If you read the rest of my post, beyond the first line you quoted, you'll see that I'm not being critical, I'm pointing out the difference between most people's (not my) expectations and the reality of how Moz.org works.
My only point is, Moz.org should make it clear that that's how it operates.
My other post is critical;-).
Thanks for helping to turn out such great software, BTW.
Regarding the Google deal (I'm posting this separately because it's a separate issue):
It may be a very good deal -- it's certainly seems like good business -- but the fact that a Moz feature was adware, no matter how popular, should have been disclosed:
Mozilla has created the expectation that its software serves users' interests, not the financial or business needs of the manufacturer. It's a key point in differentiating the organization and its products.
Many people have contributed to Mozilla.org on that basis; adware changes it. It's disingenuous, I think, to make that change without discussion it with those who've contributed and especially without disclosing it.
It's also disingenous to users: Mozilla.org has given them the same expectation, and in that context Google as the home page looks like a technical choice by Mozilla.org and an independent endorsement of Google. It turns out to be a paid advertisement. It's like an advertisement disguised as news in a newspaper.
It doesn't pass the smell test. Perhaps everyone's expectation is wrong, but then Mozilla.org should clarify it's position.
I think people expect open source projects to be managed 'openly', too -- to have decisions discussed and publicized on mailing lists, even if there is a final arbiter.
That's not Mozilla's approch, AFAICT. I don't think it's right or wrong, but it should be clarified to avoid giving volunteers the wrong idea about their relationship with the Mozilla.
I've contributed many hours to Mozilla.org (though I'm certainly not among the top contributors). From my perspective, Mozilla.org operates more like a private business than a community project; it's more like volunteering for Google, a business that seems 'not evil'.
I know the budget is different and some systems (e.g. bugzilla) are designed to incorporate volunteer participation, but that doesn't affect volunteers' relationsihips with Mozilla.org. Moz.org makes decisions and operates a business, independently of the community.
Perhaps the way to describe it would be as the software equivalent of America's public TV and radio.
When the definition of "reputable" includes "accepts human-generated global warming as fact", then of course one side of the argument is "reputable" and the other is not.
Huh? Who said that was the definition?
Every reputable physicist accepts Special Relativity. Every reputable weatherman accepts it's colder in winter than summer. Where is this getting us?
It also does not help that 'The Academy' has become so heavily populated with folks with very left-wing social, and political agendas. Large sections of Americans do not trust institutions that they view as hot beds of neo-marxist pointy-headed, ivory tower bound granolas.
Is that true? Why do you believe the people who characterize this supposedly monolithic 'Academy' this way? What makes these detractors credible, or more credible than the scholars? Certainly, their tactics (ad hominem attacks), should reduce the detractors' credibility.
Hard data, analyzed by trusted, and calm minds is the only thing that the public will take seriously.
You can't seriously think the public responds to this. Ironically, this is what happens in the scientific arena (within human limits). Try reading a IPCC report and see: http://www.ipcc.ch Try the 'Summary for Policymakers' of one of the reports.
modelers spends hours and hours tweaking their models until they "look right", and if "humans are the cause of global warming" is what looks right to them (and they get paid to get that result) then that is what the models say.
one NOAA model that came out a few years ago showing a sudden upturn in temperatures just about to happen. CALAMITY! WOE!
This simply isn't true; cite examples or admit you're just making it up as you go along.
That isn't how modeling works -- scientists aren't idiots; believe it or not, and that problem has been considered even before you thought of it, at some point in first semester undergrad courses.
I very much doubt the NOAA, or any reputable scientist, said anything about calamity and woe. I'm confident they discussed uncertainty and not trusting one model.
Hmmmm... this FUD rings very familiar. On Slashdot, at least, let's avoid characterizing the author with hints, innuendo and conspiracies (i.e. ad hominem attacks), and stick to facts and analysis.
First, the 'hockey stick' conclusion has clearly not been debunked; the consensus supports it at this time. That doesn't make it a useful, accurate theory, of course.
Only a fool would insist his data and analysis are perfect, and that there is no uncertainty. Those aren't the questions. The questions are: 1) Is McIntyre & McKitrick's analysis correct? 2) If it is, and there is a significant flaw, does the flaw signficantly alter the conclusion? Would it be a refinement? 3) Would it change the conclusion to reflect greater or less global warming?
The inevitable question is, why should we believe their data and analysis, and discard that of Mann and the consensus of scientists with specific expertise in the field?
McIntyre is a minerals consultant and amateur mathematician and McKitrick is an economist at Canada's University of Guelph. (per the Wall Street Journal). They aren't scientists, and they're not scientists with specific expertise in this area. It doesn't make them wrong, but means we probably shouldn't just take their word for it.
For any argument, in science as well as anything else, you can always find a few people who support it. A few critics therefore indicates nothing. (In fact, if you think of it, why believe a few people on one side of an argument, but not thousands on the other?) What else do we have to work with?
