The GP's analogy isn't right. The way he or she describe it IS how turnpikes work. However, with these Internet fast lanes, it isn't about the consumer paying to use the faster road. Instead, it as about the super chain grocery store paying to have better roads built to their store. Meanwhile, the roads become deteriorated to the locally owned grocery store that cannot afford the highway upgrade fees. The consumer, in this case, cannot pay to have a smooth commute to the locally owned store.
I wasn't wearing crampons, snowshoes, ski boots, clown shoes, or swim fins. I was wearing boots. Boots are standard footwear. They are commonly worn in four-wheel drive SUVs.
I had a Dodge truck and a Nissan Xterra, both with standard transmissions, which I would drive daily. Every time I'd drive the Xterra with boots on I'd end up slamming on the brake pedal while depressing the clutch. I thought I was just used to driving the wider spaced pedals in the truck. It turns out, there just wasn't enough room in the Xterra for wearing boots. I considered it a design flaw.
You bring up a valid point about having the same event repeating on several different intervals. Note to the OP: you can repeat an event every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 8:00 PM. However, as hazah stated, you can't repeat the same event on Monday at 7:00, Wednesday at 8:00, and Friday at 6:00 without having to kludge something together.
I don't think the interface entry is a show stopper though. If CSS alone doesn't provide a good looking, intuitive interface, then it can be cleaned up nicely with the Display Suite module. Finally, even if display suite and CSS together don't do the trick, making a module to alter the node edit/add form for one content type is a trivial task.
All in all, I'm still of the opinion that Drupal would be a good fit for the project.
Drupal would fit this project well. Here is what you can accomplish with Drupal for your project:
- Visitors may register for accounts. The usual suspects like CAPTCHA for the registration & login form, password reset feature, e-mail verification, etc.. are either core or available with modules.
- Members can subscribe to event listings via the notifications module.
- Members can PM other members.
- Visitor's or registered users may post events with moderator approval
- Using the views, taxonomy, better exposed filters, and date modules, you may list and filter events by date, type, etc...
- Events are searchable. You can also use Apache Solr integration if you need to speed things up.
- Dates can be chosen with a jQuery pop-up calendar.
- Recurring dates can be done by enabling the Date Repeat
- You can specify start and end dates. You can also specify "all day" instead of listing a time.
- Event locations can be stored, and displayed using the Google Maps API
- Proximity searches are available with Views and the Location modules.
- Images can be posted for these events, and displayed in a lightbox style gallery.
- Contact information may be posted for the event coordinator.
- Visitor's can use a personal contact form or entity form to contact the owner of an event via a web based form.
- By using the proper fields for the data you are storing, the data can be validated to check that a web address, e-mail address, phone number, etc.. is in the proper format. You may also create your own validation rules.
- Comments can be made on an event listing, with moderator approval.
- The fivestar module will allow visitors to rate events.
The possibilities are somewhat endless. If you choose a dedicated calendar application, instead of a web CMS, you'll soon outgrow the features and be faced with the task of migrating your site.
Actually, they may have powered down many servers. For example, nsf.gov, fastlane.nsf.gov, and research.gov all point to the same host and serve the same generic page. Additionally, since the notice pages are static, then it is entirely possible, maybe probable, that the database servers for the Library of Congress, the FCC, the NASA sites may all have been shut down.
Yep, I see no reason why fame achieved through holding elected office should afford any further special privileges.
That's good, because it has nothing to do with that.
Just check nissan.com for an example...
Comparing this to the nissan.com dispute is idiotic. The owner of nissan.com had the last name "Nissan", and used the site for purposes unrelated to Nissan Motor Company. The owners of RonPaul.com are using the "fame achieved through holding elected office" by Ron Paul to profit from his trademarked name.
Deflating a joke is not pretentious when the joke is stupid and ignorant.
How you chose to do it is pretentious. Why not just explain that you feel the joke is stupid and ignorant?
This joke derives its humor from the Greedy Lawyers meme, which I consider supremely stupid. Americans sue each other at the drop of a hat (literally! [fastcase.com]) and we make fun of lawyers for cashing in?
Maybe you don't understand the greedy lawyers meme. It goes something like this. Plaintiffs seek damages. Lawyers inflate damages. Lawyers charge plaintiff exorbitant sums of money. Lawyers get rich. For example, when a small company sued RIM for patent infringement, the company was awarded $612.5 million. The law firm received over $200 million of this.
Anyway, the distinction between copyrights and patents is important (and I still think this specific judgment was about copyrights, even if the larger case originally involved patents) and there's nothing nitpicky about pointing out the difference.
