though so. Even if you didn't, I bet about half the population of the U.S. has
On a related note, I'd also like to point out that the whole "Linux is a religion to most of its users" thing is not only a myth, but it's actually gotten in the way at my job. I've had problems with people refusing to use the Linux machines at work even when there are good reasons to use them, then accusing me of just being a "Linux fanatic" when I push the issue, even when I'm ultimately proven right. I do not doubt that the small vocal minority you see on newsgroups and SlashDot is probably not representative. On SlashDot you see a lot of arguments about controversial topics, which is probably the real reason why so everyone seems so angry. Still, there are plenty of reasonable people in the Linux community. Spend some time reading comp.os.linux.hardware (and not comp.os.linux.advocacy!) and you'll see what I mean. So please, give the "Linux users are fanatical jerks" thing a break already! The stereotype is making it hard on those of us who generally are nice guys
I wonder if Scientists ever play practical jokes on each other and sneak into the lab to make the Atomic Clock blink 12:00
Actually, they set one atomic clock to 12:0000000000000, and the other to 12:0000000000001, and wait for the other scientists see this and have a heart attack.
I had a statistics book in college which was full of puns, some may have encountered the same book, made the class fun.
Was it "How to Lie With Statistics"?
Heh, in my experience, it's quite to the contrary. Anyone with half a brain turns off nearly all, if not all services to stop script kiddies like you =]
:)
Yes, but does this resemble the "real-world situation"? In a world full of sysadmins-with-half-a-brain, there would probably only be a few dozen crackers.
I mean, let's be honest. Most crackers are just looking for easy targets. They'd never be able to get into a reasonably hardened system. Fortunately, there are lots of easy targets out there. To most of these guys, that's what cracking is -- capturing easy targets. Get a half-dozen of them under your control, and you can make a decent DDoS attack, or you can really, really obscure your location while you hunt for more. There's a reason why more people hunt deer than lions -- you get more trophies at less risk to yourself!
So earlier today I went to look for what I would need to upgrade my system. I need CPU, RAM and a motherboard. AMD is supposed to be the price / performance king right? Comparing an Athlon 1600+ vs a P4 1.6 with roughly compareable (feature wise) MSI motherboards and 256 MB RAM I will save 55 Canadian dollars, about 30 US, with the AMD system. Before this price cut.
Note that the highest speed P4s (2.2Ghz and up) have no Athlon equivalent, yet the high end where the largest price cuts are taking place. The article says a price cut of 29% on a 2.4 Ghz P4 will occur. Does this cut affect AMD at all? Compare that to the 12% cut on a 1.7 Ghz P4. Does 12% close the gap between the P4 and Athlon? Not according to Pricewatch -- presently $85 US for the Athlon 1700+, $141 US for the P4!
Incidentally, the cheapest price for an Athlon 1600+ on Pricewatch is $81. For the P4 1600, it's $129. That's a difference of $48 US -- a bit larger than what you suggested. And what about the difference in memory costs? Does the new "Northwood" P4 perform as well with DDR as RAMBUS, or do you need to spend a bit more and buy RAMBUS memory to get its performance up to Athlon levels?
Also, I have to wonder if most buyers would consider power consumption or stability when buying (even though they should!) Do most buyers know anything about them at all? Even with just a $30 US difference, I bet most people would still buy the Athlon.
Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally. Get used to it. For example, society considers it illegal AND immoral to sexually assault someone. But gee, who are they to tell YOU what to do, right?
Technically, this type of law doesn't have to be supported on moral grounds. If the law simply states that each person has equal rights, then sexual assault can be made illegal without morality coming into it. The person committing the assault is taking away the rights of the victim (by restraining them against their will for a period of time, for example) which is not permitted within the doctrine that each person has the same rights.
Suddenly my DSL no longer seems fast enough.
:)
Suddenly my cable modem doesn't seem so fast either! Oh wait, it's 7pm local time
The litigious behavior of the survivors or the survivor of an injury is sufficient to check the behavior of theme parks.
Not yet it hasn't.
For all the people who cannot seem to accept responsibility for their choices, here is a heavy chain and instructions on how to permanently chain your self to your bed. Now the rest of the world can live without your insanity.
I accept responsibility for my informed choices (and uninformed ones which are my fault, of course). If information is intentionally withheld ("No, this ride won't hurt ya!") or important information is not acted upon ("This ride could be dangerous, but it would be bad for business to fix it."), then I have reason to be angry.
Incidentally, would you like to buy my old stove? It has some little electrical problems which might cause a fire at some po... I mean, it's old, but still works! Interested?