The Wall Street Journal published an article (subscription req'd) about McIntyre & McKitrick's arguments on Feb 14th. One key quote makes clear how hard it is to answer these questions and how skeptical we must be:
Many skeptics contend that liberal environmental agendas are behind alarming global-warming headlines, though often skeptics bring policy agendas of their own. Think tanks backed with funding from the energy industry have waged a wide campaign to cast doubt on key scientific results. "Climate science today is fully politicized," says Roger Pielke Jr., head of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research.
Here's what the author of the article found:
Several scientists, with specific expertise in the field, agree there is a potential flaw in the math.
None could confirm an actual flaw.
There was nobody who would say whether the flaw, if it exists, would signficantly affect the conclusion
McIntyre & McKitrick have been published twice, once in a non-mainstream journal and once in peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters. No info on what was published or how respected the latter journal is.
There was no discussion at all on whether any error in the conclusion would show an increase or decrease in global warming.
A useful tidbit: McIntyre still doesn't know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph (quoted from the article).
In other words, there is very little that's definitive, and not one scientist with expertise yet confirms McIntyre & McKitrick's argument.
That seemed odd to me so I e-mailed the article's author: How much support or opposition do their arguments draw? He responded that not many people had studied McIntyre & McKitrick's work; It's not a long list.
In other words, we don't know about McIntyre & McKitrick. We do know many scientists have studied and accepted Mann's work.
We use PhillyCarShare and our experiences have been fantastic. We're about to sell our last of the two cars we owned a year ago.
OUR NEEDS
We live downtown (in Center City) and we can walk nearly everywhere, including to work, so we drive maybe once or twice a week on average. There are plenty of cabs and there's decent public transportation.
Car insurance is very expensive here, cars are constantly being side-swiped and broken into, and parking can be difficult to find.
In short, owning a car is not worth the hassle, if there's an alternative.
HOW WE USE IT
We probably use cabs as much as PhillyCarShare, because there's no parking to worry about, but we probably use it weekly on average: Really, it's a few times one week, then not at all for awhile.
We use it most for grocery shopping, but any time a cabs are impractical or unavailable, or if we have a lot of 'cargo', etc, we'll use CarShare.
OUR EXPERIENCES
Our main concern, when we started, was availability -- what if we need a car and none is available? That hasn't been a problem at all. Of course it's a function of supply and demand.
PhillyCarShare has been fantastic -- Service is in the 99th percentile of businesses I've patronized. The cars are clean and well cared for; operations such as scheduling, cust. svc issues, training, billing, etc. are very well thought out, well designed, professional and efficient; the service has been 100% reliable. The website is very efficient, and you can make reservations by phone, too.
The most difficult issue is having a deadline for returning the car. They leave plenty of leeway for being late and you can extend your 'rental' (if nobody has scheduled the next time slot), but when you own your own car, there's no deadline. Also, walking a 4-6 blocks to the nearest PhillyCarShare car is not as convenient, but it's only a few minutes and doesn't bother us.
If you're travelling for a day or more, it's cheaper to rent, but they have deals with Avis and Enterprise that give us small discounts.
In all, we save money and eliminate many hassles: There's a reserved parking spot, they wash the car and handle maintenance, and we very rarely need to refill it (and gas is billed to their credit card).
INSURANCE
PhillyCarShare does not require members to have their own insurance, but provides its own. If a carshare organization you're considering does the same thing, I strongly recommend verifying that you are not left with any liability. Otherwise, an accident and/or injury could cost you hundreds of thousands or millions.
All news sources are more or less biased in one direction or another, even if simply by ommitting information. "Opinion" pieces are simply news articles that pass some arbitrary threshold of bias.
This argument uses binary logic: All or nothing; it's perfect or it's all wrong. They key words are more or less -- some sources are more or less biased than others, some significantly so.
Here's the difference between news and opinion pieces, at least in serious publications, from what a news junkie and former college journalist (i.e. pure amateur):
News has two properties. If you don't see these things, you know you're not reading very good reporting.
* News presents boths sides of the story. The reporter contacts both sides and gives them a chance to respond in the article. You'll see even the most straightforward stories will often include a pro forma quote from a critic near the bottom.
* Facts should have some basis superior to one person's word; more important facts should be carefuly checked. Realize reporters aren't writing dissertations -- they have to check all the facts in hours, not weeks or years. Don't expect scientific levels of confidence.
Opinion is exactly that. One side of the story, if that, and facts, even in the most reputable publications, are played fast and loose. Advice from a news junkie: Never get your facts from an editorial.
Those are just parameters that guarantee nothing, but can be useful indicators. I've read every publication I can get my hands on and can tell you there's a big difference, but every publication makes major mistakes. It's journalism not science.