The distinction between copyrights and patents is important. The distinction between copyright and patents NOT important in the context of the GPs joke. The case involved both patents and copyrights, so your correction and demand for the GP to RTFA is just arrogant drivel.
RTFA. The lawsuit in its entirety was about both.
The GP's was attempting to be funny. The choice of the word "patents" does nothing to detract from the message. Your attempt at nitpicking a humorous post is pretentious.
You are, BY FAR, part of a tiny, tiny, tiny minority.
Maybe you are right. My experiences are limited, since I've never lived in a city to see what vehicles people own and how they generally use them.
Sorry, but anecdotal replies is nothing close to reality.
My evidence is anecdotal, but it is true for me and everyone else I know who owns a pickup or SUV in my hometown. This evidence comes from observation and experience. So far, I trust it more than reading your opinions.
Its been proven time and time again, for most people, it would be far, far, far better to own a different vehicle and to rent something else one the rare occasion you actually need to use a larger vehicle.
Then you wouldn't mind providing the rest of us with these countless proofs?
Almost I must admit, the level of ignorance, stupidity, and selfishness which frequently surrounds this topic tends to be somewhat humorous. For some reason, the seemingly very stupid minority are under the impression that simply because they are part of a tiny, tiny minority, they are therefore the vast, vast majority.
Please provide evidence that vast majority of SUV or truck owners would be better off renting an SUV or truck when needed. I'd like to read it, so I can be as enlightened as you the next time this topic comes around.
Most of the people in your situation does those things so seldom that it would be cheaper for them to own a smaller vehicle and rent a larger vehicle when they need to do work that requires a truck or if they need to carry more than 3 passengers.
Many of the people do those things so seldom that they don't own a truck or SUV. Those people either rent them, or more likely, ask to borrow a truck or trailer from a friend or family member. Where I live, most of my neighbors and family have a pickup or SUV and trailer. They get used hard, for their intended use. Most of the older, more established families, have an extra car. The younger couples have one pickup and one car.
My guess is that the "man" in that relationship is very insecure and feel that he needs to drive a larger car.
That's a poor guess. There are still people, both men and women, who actually use these vehicles for their intended purpose. You can think of that next time you try to move furniture, or put a ton of stone in the trunk of your compact car, or ask someone else to take your coolers, kayaks, luggage, and mountain bikes on a trip.
It amazes me that the same people who say there is no need for a truck, have no shame in constantly asking to borrow one from someone who does.
If I ever have to shift something bigger and heavier, I'll just hire a truck with some workers to do it for me.
Not everyone is so privileged.
but the fact is that I just don't really need it, and I can bet you don't either
Not having a truck after I lost it in flood a few years ago, and having to borrow one weekly, means that I'll take your bet.
I guess that is the difference between the part of the US that you lived in, and the part that I live in. Where I'm from, we own our own homes, and do our own work. Most homeowners have pickups or trailers. We cut our own trees and haul them for our wood burners. We put on roofs, decks, and stone our own driveways. Either you own a truck or trailer, or you borrow one. Having a truck has nothing to do with perceived comfort. If you rode in mine you would understand. It is completely about being practical. I would take the comfort of a minivan any day.
That being said, this is referring to pickups, not SUVs. I couldn't do all of the above and use the same the truck for camping, going to the lake house, or going to the beach without having room for 6 passengers. I couldn't do the work on our homes, nor transport the kayaks, surf boards, mountain bikes, or 4-wheelers with a minivan.
We also traded my girlfriends Jetta for a Jeep, because she couldn't make it to work in the winter. That had nothing to do with perceived comfort, and everything to do with the "No winter maintenance" signs on roads she travels to get there.
I don't cringe each time I fill the gas tank because I want to. I do it because I need to. If I could afford to buy a second car, or get by without a truck, I would do it in a heartbeat. If you want to pick on people in the US for their vehicles, then choose people with gas guzzling sports cars or those driving Hummers around the city. Don't pick on the average family that needs at least one practical vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
Use the Xfinity speed test at speedtest.comcast.net.
As far as I can tell, they are not affiliated with any ISP.
The GP's analogy isn't right. The way he or she describe it IS how turnpikes work. However, with these Internet fast lanes, it isn't about the consumer paying to use the faster road. Instead, it as about the super chain grocery store paying to have better roads built to their store. Meanwhile, the roads become deteriorated to the locally owned grocery store that cannot afford the highway upgrade fees. The consumer, in this case, cannot pay to have a smooth commute to the locally owned store.