Trend? I see incomplete data. Also a self-fulfilling prophecy. Where are statistics about ridership versus injuries?
Self-fulfilling prophecy? How so? Ridership vs. injuries? If this or that roller coaster applies enough G-forces to cause damage once, why can't it do the same again? Incomplete data? Well, yes. Of course, you can't include every detail. There isn't an autopsy on every G-force related death, for example. The question should be whether there's enough data to prove a point? (And if not, should more research be done?)
"If a drug caused 58 cases of brain damage, it would be pulled!" Do some research. Do you know how many thousands of deaths each year are attributed to very popular FDA approved OVER THE COUNTER drugs? Do Tylenol and Asprin ring a bell?
What were you just saying about statistics on usage vs. injury (or something like that)? Plus there's a benefits vs. risks issue. If aspirin (for example) might prevent you from having a heart attack, maybe it's worth the risks. Even the benefit of preventing a little pain might be worth a miniscule risk (no risk at all for normal, healthy people, I suspect). What are the benefits of roller coasters? A few minutes' fun? That's not much of a benefit to gamble against permanent injury.
Besides, aspirin bottles are covered with warnings. Aren't most of those deaths caused by misuse of the drug (taking it regularly over a long period of time without a doctor's recommendation, taking way too much) or by drug interactions, or by otherwise ignoring the warnings? Perhaps if roller coasters had warning signs about potentially causing brain damage (like they do about not riding if you have a heart condition), then I'd agree with you. If informed riders want to ride roller coasters despite the risks, then sure. But of course it would probably take legislation to require signs on roller coasters which apply more than a certain amount of G-force on riders...
Why don't you work on banning alcohol which causes orders of magnitude more deaths and permanent injuries than something as insignificant as roller coaster.
Because they tried that once and it caused more problems than it prevented? Besides, why waste time finding out exactly which cause of death is most dangerous? Why not just deal with them as they come up?
Don't you understand that we have much greater problems to worry about in this country and regulating roller coasters is not the best place to spend our tax dollars right now?
See, if I took the time to sort through and rank every problem with this country I could think of, I'd never spend any time solving them! My rule is more like "Anything that causes deaths is a problem and should be addressed", even if it's only 8 deaths so far. Yes drugs and cars are more dangerous than roller coasters, but the former can save lives, and the latter are vital to our economy -- and of course, they both already have lots of safety regulations applying to them!
Anyway, what makes you think that a restriction on roller coaster G-forces would cost the government anything? Maximum G-force could be just another form to fill out. Testing the specifications of the roller coaster would be the job of the builders. Making sure they're under the limit would take two seconds for some bureaucrat. And how many roller coasters are built every year anyway? Last year 79 new roller coasters opened in the world (see www.rcdb.com). Doesn't exactly sound like a massive job to me.
Today in terms of safety expenditures, we spend $0.0021 per mile for airlines, $0.00015 per mile for automobiles. If we spend $0.00015 per mile on roller coasters we would only be spending $75,000 per year. In 1997 there were 21920 auto fatalities, 3 roller coaster fatalities.
A restriction on the maximum G-force a roller coaster rider should experience should be enforced one time per roller coaster -- during the building phase probably, or during initial safety testing. It's not a per-mile thing. I assume you were thinking about costs of regulating roller coasters in general, not just G-forces applied, right?
It just makes me angry when people focus on extremely rare, freak problems.. like people making such a fuss about school shootings, or shark attacks last summer. Statistically speaking, these things simply do not happen! Why don't we focus on a real problem?
Ever heard of this thing called a trend? Quoting from Senator Markey's report:
At that time, Rep. Markey noted that 14 of the 15 cases had occurred in the 1990's, which he noted coincided with a building boom in the roller coaster industry that was leading to a sharp increase in the average speed and force designed into the rides.
Here's the problem. If high-G roller coasters can already cause harm, and yet roller coasters are only getting faster, how much more damaging will the next generation of roller coasters be? That's why it might be a good idea to set limits now!
Quoting from the MSNBC Article:
"We have right now in America, a roller coaster arms race where each amusement park advertises that they have the fastest, the most dangerous ride," says Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
If there's any truth to this statement, then I can sure see how this could become a big problem.
Assuming it's not a big problem now, that is. If a drug caused 58 cases of brain damage, it would be pulled! People may expect a few side effects from a drug, like drowsiness. But brain damage? That's a little too much! Likewise, the vast, vast majority of people expect that the worst thing that'll happen to them when they go on a roller coaster is that they'll get dizzy and puke afterwards. If they end up suffering permanent harm, there's a problem.