For some, calling names and making wild assertions is so satisfying, they confuse it with fact. But Slashdot is a forum where I expect a higher standard.
Not to mention, Americans (myself included) should have learned from recent experience that acting without the facts can get you into big trouble.
The fact is, the UN has served American interests more than any other country's; the parent post is just ignorant of history. The UN was established to create a forum for international power; we are the biggest power, but we don't always get our way.
In terms of our principles, should that upset us? Absolutely not! Democracy is giving a say to people you don't like: We believe in self-determination and that 'all men' are created equal, not just Americans. That means Senators DeLay and Kennedy both get a vote, despite the fact that one probably disgusts you.
In terms of practicality, you think ugly partisan disagreement, and long frustrating negotiations is the sign of malfunction? Have you noticed what goes on in Washington DC? It's the fascists that historically disparage it: Hitler and Mussolini offered the alternative of strong, decisive leadership; it's an old con that works on the ignorant. As Churchill said, 'Democracy is the worst possible system, until you examine the alternatives'. If you lack the courage of your convictions on democracy, you might note that all the richest, most powerful nations are democracies.
Even if you care nothing for the rights of others to have real, forceful say (Europeans, Iraqis, and everyone else), they will get their say, peacefully if possible, thorugh conflict if not. Allies and international cooperation provide great value to us: If you think we can survive without them, you're just ignorent: Ignorent of history, politics and economics. Conflict, especially war, is incredibly expensive and completely unproductive.
Diplomatic forums like the UN provide systems to peacefully resolve real disputes between heated enemies. Ugly? Frustrating? So what? It's not there to entertain you. Not getting your way? Welcome to life. Who said you deserve to get your way? What makes you more important than the other guy?
As I said, the UN was created in the ashes of World War II to prevent future wars. Since 1945 almost no sovereign nation has invaded another (compare that to all world history before 1945): Civil wars and proxies, maybe, but hardly any direct acts of agression by any major power. The USSR invaded Afghanistan, and now, the US invaded Iraq.
Do you want to return to pre-UN days? Why? What do you hope to accomplish?
Turner's theory is interesting, but the data simply contradicts him.
There are far, far more media outlets available to you than 10 years ago, thanks to the Internet. It's better than it's ever been, better than Ted Turner could have dreamed when he started CNN.
And I don't just mean, you can read almost every newspaper in the world -- I read papers from 3 continents every day. The very low cost of publishing allows endless Internet-only media outlets: Slashdot, the Drudge Report, Salon, Wired, every blogger in the world, etc.
The UN, believe it or not, is not a left-wing organization. It was formed by FDR, Churchill, Stalin and many others after World War II to prevent another World War. (History scholars, forgive my simplifications.)
Somehow, certain right-wing radicals have created the notion that the UN, other multilateral institutions, and internationalism in general are left-wing ideas and that reactionary, isolationist right-wing radicalism is in the center.
Much of the Republican party is internationalist. Working with other countries isn't idealism, it's practical and necessary, just like a business working with other businesses, and citizens working with each other and obeying the law.
I've tried just about everything, trying to find an efficient way to stay as informed as possible. One principle I've learned: The longer time there is between publications (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, etc), the better the articles. I guess it shouldn't be surprise.
Not just magazines, in rough order of how essential they are.
NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS
* National Journal Daily Briefing: If you read one thing every day, make it this national headline summary from the beltway publication, the National Journal. Available for free here: doonesbury.com/media/dailybriefing/index.html (there's nothing about it that will remind you of Doonesbury).
* The Economist: I can't add to what's been said above
* The Atlantic: They ask great questions, and think well. They get a little too far from the facts some times, but otherwise fantastic.
* Foreign Affairs: Written by the leading foreign policy experts.
* Stratfor.com: Cold hard geopolitical intelligence, not news. Far superior to most other sources in their predictions, analysis, and willingness to address the fundemental, practical questions.
* NY Times, Wall St Journal, Wash Post, LA Times, Christian Science Monitor: The dailies worth your time.
* BBC World Service Newshour: The toughest journalists around. The interviews are the best, with regular pregnant pauses from world leaders. Unfortunately, at an hour a day with no index to the segments, too time-consuming.
WORLDWIDE PERSPECTIVES
* News International from Pakistan: (jang.com.pk/thenews) I've looked around for good '3rd world' media; this daily isn't perfect, but they're far ahead of most peers. Esp. good when balanced with...
* Hindustan Times: Another excellent daily from the developing world.
* AFP: The major French newswire covers stories omitted elsewhere.
* Institute for War and Peace Reporting: (iwpr.net) Unique, close-to-the-action coverage of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and other hot spots.
* Far Eastern Economic Review (feer.com) Owned by Dow Jones (publishers of the Wall St Journal), matchless coverage of the 'far east'.
