Ahh well. Bad joke is bad, and my imagination isn't what it used to be. Evident in the fact that I apparently need to explain why I had that reaction initially...
That said, my initial reaction upon reading that was really to hear that 68% of the systems were sending 91% of all TCP/IP packets. Yes, I realized that wasn't actually true, and yes, I realized that it's likely because they're being used more. But all told, if you had 100 people performing a task, 68 of them with iPads, and 32 of them with some other tablet device, yet 91% of the network traffic came from the 68 iPads, most people would rate that sort of efficiency as poor.
In reality, yes, it's likely just because the people who own iPads are actually using them more, whereas other tablet owners may only use them in certain cases. To be perfectly honest, that's actually more along the lines of what I've really seen around me as well. Most co-workers seem to be of the "I use my iPad all the time" camp, or of the feeling "I don't really need a tablet". I see that as a loss for the current competitors to the iPad...
Sorry to confuse you by having an initial reaction that wasn't an actual analysis.
The Sony Daily Edition has wireless capability, the ability to download periodicals and new content with or without a computer, a touchscreen and most importantly it's not a DRM laden POS locking you in to one bookstore.
You know, I see this all the time on/. but I can't figure out why... Everyone talks about how much better these other readers are because you aren't locked to Amazon's store, but it's ridiculous. You're not locked to their store for the Kindle either. I think of it more like a homepage that I don't use.
Disclaimer: I have and love my Kindle v1. I've been using it for about a year now...
The only DRM laden stuff on my Kindle are the samples that I've gotten from Amazon to see how a book is, check formatting on Hitchhikers, etc... Everything else I've gotten from other bookstores or copied over myself.
Last I checked, TXT, HTML, and other extensions don't have DRM involved. I've got a couple PRC/MOBI formats and such, with no DRM, that I've gotten from several other bookstores. In fact, I'm reading through a series from Baen Library (several from the free library, and several from the paid) right now. Hell, Baen will actually send the books to your Kindle wirelessly at this point. I'm sure several of the other places will too (it just requires that you give them your Kindle's email address and enable your device to get emails from them on Amazon).
No, it doesn't have ePub, nor PDF, but I haven't found that to be an issue yet. PDFs either translate fine using the Mobi software, or they generally aren't good for e-readers anyway. I do have my issues with the Kindle, but DRM isn't really one of them... All in all, I'm extremely pleased with it, and it's re-"kindle"-d my reading to similar levels of when I was much younger. I am still able to sit out on the porch and read, or use it as a tour guide for an unfamiliar city.
Unfortunately, people will believe whatever they choose to believe. I can tell you how much I love my Kindle, and how much use I get out of it, despite having it given to me as a gift (all of this is true), and you'll still believe it's because I'm trying to justify it if you choose to. This is true about everything else in life, you have to choose if you believe people at their face value or not. It's up to you.
That said, I really do love mine. I have the original Kindle, not the 2, nor the DX. Due to not being close to any libraries my reading over the years had started to slow down. Getting a Kindle really "rekindled" my reading experience, and I'm back to losing sleep due to staying up reading too long.
However, it's not for everyone, nor for every use. My thoughts when I heard they were going to try to push it for textbooks were along these lines: "Man I wish I could have used an E-Reader to carry around all my books, but this isn't the device."
The Kindle is absolutely wonderful for reading novels, even more for entire series. If I want to read something front-to-back, the Kindle is my device of choice. I can generally fit it in my pocket, go read in the park, on the porch, plane, wherever.
But using it as a replacement for textbooks? I generally wasn't very demanding of my textbooks in college. I didn't write in them, didn't do very much dogearing, etc. Hell, I would find the section the teacher was in and read straight through it once or twice and then be done. Seems like it'd be a good fit for the Kindle, but I just can't see it as easy to flip through.
Additionally, there are some people who just won't be able to "get" it. My brother took a look at it and immediately focused on it's (poor) internet capabilities rather than it's primary usage. It'd be worthless to someone like him.