The ironic part is whether the digitized versions will last/be usable longer then the clay tablets.
What are you talking about? Of course the tablets will last longer.
I wonder if this is really true. Sure, those tablets last a long time in the ground, but can they survive one good earthquake in California? Petrified dinosaur bones last millions of years in the ground, but they've been known to get damaged and destroyed, even once they're in a museum.
Why the hell should my grandmother, who has no idea what an MP3 is, pay this fee?
You think that's bad? Just wait until they start charging her a "porn access" fee!
All those copyrighted images being traded, and no way to make money off them...
Then again, maybe Mail/System Admins could install some AV software with daily updates and the Outlook Security Patch [google.com] along with a backend server (Exchange or OpenMail [now Samsung Contact]) that can implement server-side policies to prevent users from overriding and running executables anyway.
:)
With this done, viruses and worms have little effect.
And the constant reminders to your user-base of proper e-mailing habits does eventually sink in.
And if there's a street near your house with lots of potholes and cracks, you can get larger tires, better shocks for your car, and instruct your passengers to hold on tight when you turn onto that street.
Or you can just take another street
Getting the city to fix the potholes isn't a bad idea either.
The solution is all you people who want laws, throw your money into a corporation, and COMPETE.
If you can do it for cheaper, THEN DO IT.
Isn't that what print cartridge refillers are doing? Finding a way to sell print cartridges cheaper through recycling?
So they do that, then the printer companies start adding technology to their cartridges which does nothing much (how will a smart chip stop a person from throwing an empty cartridge in the trash, exactly?) except kill off the cartridge refiller market.
The solution to this is... more competition!
Huh?
I, myself, can not. I looked at the cost of getting it all to work. There is no way to do it. Since they know you won't pay $600 for a printer, and $5 for cartridges, they do it the way they have to do it to make a profit, albeit a small one.
If the printer makers can't make a profit off the printers without having the cartridge market locked in, shouldn't they either raise prices or go out of business? Isn't that what competition is? The market changes, and you either adapt or die?
There are numerous other ways to print in color. I bought an HP Color LaserJet 4500. I print everything. The damn thing is a personal printer for me, and it runs ALL the time. The cost over the past year? Maybe $200, including tons of toner (thousands of pages printed). I love it. I will NEVER go back to Ink Jet.
As a side note, there's a market for recycled laserjet cartridges as well. I wonder how long that'll last...
I have a 1.3GHz Athlon, and it's fairly cool. With a Volcano 7, I haven't managed to get it above 50C (and that's in a room that was at about 30C). No wind tunnel needed. In fact, since it rarely got about 45C, I swapped out the fan with a quieter but less powerful one (40CFM, not sure how many dB), and it still rarely goes about 45C. My brother's Celeron (a 566, not overclocked) runs at about the same temp with the stock heatsink.
My point is that, while Athlons do run pretty dang hot, all you really need is a decent heatsink and good normal case cooling (I have those same 40CFM fans as the front and rear case fans).
Get this: name me 10 subject that would get 99% approval among the population? heck even TAX CUT wouldn't get 99% because some people would be affraid of the system collapsing, etc etc... but SPAM? come on... if it's not 99% it's going to be 99.9%.
My question is: Why is the system so slow about it?
Because some people would consider Spam to be speech (as in "free speech"), which makes it a Constitutional issue. And the courts are slow (or "deliberate", to spin it more positively).
I give up. Any more "Informative" on Slashdot is about as "informative" as the local news.
:)
Yes, but SlashDot is about "Stuff That Matters!"
I can't believe slashbots are still arguing about the modularity of Windows. Noone ever said it technically wasn't. Simply that integration means there are too many dependecies to reasonable remove IE from windows without crippling related subsystems (the help system etc).
The reason we're still debating the modularity of Windows is that some people insist of thinking of "modularity" in terms of libraries, while everyone else is thinking of "modularity" in terms of functionality.
Yes, IE is modular in the sense that it's a bunch of libraries (which are also used by the rest of the OS) and a small executable, not a huge executable with everything built in. Still, most people consider web browsers to be applications, and you should be able to remove any application from the OS without making it nonfunctional, because applications are not a necessary part of the system. Removing an application should be no different than removing am ISA- or PCI-based sound card (Compare this to a system with a sound card "integrated" into the motherboard...)
The real problem, I think, is a terminology disagreement between Windows developers and everyone else. Maybe "modularity" is the wrong way to explain the relationship between IE and Windows. Maybe "integration" would be better? The fact that IE is "integrated" into Windows so deeply is a problem, and MS should be able to produce a version of Windows without an "integrated" version of IE?