OTHER SUBJECTS
* SCIENCE: ScienceWeek (scienceweek.com) If you want efficient, serious coverage of science, there's no peer; Scientific American is for wimps. Absolutely take a look at this weekly. I can't recommend them enough.
* PUBLIC OPINION: PollingReport.com: Summaries of all major polls at one, well organized, no-nonsense website.
* BASEBALL: Baseball Primer weblog: (baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer) If you're as much a baseball geek as you are a computer geek.
people who don't understand the DNS have no business trying to make technical proposals for changing it. if for instance you don't understand how increasing the number of TLDs affects DNS cache locality, and how this affects root server bandwidth and availability, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll bite - what are the techincal issues? I'm sure most people would be more interested in that then in your your flame of the parent post.
In the article, Krawetz says that Computational Challange won't work. I disagree, and I think it's the most elegant solution. His reasons (paraphrased by me):
* Mailing lists and other legit mass mailers, such as Amazon, will be hit as hard spammers
But the recipient could whitelist these. If they don't, the sender would 'pay' for one message that says: Either whitelist us or use our website.
* Robot armies created by worms will be used by spammers to bypass the costs.
If Computational Challange is implemented, ISPs -- to protect their own budgets -- would immediately cut off any zombie computer. They should be cutting them off, now, anyway.
* Spammers can construct legal robot armies -- essentially buy lots of computing power
This argument misses the point of a small fee (paid in cpu cycles) for each e-mail. It's simple economics: You only have to make it expensive enough that spammers lose money on the deal.
If you can send 1 million emails for free, then you can afford sending ads with only a one in a million shot of selling something. But if you pay a penny per email, it's not worth it. No spammer is buying and operating a server farm to send 1 million e-mails, just to make $1,000 in sales.
* It's reverse taxation: To answer the same Computational Challange, a slower computers will require more CPU time than a faster computer. Thus the poor pay more than the rich
This is true, but it would still be a minimal tax, except for mass mailers.
Consider also,
* The recipient can set the bar as high as he wants. He could crank up it up to problems that consume 30 seconds or a minute, if he really hated unwanted mail.
* The recipient could set different levels for different classes of email, including a whitelist class for those who get through for free. Mailing lists might require subscribers to whitelist them.
* If you look at it one way, it's really the penny per email tax, but it's implemented more efficiently: No micropayment system, banks, accounts -- it just uses existing infrastructure. And nobody gets the penny.
Nice theory. Tell that to the "Mother" of two who blew herself up at the Erez crossing point last week. She killed 4 Israelis and left about 6000 Palistianians out of work for the near future
You're right. We haven't met complete success yet, so we should quit.
On the same logic, let's stop trying to reduce poverty, murder, rape, slavery, cancer, AIDS. Why invade Iraq? Why not? Who cares? Obviously, we're failures anyway.
It's very exciting, but I hoped that the Slashdot crowd wouldn't be vulnerable to such a farce. He's throwing promises, money and visions of glory at us. I wish we had the sense to do some good policy analysis.
In other words, is this the best ROI we can get for the money? Any time I see something this spetacular, I strongly suspsect it's great spectacle, but poor ROI.
And I'm not just talking about ROI in the space program, or the sciences in general. For example, maybe the money would be better spent to reduce the deficit, on other federal (or state or local) programs, or not taxed at all and therefore spent or invested by the private sector.
These are just the basics. It's dissapointing that none of the posts (that I see, modded to 4 or 5) even approach the issues. We can think about it now, or face the consequences later.
What saddens me is that, even though the majority of informed individuals can see right through this, there's not a damn thing we can do. There's no powerful candidate to oppose him. Odds are that he will win, and that'll serve as a pat on the back for all the stuff he's done since he entered office (in his mind and that of his administration).
That's what the Republicans claim -- it amazes me that so many Dems are so easily intimidated, and blithely repeat it. It's a simple con -- act invulnerable, and people will believe you are, for a time. But really that act is all he has; he's tremendously vulnerable on many issues.
Brashly throwing insults and arbitrary assertions, the modus operendi of the Bush team (and apparantly some posters here) has only one purpose: not to reason, but to intimdate. Don't fall for it.
There's no powerful candidate to oppose him.
Of course now, before the first primary, no Dem candidate is as "powerful" as the President, but that's the case in every election. Bush lost the popular vote, and no President has won a closer election than 2000.
I've setup $550 SnapServer NAS devices for a few small offices. They have built-in remote access and are very secure: They run a stripped down Unix that only allows Java apps to execute.
Of course, that only functions to serve files, but it works very reliably.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the rest of my post, beyond the first line you quoted, you'll see that I'm not being critical, I'm pointing out the difference between most people's (not my) expectations and the reality of how Moz.org works.
;-).
My only point is, Moz.org should make it clear that that's how it operates.
My other post is critical
Thanks for helping to turn out such great software, BTW.