Bottom line, it's mainly for people who enjoy lots of reading, and for flipping through a book of text in a linear fashion. It can do other things, but there are other devices that can do those things better. I don't get why Amazon's surprised that this went over like a lead balloon with many students...
What, because a guy asked for subscriber information? Amazon has not provided the information yet, and they've got no reason to. We could just as easily be talking about the IRS here... If I go and ask the IRS to provide me with everyone's information, is that a reason to distrust the IRS? Pretty sure the IRS's answer's going to be "No."
Just to clear up your questions... Please keep in mind that I've got a Kindle 1, not a newer one however.
Yes, you can use Amazon's format, mobi format, or standard text. rtf has not been directly accessible, but you can convert it using the free Mobipocket program (or Calibre). Both of which have their advantages and disadvantages, but they're both free and work fine. Additionally, you can just email Amazon your file and they'll convert it to the mobi format (with a azw extension). That file will either come back to you or will go to your device, depending on which method you use. There could be a small cost involved in sending it to the Kindle directly.
I've had the Kindle for a bit over a year now, and have yet to purchase any books from Amazon. My books have so far come from other sources using the mobi format, or from html/rtf/doc/pdf/etc. conversions.
I will say, I'm a bit disappointed that Amazon isn't pushing this conversion utility more. There's a strong impression among people that the Kindle is closed, but I've never felt that way. It's been far too easy to get everything I've wanted onto the device.
I also will use the MP3 capability to play music while I read, though it can handle audiobooks too. The battery drain on using the MP3 player came as a bit of a shock however... After using the device for a week of reading, MP3 playback drained the battery down over a heavy reading day on a trans-Atlantic flight...
Personally, I'm glad that Sony is taking aim at the Kindle. I've got a soft spot for my Kindle, it's revitalized my reading habits, but it has it's issues too. Any competition here should only help us in the long run.
Yes. You can hook it up via USB. And no, at that point it's not hooked directly up to their systems, so you wouldn't get updates, and you wouldn't get your stuff automatically deleted.
Personally, I'm fond of using the SD card in the first Kindle to load my books. It's the same as using the USB cable, but I don't have to find the cable. You can still buy them from wherever you like that way. Turning the wireless off has been a major performance boost for me, and at little loss.
People are forgetting, there's dozens of places to get books, and these other places won't have access to get something deleted from your Kindle.
Often that has to do with the question being asked and the manner of the questioner. You have to keep in mind who you're reaching when you communicate with them, and realize that if there's nothing they can do, there's nothing they can do. If you're asking a standard CS rep "why don't you release Warcraft to open source" (to use a question from above), you're not going to get a useful answer.
I have a major issue with one of your points: 2. Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet.
The only reason this happens is because people get used to having that dual income, and can't decrease their spending habits accordingly. If people would live under their means rather than right at the limit, they'd have a much easier time making ends meet. It's extremely frustrating to see people living way over what they need, and not having any savings, then they complain about how they don't have any money. If you make 50K / year, then you really shouldn't be planning your house and car expenses to total 50K / year. Yet people insist on having the nicest car, the nicest house, the nicest TV... Even if they can't really afford it.
Financial planning needs to be hammered into people from day one of their education.
Anyway, as far as the mother having to be home, I agree that it doesn't need to be a woman that stays home, but I still believe that one or the other parent should generally be at home. Realistically, this often works out to be the woman just because people look at the higher paycheck, and it's usually the man that makes the higher amount.
We all make choices, and we have to live with the consequences of our choices. People seem to forget that having kids does have consequences, that you choose to make sacrifices. It's no secret that they cost a lot to raise. And it's no secret that they generally do better with a parent at home. If you're planning on having kids, then plan on taking care of them properly.
I think his point was that while you would rather game on the Linux partition, you *have* a Windows partition that you use for games. As long as you're willing to go to that extent to play their game, what's the gain for the game company? You're going to buy it anyway, for Windows. All they get out of it is goodwill.
Personally, I see how they could garner a *lot* of goodwill very easily with certain sections of the market by porting to Linux, but realistically, the amount they'd gain wouldn't be enough.