If an extra billion comes in from a SciFi tax then the politicians will reduce traditional NASA funding by a billion so they can spend that money elsewhere.
On the other hand, aren't those anti-smoking advertisements you see on television (at least in California) funded by taxes on cigarettes? It certainly is possible for a tax on a product to actually be used to fund related projects.
Also, as many people pointed out in one form or another, if the NASA gets more money from a sci-fi tax than it presently gets from Congress, then its budget would actually increase, even if all of NASA's other sources of funding were cut off.
Either way, if Congress used this tax to shift funds from NASA to (for example) funding cancer research, that would be just as well, at least as far as I'm concerned! Would they? Who knows. As always, the devil is in the details.
Maybe we'll be less tolerant of racism, child abuse, slavery, dictators, monopolies, pollution...
I suspect that racism, child abuse, etc would fall into the category of the "600-1000 dead Nigerians" example given by the article. We'd hear about it one day, then it would be gone from the news the next, leaving us basically unchanged except for a broad sense of guilt. I believe the article called it "omnipotent guilt".
In other words, no, a global media doesn't make us less tolerant of racism, child abuse, etc. We just get to hear about it briefly. That's the article's argument, I think.
ummmm.... If everyone is selling; who buys?
:)
Well, maybe with such a glut of sellers, prices will drop so low that those ghetto kids in India can afford their own computers!
I just want to point out that there might be some ethical issues. I am sure there are some simple arguements that can point out the cost to implement the hole in the wall system vs. the cost to feed/educate/clothe a number of children.
You realize that by those standards, hardly any research should be done at all in the world? And on a related note, by those standards we should all sell our computers and donate the money to charity. I mean, it's amazing how much money is spent on luxuries when some people don't even have food.
Getting back to the topic at hand, I don't think most IRBs actually care about those standards (they don't care how little we pay starving undergrads, for example...) I belive that they are more concerned about preventing physical harm or mental stress to human subjects. As long as no harm is done, and no personal information is reported (e.g. only aggregate statistical data and anonymous examples are used in papers and talks about the study), then this sort of thing should be fine.
The true users of this software will be:
:)
[snip!]
B) Immature little warez kiddies turning in sites that belong to "opposing" warez groups.
And vice-versa... ironically, causing the system to work exactly like its creators want it to!
Read the article. Some Linux distro developer did :)
:)
I did read the article. And they say they have done it...time will tell.
Well, between "user-friendly" distros like Lycoris, Lindows, and Mandrake (in my opinion), and considering the good work of the KDE and GNOME projects, I'm not so sure that people really need a CLI to use Linux anymore. That is, of course, to use it in the "standard" way (I'm taking about word-processing, not installing hardware). Obviously, this is just my opinion. I'm sure that omeone out there would disagree
I really can't argue with that. It seems very reasonable indeed. I do believe that Linux has an over-reliance on the CLI, however. One shouldn't have to use it in order to wordprocess, email, Web browse, etc. One shouldn't have to use it to install or remove software. One shouldn't have to use it to do regular maintenance or disaster recovery either.
I'm not sure why you're thinking that Linux users need a CLI to wordprocess, email or web browse. I sure don't use one to do any of those things. I just use abiword, konqueror and kmail for each of those tasks, respectively. Why do you think people need a CLI to do this stuff on Linux?
As for installing applications, you're right that an awful lot of them to require the use of scripts. Then again, an awful lot can be done with a good GUI front-end to your favorite package manager (e.g. rpm or apt-get). You are right, though, that Linux could improve in this area. Perhaps KDE and/or GNOME should create a standardized installer program?
As for maintainence or disaster recovery... well, it really depends on the type of maintainence/disaster, doesn't it? If your hard drive has been corrupted, you're going to need a recovery disk, which may well be CLI (especially if it's a recovery floppy... it's hard to put a GUI on 1.44MB, not to mention that recovery disks should be as simple as possible to be as reliable as possible). As for "maintainence", I guess I don't know what qualifies. I don't ever defragment or virus-scan my Linux box, and my hard drives (the non-journalled partitions) are checked a-la scandisk every so many bootups. File management? Use kfm or some other graphical browser.
If theres a need to know the CLI in order to recover then I seriously think we need a nicer front-end to the recovery process. A GUI-based recovery disk would be nice.
Well, as people move away from recovery floppies and towards recovery CDs (i.e. using the install disk as a recovery device), I'm sure GUI-based recorery programs will appear. It's just hard (not impossible, but hard) to fit a GUI on a floppy. Certainly all the Linux and Windows recovery (floppy) disks I've seen have been CLI-based.