Regarding the Google deal (I'm posting this separately because it's a separate issue):
It may be a very good deal -- it's certainly seems like good business -- but the fact that a Moz feature was adware, no matter how popular, should have been disclosed:
Mozilla has created the expectation that its software serves users' interests, not the financial or business needs of the manufacturer. It's a key point in differentiating the organization and its products.
Many people have contributed to Mozilla.org on that basis; adware changes it. It's disingenuous, I think, to make that change without discussion it with those who've contributed and especially without disclosing it.
It's also disingenous to users: Mozilla.org has given them the same expectation, and in that context Google as the home page looks like a technical choice by Mozilla.org and an independent endorsement of Google. It turns out to be a paid advertisement. It's like an advertisement disguised as news in a newspaper.
It doesn't pass the smell test. Perhaps everyone's expectation is wrong, but then Mozilla.org should clarify it's position.
I think people expect open source projects to be managed 'openly', too -- to have decisions discussed and publicized on mailing lists, even if there is a final arbiter.
That's not Mozilla's approch, AFAICT. I don't think it's right or wrong, but it should be clarified to avoid giving volunteers the wrong idea about their relationship with the Mozilla.
I've contributed many hours to Mozilla.org (though I'm certainly not among the top contributors). From my perspective, Mozilla.org operates more like a private business than a community project; it's more like volunteering for Google, a business that seems 'not evil'.
I know the budget is different and some systems (e.g. bugzilla) are designed to incorporate volunteer participation, but that doesn't affect volunteers' relationsihips with Mozilla.org. Moz.org makes decisions and operates a business, independently of the community.
Perhaps the way to describe it would be as the software equivalent of America's public TV and radio.
Why are you wasting time with the critique of a novelist? Why give this guy credibility, but not the vast majority of climate scientists?
/. discussion, I've seen critiques by an amatuer mathematician, an economist and a novelist.
So far in this
Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, that should tell you something.
When the definition of "reputable" includes "accepts human-generated global warming as fact", then of course one side of the argument is "reputable" and the other is not.
Huh? Who said that was the definition?
Every reputable physicist accepts Special Relativity. Every reputable weatherman accepts it's colder in winter than summer. Where is this getting us?
It also does not help that 'The Academy' has become so heavily populated with folks with very left-wing social, and political agendas. Large sections of Americans do not trust institutions that they view as hot beds of neo-marxist pointy-headed, ivory tower bound granolas.
Is that true? Why do you believe the people who characterize this supposedly monolithic 'Academy' this way? What makes these detractors credible, or more credible than the scholars? Certainly, their tactics (ad hominem attacks), should reduce the detractors' credibility.
Hard data, analyzed by trusted, and calm minds is the only thing that the public will take seriously.
You can't seriously think the public responds to this. Ironically, this is what happens in the scientific arena (within human limits). Try reading a IPCC report and see: http://www.ipcc.ch Try the 'Summary for Policymakers' of one of the reports.
modelers spends hours and hours tweaking their models until they "look right", and if "humans are the cause of global warming" is what looks right to them (and they get paid to get that result) then that is what the models say.
one NOAA model that came out a few years ago showing a sudden upturn in temperatures just about to happen. CALAMITY! WOE!
This simply isn't true; cite examples or admit you're just making it up as you go along.
That isn't how modeling works -- scientists aren't idiots; believe it or not, and that problem has been considered even before you thought of it, at some point in first semester undergrad courses.
I very much doubt the NOAA, or any reputable scientist, said anything about calamity and woe. I'm confident they discussed uncertainty and not trusting one model.
First, the 'hockey stick' conclusion has clearly not been debunked; the consensus supports it at this time. That doesn't make it a useful, accurate theory, of course.
Only a fool would insist his data and analysis are perfect, and that there is no uncertainty. Those aren't the questions. The questions are:
1) Is McIntyre & McKitrick's analysis correct?
2) If it is, and there is a significant flaw, does the flaw signficantly alter the conclusion? Would it be a refinement?
3) Would it change the conclusion to reflect greater or less global warming?
The inevitable question is, why should we believe their data and analysis, and discard that of Mann and the consensus of scientists with specific expertise in the field?
McIntyre is a minerals consultant and amateur mathematician and McKitrick is an economist at Canada's University of Guelph. (per the Wall Street Journal). They aren't scientists, and they're not scientists with specific expertise in this area. It doesn't make them wrong, but means we probably shouldn't just take their word for it.
For any argument, in science as well as anything else, you can always find a few people who support it. A few critics therefore indicates nothing. (In fact, if you think of it, why believe a few people on one side of an argument, but not thousands on the other?) What else do we have to work with?
The Wall Street Journal published an article (subscription req'd) about McIntyre & McKitrick's arguments on Feb 14th. One key quote makes clear how hard it is to answer these questions and how skeptical we must be:
Here's what the author of the article found:
Several scientists, with specific expertise in the field, agree there is a potential flaw in the math.