I wasn't wearing crampons, snowshoes, ski boots, clown shoes, or swim fins. I was wearing boots. Boots are standard footwear. They are commonly worn in four-wheel drive SUVs.
I had a Dodge truck and a Nissan Xterra, both with standard transmissions, which I would drive daily. Every time I'd drive the Xterra with boots on I'd end up slamming on the brake pedal while depressing the clutch. I thought I was just used to driving the wider spaced pedals in the truck. It turns out, there just wasn't enough room in the Xterra for wearing boots. I considered it a design flaw.
They are being taught to use truncate instead.
Breaking news: Psychologists and Slate.com spotlight trolling by trolling Internet trolls. More at 11.
You bring up a valid point about having the same event repeating on several different intervals. Note to the OP: you can repeat an event every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 8:00 PM. However, as hazah stated, you can't repeat the same event on Monday at 7:00, Wednesday at 8:00, and Friday at 6:00 without having to kludge something together.
I don't think the interface entry is a show stopper though. If CSS alone doesn't provide a good looking, intuitive interface, then it can be cleaned up nicely with the Display Suite module. Finally, even if display suite and CSS together don't do the trick, making a module to alter the node edit/add form for one content type is a trivial task.
All in all, I'm still of the opinion that Drupal would be a good fit for the project.
Drupal would fit this project well. Here is what you can accomplish with Drupal for your project:
- Visitors may register for accounts. The usual suspects like CAPTCHA for the registration & login form, password reset feature, e-mail verification, etc.. are either core or available with modules.
- Members can subscribe to event listings via the notifications module.
- Members can PM other members.
- Visitor's or registered users may post events with moderator approval
- Using the views, taxonomy, better exposed filters, and date modules, you may list and filter events by date, type, etc...
- Events are searchable. You can also use Apache Solr integration if you need to speed things up.
- Dates can be chosen with a jQuery pop-up calendar.
- Recurring dates can be done by enabling the Date Repeat
- You can specify start and end dates. You can also specify "all day" instead of listing a time.
- Event locations can be stored, and displayed using the Google Maps API
- Proximity searches are available with Views and the Location modules.
- Images can be posted for these events, and displayed in a lightbox style gallery.
- Contact information may be posted for the event coordinator.
- Visitor's can use a personal contact form or entity form to contact the owner of an event via a web based form.
- By using the proper fields for the data you are storing, the data can be validated to check that a web address, e-mail address, phone number, etc.. is in the proper format. You may also create your own validation rules.
- Comments can be made on an event listing, with moderator approval.
- The fivestar module will allow visitors to rate events.
The possibilities are somewhat endless. If you choose a dedicated calendar application, instead of a web CMS, you'll soon outgrow the features and be faced with the task of migrating your site.
Here is the photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jigger_infested_foot_(2).jpg
What is a bayernude?
Actually, they may have powered down many servers. For example, nsf.gov, fastlane.nsf.gov, and research.gov all point to the same host and serve the same generic page. Additionally, since the notice pages are static, then it is entirely possible, maybe probable, that the database servers for the Library of Congress, the FCC, the NASA sites may all have been shut down.
Yep, I see no reason why fame achieved through holding elected office should afford any further special privileges.
That's good, because it has nothing to do with that.
Just check nissan.com for an example...
Comparing this to the nissan.com dispute is idiotic. The owner of nissan.com had the last name "Nissan", and used the site for purposes unrelated to Nissan Motor Company. The owners of RonPaul.com are using the "fame achieved through holding elected office" by Ron Paul to profit from his trademarked name.
Mod parent up
Someone finally got it right
The one with the trademark gets the rights, if you are profiting by selling goods representative of the trademark holder.
After a while you figuratively have 'hands of stone.'
FTFY
All the better to introduce the Stuxnet Virus.
You do realize that wireless can be made secure much easier than ethernet right?
You do realise that hundreds of unshielded electrical motors ... It is not security. It is signal to NOISE!
You do realize that the GP was replying to someone who claimed a wireless network was more likely to introduce the Stuxnet Virus, right?
Reply to undo accidental negative moderation.
Deflating a joke is not pretentious when the joke is stupid and ignorant.
How you chose to do it is pretentious. Why not just explain that you feel the joke is stupid and ignorant?
This joke derives its humor from the Greedy Lawyers meme, which I consider supremely stupid. Americans sue each other at the drop of a hat (literally! [fastcase.com]) and we make fun of lawyers for cashing in?
Maybe you don't understand the greedy lawyers meme. It goes something like this. Plaintiffs seek damages. Lawyers inflate damages. Lawyers charge plaintiff exorbitant sums of money. Lawyers get rich. For example, when a small company sued RIM for patent infringement, the company was awarded $612.5 million. The law firm received over $200 million of this.