You know, reading these two kinda puts the article from the summary in perspective. They have even less information about how it works than it does! Still, thanks for finding these, maybe we can find some more information based on the additional information here.
Why is it that people always want to force other people who don't want it into PvP? Does it really harm you that some players might prefer PvE or playing with a friend cooperatively against the environment? It seems that usually when people are forced into PvP, it's because some high level wanker wants to feel cool. For instance, with WoW, what would be the attraction of being a level 70 that can go to a newbie area and kill some level 1 new player?
This isn't quite possible in WoW as it is, but the case is valid.
Do you really think that this wouldn't happen? Or that this wouldn't feel frustrated to the new player?
One of the nice touches on the Kindle device was the addition of a LCD bar on the side that you could use a scroll wheel with. Since it's not part of the page, it doesn't have to refresh. I take that as a nod that you don't have to limit yourself to a single e-ink display, and that you can use other options for navigation.
According to the non-bolded words, at least 2 Dems opposed the reactor, but at least 3 supported it, and the 2 won. Of course, the supporters named were all members from Illinois.
Sounds like Illinois was on top of things, but two other people weren't.
(Bias notification: I'm middle of the road but I've generally leaned Republican (you know, the extinct small government type), and I didn't like Kerry at all. It would have helped if the Dems would have put out someone worth a damn last time.)
I just wanted to chip in and mention that I appreciated your post. Regardless of the content, if more people posted in such a well-reasoned and thoughtful tone, I'd enjoy much more of the more politically slanted slashdot comments. As it is currently, people (holding opinions matching both major parties) tend to get abrasive and irrational.
I like a good debate, but you don't normally see one here.
If I had mod points, you'd have one (or really two, I would have marked your earlier post as "Funny" as it made me smile).
Education, no. I know quite a several people who have gone on to excellent careers without graduating high school, much less college. If you can find what you're talented at and have the drive to succeed, you'll get your career. Hell, even if you don't find what you're talented at, but you pick something that's not a dead-end job, you'll still get your career if you are willing to work for it.
But "some nice bucks coming in", yes! For the love of all that's holy! Why the hell would you have a family before you can support them? It's not hard to work yourself up to make enough to support a family if that's your goal. But raising a family takes money. There are so many resources out there that can help you get started.
If you have a desire to raise a family, then you go to a free family planning organization, so that you know what you need to do. They'll point you to a free financial counseling organization if you need that, or just tell you the truth of how much it costs to raise a child in your area. If you can't afford it right now, then why on earth would you go ahead and have one anyway?!
I just don't understand this willful disregard for the wellbeing of your family that people seem to have. People get stuck in a rut and say "I can't pay the bills because I'm a victim." The truth is that many people don't want to get advice or get help, or they don't want to have to scrimp and save. If you're not willing to do this, then you're not fit to start a family right now.
As the new owner of a shiny new mechanical replacement for my own defective valve, I wish these would have come out a couple years ago. Heh.
However, I would mention, don't make plans to go through this several times. Your doctor will generally tell you to minimize the times you have an operation. Listen to him well. It sucks. And it sucks more each subsequent time. And to top it off, there's the wonderful non-zero risk every time.
I look forward to the day when we don't have to use cheap replacements, but useful pieces that will be accepted and healed properly by the body when they get worn.
I typically try to go about 10-14 mph over. As long as I drive carefully, cops usually don't bother.
I agree about it depending on the actual cop though. I've been pulled over by several cops, all from the same county police unit. One guy was an absolute prick, berating me for finding a place to pull over (it was a dark street, and I put my flashers on and slowed way down until I pulled into a gas station), choosing to give a "no insurance" rather than "no proof of insurance" (you have to contest it to change it), etc. Just being rude and obnoxious.
Two other cops I met were completely professional and at least made it clear that they were encouraging me to drive safer. Hell, one of them I saw again when I showed up for the court day from the earlier cop. When he saw how nervous I was, he asked about it being my first time in court. Then he walked me there, explained the whole process, what to look and listen for, and was overall very friendly and helpful.