None could confirm an actual flaw.
There was nobody who would say whether the flaw, if it exists, would signficantly affect the conclusion
McIntyre & McKitrick have been published twice, once in a non-mainstream journal and once in peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters. No info on what was published or how respected the latter journal is.
There was no discussion at all on whether any error in the conclusion would show an increase or decrease in global warming.
A useful tidbit: McIntyre still doesn't know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph (quoted from the article).
In other words, there is very little that's definitive, and not one scientist with expertise yet confirms McIntyre & McKitrick's argument.
That seemed odd to me so I e-mailed the article's author: How much support or opposition do their arguments draw? He responded that not many people had studied McIntyre & McKitrick's work; It's not a long list.
In other words, we don't know about McIntyre & McKitrick. We do know many scientists have studied and accepted Mann's work.
We use PhillyCarShare and our experiences have been fantastic. We're about to sell our last of the two cars we owned a year ago.
OUR NEEDS
We live downtown (in Center City) and we can walk nearly everywhere, including to work, so we drive maybe once or twice a week on average. There are plenty of cabs and there's decent public transportation.
Car insurance is very expensive here, cars are constantly being side-swiped and broken into, and parking can be difficult to find.
In short, owning a car is not worth the hassle, if there's an alternative.
HOW WE USE IT
We probably use cabs as much as PhillyCarShare, because there's no parking to worry about, but we probably use it weekly on average: Really, it's a few times one week, then not at all for awhile.
We use it most for grocery shopping, but any time a cabs are impractical or unavailable, or if we have a lot of 'cargo', etc, we'll use CarShare.
OUR EXPERIENCES
Our main concern, when we started, was availability -- what if we need a car and none is available? That hasn't been a problem at all. Of course it's a function of supply and demand.
PhillyCarShare has been fantastic -- Service is in the 99th percentile of businesses I've patronized. The cars are clean and well cared for; operations such as scheduling, cust. svc issues, training, billing, etc. are very well thought out, well designed, professional and efficient; the service has been 100% reliable. The website is very efficient, and you can make reservations by phone, too.
Unlike the businesses in the article, PhillyCarShare is a non-profit, dedicated to helping and improving the community.
The most difficult issue is having a deadline for returning the car. They leave plenty of leeway for being late and you can extend your 'rental' (if nobody has scheduled the next time slot), but when you own your own car, there's no deadline. Also, walking a 4-6 blocks to the nearest PhillyCarShare car is not as convenient, but it's only a few minutes and doesn't bother us.
If you're travelling for a day or more, it's cheaper to rent, but they have deals with Avis and Enterprise that give us small discounts.
In all, we save money and eliminate many hassles: There's a reserved parking spot, they wash the car and handle maintenance, and we very rarely need to refill it (and gas is billed to their credit card).
INSURANCE
PhillyCarShare does not require members to have their own insurance, but provides its own. If a carshare organization you're considering does the same thing, I strongly recommend verifying that you are not left with any liability. Otherwise, an accident and/or injury could cost you hundreds of thousands or millions.
All news sources are more or less biased in one direction or another, even if simply by ommitting information. "Opinion" pieces are simply news articles that pass some arbitrary threshold of bias.
This argument uses binary logic: All or nothing; it's perfect or it's all wrong. They key words are more or less -- some sources are more or less biased than others, some significantly so.
Here's the difference between news and opinion pieces, at least in serious publications, from what a news junkie and former college journalist (i.e. pure amateur):
News has two properties. If you don't see these things, you know you're not reading very good reporting.
* News presents boths sides of the story. The reporter contacts both sides and gives them a chance to respond in the article. You'll see even the most straightforward stories will often include a pro forma quote from a critic near the bottom.
* Facts should have some basis superior to one person's word; more important facts should be carefuly checked. Realize reporters aren't writing dissertations -- they have to check all the facts in hours, not weeks or years. Don't expect scientific levels of confidence.
Opinion is exactly that. One side of the story, if that, and facts, even in the most reputable publications, are played fast and loose. Advice from a news junkie: Never get your facts from an editorial.
Those are just parameters that guarantee nothing, but can be useful indicators. I've read every publication I can get my hands on and can tell you there's a big difference, but every publication makes major mistakes. It's journalism not science.
For some, calling names and making wild assertions is so satisfying, they confuse it with fact. But Slashdot is a forum where I expect a higher standard.
Not to mention, Americans (myself included) should have learned from recent experience that acting without the facts can get you into big trouble.
The fact is, the UN has served American interests more than any other country's; the parent post is just ignorant of history. The UN was established to create a forum for international power; we are the biggest power, but we don't always get our way.