Anyway, the distinction between copyrights and patents is important (and I still think this specific judgment was about copyrights, even if the larger case originally involved patents) and there's nothing nitpicky about pointing out the difference.
The distinction between copyrights and patents is important. The distinction between copyright and patents NOT important in the context of the GPs joke. The case involved both patents and copyrights, so your correction and demand for the GP to RTFA is just arrogant drivel.
RTFA, This was about copyrights, not patents.
RTFA. The lawsuit in its entirety was about both.
The GP's was attempting to be funny. The choice of the word "patents" does nothing to detract from the message. Your attempt at nitpicking a humorous post is pretentious.
Meanwhile, Adobe's lobbyists are preparing a formal application to have their Adobe Reader and other software excluded from such litigation.
You are, BY FAR, part of a tiny, tiny, tiny minority.
Maybe you are right. My experiences are limited, since I've never lived in a city to see what vehicles people own and how they generally use them.
Sorry, but anecdotal replies is nothing close to reality.
My evidence is anecdotal, but it is true for me and everyone else I know who owns a pickup or SUV in my hometown. This evidence comes from observation and experience. So far, I trust it more than reading your opinions.
Its been proven time and time again, for most people, it would be far, far, far better to own a different vehicle and to rent something else one the rare occasion you actually need to use a larger vehicle.
Then you wouldn't mind providing the rest of us with these countless proofs?
Almost I must admit, the level of ignorance, stupidity, and selfishness which frequently surrounds this topic tends to be somewhat humorous. For some reason, the seemingly very stupid minority are under the impression that simply because they are part of a tiny, tiny minority, they are therefore the vast, vast majority.
Please provide evidence that vast majority of SUV or truck owners would be better off renting an SUV or truck when needed. I'd like to read it, so I can be as enlightened as you the next time this topic comes around.
Instead of buying a brand new giant truck, just buy one that's five years old and you can afford a five year old smaller car as well.
Mine is a 2003. It wasn't bought new.
Most of the people in your situation does those things so seldom that it would be cheaper for them to own a smaller vehicle and rent a larger vehicle when they need to do work that requires a truck or if they need to carry more than 3 passengers.
Many of the people do those things so seldom that they don't own a truck or SUV. Those people either rent them, or more likely, ask to borrow a truck or trailer from a friend or family member. Where I live, most of my neighbors and family have a pickup or SUV and trailer. They get used hard, for their intended use. Most of the older, more established families, have an extra car. The younger couples have one pickup and one car.
My guess is that the "man" in that relationship is very insecure and feel that he needs to drive a larger car.
That's a poor guess. There are still people, both men and women, who actually use these vehicles for their intended purpose. You can think of that next time you try to move furniture, or put a ton of stone in the trunk of your compact car, or ask someone else to take your coolers, kayaks, luggage, and mountain bikes on a trip.
It amazes me that the same people who say there is no need for a truck, have no shame in constantly asking to borrow one from someone who does.
If I ever have to shift something bigger and heavier, I'll just hire a truck with some workers to do it for me.
Not everyone is so privileged.
but the fact is that I just don't really need it, and I can bet you don't either
Not having a truck after I lost it in flood a few years ago, and having to borrow one weekly, means that I'll take your bet.
I guess that is the difference between the part of the US that you lived in, and the part that I live in. Where I'm from, we own our own homes, and do our own work. Most homeowners have pickups or trailers. We cut our own trees and haul them for our wood burners. We put on roofs, decks, and stone our own driveways. Either you own a truck or trailer, or you borrow one. Having a truck has nothing to do with perceived comfort. If you rode in mine you would understand. It is completely about being practical. I would take the comfort of a minivan any day.
That being said, this is referring to pickups, not SUVs. I couldn't do all of the above and use the same the truck for camping, going to the lake house, or going to the beach without having room for 6 passengers. I couldn't do the work on our homes, nor transport the kayaks, surf boards, mountain bikes, or 4-wheelers with a minivan.
We also traded my girlfriends Jetta for a Jeep, because she couldn't make it to work in the winter. That had nothing to do with perceived comfort, and everything to do with the "No winter maintenance" signs on roads she travels to get there.
I don't cringe each time I fill the gas tank because I want to. I do it because I need to. If I could afford to buy a second car, or get by without a truck, I would do it in a heartbeat. If you want to pick on people in the US for their vehicles, then choose people with gas guzzling sports cars or those driving Hummers around the city. Don't pick on the average family that needs at least one practical vehicle.