Cops are people too, they can get off on a power trip, or they can be there "to protect and to serve". It's up to the cop. Overall, most cops I've noticed have been of the later type.
I think people are misinterpreting "check email" to mean that they go through and read each one. But checking your e-mail can mean just looking at the subjects. You break your concentration on your current task, even just for a split second, to make a decision on if you should answer your e-mail or not.
I think the ideal solution depends on your job.
Part of my job is to keep an eye on servers. Since I have the system email me with status updates and the like, I pretty much have to "check" constantly, even if it's just to see if it's the system e-mailing me or some silly human. One of my coworkers has taken the opposite approach. He has the notification turned off (or ignores it) and makes it a point to not check e-mail except about ever 2 hours. He's a lot more relaxed about his e-mail and gets more work done in a day that way.
Personally, I think that's great. I'd do it the same way if I didn't have to keep an eye on servers.
They won't need high calibre pilots to fly these things. They can get anyone who is good at video games to pilot the bloody things. It would not be impossible for them to substitute the actual video from the plane with something else, making a civilian target look like a military one. Pretty soon, you have an Air Force that thinks it's bombing the hell out of purely military targets, when in fact it is bombing a myriad number of things ranging from schools and hospitals to political targets.
This reminds me of a game from a while back. It was along the lines of you running around, killing all these aliens, but little tiny things that seemed wrong kept coming up. Then finally, at the end you're in the middle of a battlefield and the helmet gets damaged. You take off the helmet and instead of invading aliens, you see civilians, and they're just getting mowed down... It was pretty freaky in a game. I'd rather not think about all the ramifications of it becoming reality...
I'm glad that we can get people moved out of the way, away from danger. But we'll have to watch this...
Ideally, if an elected official only represents his party's interests, and not his entire constituency, he will be voted out of office.
Ideally, yes. Realistically, no. Only applies if he's blatant about it in ways that the other politicians disagree.
This is why Democrats are elected to office more often, historically speaking, than Republicans, because Democrats work for everyone, including their special interests, but Republicans are solely focused on keeping the party faithful and their special interests happy.
Ha-ha-ha-ha! Oh, you're such a joker. The noble Democrats who work for the people, and the evil Republicans who try to steal candy from babies.
*sigh* The term "Republicrats" has come up a lot more recently because people are seeing more and more that there really isn't a difference between Democrats and Republicans, they're both out for their own interested, to the point of being criminal. They disagree on a few minor issues here and there just to make themselves look good, and for the illusion of there being an actual choice in your voting. Nevermind that the actual big issues have both parties supporting or opposing them, thus giving virtually no voice to any real opposition. If you think there's an actual significant difference between the two, you're just fooling yourself.
Futurama was right. We'll have clones running against each other in a couple more years...
Re:Read it! That was taken way out of context.
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
A couple years ago, our company was having us sign some contracts. I didn't like the wording of mine, and asked about it. They told me to mark it up and go talk to legal. I went over there and sat down with the head lawyer (who had put together this particular contract, as well), and talked it over.
To be honest, he was a little annoyed that his contract was being taken apart, but being a lawyer, he was understanding that it may not be as clear as it could be. For the most part, I got my changes, and all but one other part we negotiated some better wording that was a little more solid. On several occasions during the discussion, he said "That's not what was intended, of course. But I see your point. I'm not sure how I can improve it anymore though. What are your thoughts?" You've got to realize, that as much as we love to say "kill all the lawyers!", they really are just normal people. It's their job to try and protect the company, and if you work *with* them, you can usually come up with something that helps protect both your behinds a bit better. Just be reasonable with them, don't try to change the contract so that they're totally screwed (but don't accept your own screwage!), and generally you can work these things out.
Working out the contract wording to be as unambiguous as possible is tough work. Work with them and they'll generally work with you.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh well. Bad joke is bad, and my imagination isn't what it used to be. Evident in the fact that I apparently need to explain why I had that reaction initially...