In terms of our principles, should that upset us? Absolutely not! Democracy is giving a say to people you don't like: We believe in self-determination and that 'all men' are created equal, not just Americans. That means Senators DeLay and Kennedy both get a vote, despite the fact that one probably disgusts you.
In terms of practicality, you think ugly partisan disagreement, and long frustrating negotiations is the sign of malfunction? Have you noticed what goes on in Washington DC? It's the fascists that historically disparage it: Hitler and Mussolini offered the alternative of strong, decisive leadership; it's an old con that works on the ignorant. As Churchill said, 'Democracy is the worst possible system, until you examine the alternatives'. If you lack the courage of your convictions on democracy, you might note that all the richest, most powerful nations are democracies.
Even if you care nothing for the rights of others to have real, forceful say (Europeans, Iraqis, and everyone else), they will get their say, peacefully if possible, thorugh conflict if not. Allies and international cooperation provide great value to us: If you think we can survive without them, you're just ignorent: Ignorent of history, politics and economics. Conflict, especially war, is incredibly expensive and completely unproductive.
Diplomatic forums like the UN provide systems to peacefully resolve real disputes between heated enemies. Ugly? Frustrating? So what? It's not there to entertain you. Not getting your way? Welcome to life. Who said you deserve to get your way? What makes you more important than the other guy?
As I said, the UN was created in the ashes of World War II to prevent future wars. Since 1945 almost no sovereign nation has invaded another (compare that to all world history before 1945): Civil wars and proxies, maybe, but hardly any direct acts of agression by any major power. The USSR invaded Afghanistan, and now, the US invaded Iraq.
Do you want to return to pre-UN days? Why? What do you hope to accomplish?
Turner's theory is interesting, but the data simply contradicts him.
There are far, far more media outlets available to you than 10 years ago, thanks to the Internet. It's better than it's ever been, better than Ted Turner could have dreamed when he started CNN.
And I don't just mean, you can read almost every newspaper in the world -- I read papers from 3 continents every day. The very low cost of publishing allows endless Internet-only media outlets: Slashdot, the Drudge Report, Salon, Wired, every blogger in the world, etc.
he donated billions to the UN.
The UN, believe it or not, is not a left-wing organization. It was formed by FDR, Churchill, Stalin and many others after World War II to prevent another World War. (History scholars, forgive my simplifications.)
Somehow, certain right-wing radicals have created the notion that the UN, other multilateral institutions, and internationalism in general are left-wing ideas and that reactionary, isolationist right-wing radicalism is in the center.
Much of the Republican party is internationalist. Working with other countries isn't idealism, it's practical and necessary, just like a business working with other businesses, and citizens working with each other and obeying the law.
I've tried just about everything, trying to find an efficient way to stay as informed as possible. One principle I've learned: The longer time there is between publications (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, etc), the better the articles. I guess it shouldn't be surprise.
...
Not just magazines, in rough order of how essential they are.
NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS
* National Journal Daily Briefing: If you read one thing every day, make it this national headline summary from the beltway publication, the National Journal. Available for free here: doonesbury.com/media/dailybriefing/index.html (there's nothing about it that will remind you of Doonesbury).
* The Economist: I can't add to what's been said above
* The Atlantic: They ask great questions, and think well. They get a little too far from the facts some times, but otherwise fantastic.
* Foreign Affairs: Written by the leading foreign policy experts.
* Stratfor.com: Cold hard geopolitical intelligence, not news. Far superior to most other sources in their predictions, analysis, and willingness to address the fundemental, practical questions.
* NY Times, Wall St Journal, Wash Post, LA Times, Christian Science Monitor: The dailies worth your time.
* BBC World Service Newshour: The toughest journalists around. The interviews are the best, with regular pregnant pauses from world leaders. Unfortunately, at an hour a day with no index to the segments, too time-consuming.
WORLDWIDE PERSPECTIVES
* News International from Pakistan: (jang.com.pk/thenews) I've looked around for good '3rd world' media; this daily isn't perfect, but they're far ahead of most peers. Esp. good when balanced with
* Hindustan Times: Another excellent daily from the developing world.
* AFP: The major French newswire covers stories omitted elsewhere.
* Institute for War and Peace Reporting: (iwpr.net) Unique, close-to-the-action coverage of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and other hot spots.
* Far Eastern Economic Review (feer.com) Owned by Dow Jones (publishers of the Wall St Journal), matchless coverage of the 'far east'.
OTHER SUBJECTS
* SCIENCE: ScienceWeek (scienceweek.com) If you want efficient, serious coverage of science, there's no peer; Scientific American is for wimps. Absolutely take a look at this weekly. I can't recommend them enough.
* PUBLIC OPINION: PollingReport.com: Summaries of all major polls at one, well organized, no-nonsense website.
* BASEBALL: Baseball Primer weblog: (baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer) If you're as much a baseball geek as you are a computer geek.