That said, my initial reaction upon reading that was really to hear that 68% of the systems were sending 91% of all TCP/IP packets. Yes, I realized that wasn't actually true, and yes, I realized that it's likely because they're being used more. But all told, if you had 100 people performing a task, 68 of them with iPads, and 32 of them with some other tablet device, yet 91% of the network traffic came from the 68 iPads, most people would rate that sort of efficiency as poor.
In reality, yes, it's likely just because the people who own iPads are actually using them more, whereas other tablet owners may only use them in certain cases. To be perfectly honest, that's actually more along the lines of what I've really seen around me as well. Most co-workers seem to be of the "I use my iPad all the time" camp, or of the feeling "I don't really need a tablet". I see that as a loss for the current competitors to the iPad...
Sorry to confuse you by having an initial reaction that wasn't an actual analysis.
"He also claimed 68% tablet market share for the iPad, and says iPads account for 91% of tablet-based web traffic"
Was anyone else's first reaction to this statement "Wow, that sounds like iPads are inefficient."
The Sony Daily Edition has wireless capability, the ability to download periodicals and new content with or without a computer, a touchscreen and most importantly it's not a DRM laden POS locking you in to one bookstore.
You know, I see this all the time on /. but I can't figure out why... Everyone talks about how much better these other readers are because you aren't locked to Amazon's store, but it's ridiculous. You're not locked to their store for the Kindle either. I think of it more like a homepage that I don't use.
Disclaimer: I have and love my Kindle v1. I've been using it for about a year now...
The only DRM laden stuff on my Kindle are the samples that I've gotten from Amazon to see how a book is, check formatting on Hitchhikers, etc... Everything else I've gotten from other bookstores or copied over myself.
Last I checked, TXT, HTML, and other extensions don't have DRM involved. I've got a couple PRC/MOBI formats and such, with no DRM, that I've gotten from several other bookstores. In fact, I'm reading through a series from Baen Library (several from the free library, and several from the paid) right now. Hell, Baen will actually send the books to your Kindle wirelessly at this point. I'm sure several of the other places will too (it just requires that you give them your Kindle's email address and enable your device to get emails from them on Amazon).
No, it doesn't have ePub, nor PDF, but I haven't found that to be an issue yet. PDFs either translate fine using the Mobi software, or they generally aren't good for e-readers anyway. I do have my issues with the Kindle, but DRM isn't really one of them... All in all, I'm extremely pleased with it, and it's re-"kindle"-d my reading to similar levels of when I was much younger. I am still able to sit out on the porch and read, or use it as a tour guide for an unfamiliar city.
Unfortunately, people will believe whatever they choose to believe. I can tell you how much I love my Kindle, and how much use I get out of it, despite having it given to me as a gift (all of this is true), and you'll still believe it's because I'm trying to justify it if you choose to. This is true about everything else in life, you have to choose if you believe people at their face value or not. It's up to you.
That said, I really do love mine. I have the original Kindle, not the 2, nor the DX. Due to not being close to any libraries my reading over the years had started to slow down. Getting a Kindle really "rekindled" my reading experience, and I'm back to losing sleep due to staying up reading too long.
However, it's not for everyone, nor for every use. My thoughts when I heard they were going to try to push it for textbooks were along these lines: "Man I wish I could have used an E-Reader to carry around all my books, but this isn't the device."
The Kindle is absolutely wonderful for reading novels, even more for entire series. If I want to read something front-to-back, the Kindle is my device of choice. I can generally fit it in my pocket, go read in the park, on the porch, plane, wherever.
But using it as a replacement for textbooks? I generally wasn't very demanding of my textbooks in college. I didn't write in them, didn't do very much dogearing, etc. Hell, I would find the section the teacher was in and read straight through it once or twice and then be done. Seems like it'd be a good fit for the Kindle, but I just can't see it as easy to flip through.
Additionally, there are some people who just won't be able to "get" it. My brother took a look at it and immediately focused on it's (poor) internet capabilities rather than it's primary usage. It'd be worthless to someone like him.
Bottom line, it's mainly for people who enjoy lots of reading, and for flipping through a book of text in a linear fashion. It can do other things, but there are other devices that can do those things better. I don't get why Amazon's surprised that this went over like a lead balloon with many students...
Talk about a reason not to own a Kindle.
What, because a guy asked for subscriber information? Amazon has not provided the information yet, and they've got no reason to. We could just as easily be talking about the IRS here... If I go and ask the IRS to provide me with everyone's information, is that a reason to distrust the IRS? Pretty sure the IRS's answer's going to be "No."
Just to clear up your questions... Please keep in mind that I've got a Kindle 1, not a newer one however.
Yes, you can use Amazon's format, mobi format, or standard text. rtf has not been directly accessible, but you can convert it using the free Mobipocket program (or Calibre). Both of which have their advantages and disadvantages, but they're both free and work fine. Additionally, you can just email Amazon your file and they'll convert it to the mobi format (with a azw extension). That file will either come back to you or will go to your device, depending on which method you use. There could be a small cost involved in sending it to the Kindle directly.
I've had the Kindle for a bit over a year now, and have yet to purchase any books from Amazon. My books have so far come from other sources using the mobi format, or from html/rtf/doc/pdf/etc. conversions.
I will say, I'm a bit disappointed that Amazon isn't pushing this conversion utility more. There's a strong impression among people that the Kindle is closed, but I've never felt that way. It's been far too easy to get everything I've wanted onto the device.
I also will use the MP3 capability to play music while I read, though it can handle audiobooks too. The battery drain on using the MP3 player came as a bit of a shock however... After using the device for a week of reading, MP3 playback drained the battery down over a heavy reading day on a trans-Atlantic flight...
Personally, I'm glad that Sony is taking aim at the Kindle. I've got a soft spot for my Kindle, it's revitalized my reading habits, but it has it's issues too. Any competition here should only help us in the long run.
Yes. You can hook it up via USB. And no, at that point it's not hooked directly up to their systems, so you wouldn't get updates, and you wouldn't get your stuff automatically deleted.
Personally, I'm fond of using the SD card in the first Kindle to load my books. It's the same as using the USB cable, but I don't have to find the cable. You can still buy them from wherever you like that way. Turning the wireless off has been a major performance boost for me, and at little loss.
People are forgetting, there's dozens of places to get books, and these other places won't have access to get something deleted from your Kindle.
Often that has to do with the question being asked and the manner of the questioner. You have to keep in mind who you're reaching when you communicate with them, and realize that if there's nothing they can do, there's nothing they can do. If you're asking a standard CS rep "why don't you release Warcraft to open source" (to use a question from above), you're not going to get a useful answer.
I have a major issue with one of your points:
2. Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet.
The only reason this happens is because people get used to having that dual income, and can't decrease their spending habits accordingly. If people would live under their means rather than right at the limit, they'd have a much easier time making ends meet. It's extremely frustrating to see people living way over what they need, and not having any savings, then they complain about how they don't have any money. If you make 50K / year, then you really shouldn't be planning your house and car expenses to total 50K / year. Yet people insist on having the nicest car, the nicest house, the nicest TV... Even if they can't really afford it.
Financial planning needs to be hammered into people from day one of their education.
Anyway, as far as the mother having to be home, I agree that it doesn't need to be a woman that stays home, but I still believe that one or the other parent should generally be at home. Realistically, this often works out to be the woman just because people look at the higher paycheck, and it's usually the man that makes the higher amount.
We all make choices, and we have to live with the consequences of our choices. People seem to forget that having kids does have consequences, that you choose to make sacrifices. It's no secret that they cost a lot to raise. And it's no secret that they generally do better with a parent at home. If you're planning on having kids, then plan on taking care of them properly.
I think his point was that while you would rather game on the Linux partition, you *have* a Windows partition that you use for games. As long as you're willing to go to that extent to play their game, what's the gain for the game company? You're going to buy it anyway, for Windows. All they get out of it is goodwill.
Personally, I see how they could garner a *lot* of goodwill very easily with certain sections of the market by porting to Linux, but realistically, the amount they'd gain wouldn't be enough.