Thanks ... I know little about the internal functioning of a DNS server, though I understand it in terms of input and output.
.COM) is likely to already be present in any given cache
.COM, and not only the locally most popular (e.g.) 30%?
Why would 1,000 domains using 3 TLDs be easier to process than 1,000 domains with 1,000 TLDs?
An extremely popular TLD (like
Does a local DNS server cache only complete TLDs? That is, it would cache all of
people who don't understand the DNS have no business trying to make technical proposals for changing it. if for instance you don't understand how increasing the number of TLDs affects DNS cache locality, and how this affects root server bandwidth and availability, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll bite - what are the techincal issues? I'm sure most people would be more interested in that then in your your flame of the parent post.
OK, I didn't RTFA, but wasn't this same concept widely used in Japan awhile ago (and maybe still is)?
IIRC, even 16-bit WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows beat out 32-bit Word95 in PC Magazine.
In the article, Krawetz says that Computational Challange won't work. I disagree, and I think it's the most elegant solution. His reasons (paraphrased by me):
* Mailing lists and other legit mass mailers, such as Amazon, will be hit as hard spammers
But the recipient could whitelist these. If they don't, the sender would 'pay' for one message that says: Either whitelist us or use our website.
* Robot armies created by worms will be used by spammers to bypass the costs.
If Computational Challange is implemented, ISPs -- to protect their own budgets -- would immediately cut off any zombie computer. They should be cutting them off, now, anyway.
* Spammers can construct legal robot armies -- essentially buy lots of computing power
This argument misses the point of a small fee (paid in cpu cycles) for each e-mail. It's simple economics: You only have to make it expensive enough that spammers lose money on the deal.
If you can send 1 million emails for free, then you can afford sending ads with only a one in a million shot of selling something. But if you pay a penny per email, it's not worth it. No spammer is buying and operating a server farm to send 1 million e-mails, just to make $1,000 in sales.
* It's reverse taxation: To answer the same Computational Challange, a slower computers will require more CPU time than a faster computer. Thus the poor pay more than the rich
This is true, but it would still be a minimal tax, except for mass mailers.
Consider also,
* The recipient can set the bar as high as he wants. He could crank up it up to problems that consume 30 seconds or a minute, if he really hated unwanted mail.
* The recipient could set different levels for different classes of email, including a whitelist class for those who get through for free. Mailing lists might require subscribers to whitelist them.
* If you look at it one way, it's really the penny per email tax, but it's implemented more efficiently: No micropayment system, banks, accounts -- it just uses existing infrastructure. And nobody gets the penny.
it seems slashdot won't post this unless i type something here
Nice theory. Tell that to the "Mother" of two who blew herself up at the Erez crossing point last week. She killed 4 Israelis and left about 6000 Palistianians out of work for the near future
You're right. We haven't met complete success yet, so we should quit.
On the same logic, let's stop trying to reduce poverty, murder, rape, slavery, cancer, AIDS. Why invade Iraq? Why not? Who cares? Obviously, we're failures anyway.
Due to funding needs, per members of Congress and others:
http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?wcd=16888
It's very exciting, but I hoped that the Slashdot crowd wouldn't be vulnerable to such a farce. He's throwing promises, money and visions of glory at us. I wish we had the sense to do some good policy analysis.
In other words, is this the best ROI we can get for the money? Any time I see something this spetacular, I strongly suspsect it's great spectacle, but poor ROI.
And I'm not just talking about ROI in the space program, or the sciences in general. For example, maybe the money would be better spent to reduce the deficit, on other federal (or state or local) programs, or not taxed at all and therefore spent or invested by the private sector.
These are just the basics. It's dissapointing that none of the posts (that I see, modded to 4 or 5) even approach the issues. We can think about it now, or face the consequences later.
What saddens me is that, even though the majority of informed individuals can see right through this, there's not a damn thing we can do. There's no powerful candidate to oppose him. Odds are that he will win, and that'll serve as a pat on the back for all the stuff he's done since he entered office (in his mind and that of his administration).
That's what the Republicans claim -- it amazes me that so many Dems are so easily intimidated, and blithely repeat it. It's a simple con -- act invulnerable, and people will believe you are, for a time. But really that act is all he has; he's tremendously vulnerable on many issues.
Brashly throwing insults and arbitrary assertions, the modus operendi of the Bush team (and apparantly some posters here) has only one purpose: not to reason, but to intimdate. Don't fall for it.
There's no powerful candidate to oppose him.
Of course now, before the first primary, no Dem candidate is as "powerful" as the President, but that's the case in every election. Bush lost the popular vote, and no President has won a closer election than 2000.
I've setup $550 SnapServer NAS devices for a few small offices. They have built-in remote access and are very secure: They run a stripped down Unix that only allows Java apps to execute.
Of course, that only functions to serve files, but it works very reliably.