You know, reading these two kinda puts the article from the summary in perspective. They have even less information about how it works than it does! Still, thanks for finding these, maybe we can find some more information based on the additional information here.
Why is it that people always want to force other people who don't want it into PvP? Does it really harm you that some players might prefer PvE or playing with a friend cooperatively against the environment? It seems that usually when people are forced into PvP, it's because some high level wanker wants to feel cool. For instance, with WoW, what would be the attraction of being a level 70 that can go to a newbie area and kill some level 1 new player?
This isn't quite possible in WoW as it is, but the case is valid.
Do you really think that this wouldn't happen? Or that this wouldn't feel frustrated to the new player?
I saw another article that linked to this one http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9985333 that had a couple of other details.
It sounds like they weren't just a big happy family...
I'll get my kit!
One of the nice touches on the Kindle device was the addition of a LCD bar on the side that you could use a scroll wheel with. Since it's not part of the page, it doesn't have to refresh. I take that as a nod that you don't have to limit yourself to a single e-ink display, and that you can use other options for navigation.
Lots of D's. Still, it's inconclusive.
According to the non-bolded words, at least 2 Dems opposed the reactor, but at least 3 supported it, and the 2 won. Of course, the supporters named were all members from Illinois.
Sounds like Illinois was on top of things, but two other people weren't.
(Bias notification: I'm middle of the road but I've generally leaned Republican (you know, the extinct small government type), and I didn't like Kerry at all. It would have helped if the Dems would have put out someone worth a damn last time.)
I just wanted to chip in and mention that I appreciated your post. Regardless of the content, if more people posted in such a well-reasoned and thoughtful tone, I'd enjoy much more of the more politically slanted slashdot comments. As it is currently, people (holding opinions matching both major parties) tend to get abrasive and irrational.
I like a good debate, but you don't normally see one here.
If I had mod points, you'd have one (or really two, I would have marked your earlier post as "Funny" as it made me smile).
Education, no. I know quite a several people who have gone on to excellent careers without graduating high school, much less college. If you can find what you're talented at and have the drive to succeed, you'll get your career. Hell, even if you don't find what you're talented at, but you pick something that's not a dead-end job, you'll still get your career if you are willing to work for it.
But "some nice bucks coming in", yes! For the love of all that's holy! Why the hell would you have a family before you can support them? It's not hard to work yourself up to make enough to support a family if that's your goal. But raising a family takes money. There are so many resources out there that can help you get started.
If you have a desire to raise a family, then you go to a free family planning organization, so that you know what you need to do. They'll point you to a free financial counseling organization if you need that, or just tell you the truth of how much it costs to raise a child in your area. If you can't afford it right now, then why on earth would you go ahead and have one anyway?!
I just don't understand this willful disregard for the wellbeing of your family that people seem to have. People get stuck in a rut and say "I can't pay the bills because I'm a victim." The truth is that many people don't want to get advice or get help, or they don't want to have to scrimp and save. If you're not willing to do this, then you're not fit to start a family right now.
Like Star Trek before Nemesis, the franchise needs to be given a rest on the big and small screens.
There. Fixed that for you.
As the new owner of a shiny new mechanical replacement for my own defective valve, I wish these would have come out a couple years ago. Heh.
However, I would mention, don't make plans to go through this several times. Your doctor will generally tell you to minimize the times you have an operation. Listen to him well. It sucks. And it sucks more each subsequent time. And to top it off, there's the wonderful non-zero risk every time.
I look forward to the day when we don't have to use cheap replacements, but useful pieces that will be accepted and healed properly by the body when they get worn.
I typically try to go about 10-14 mph over. As long as I drive carefully, cops usually don't bother.
I agree about it depending on the actual cop though. I've been pulled over by several cops, all from the same county police unit. One guy was an absolute prick, berating me for finding a place to pull over (it was a dark street, and I put my flashers on and slowed way down until I pulled into a gas station), choosing to give a "no insurance" rather than "no proof of insurance" (you have to contest it to change it), etc. Just being rude and obnoxious.
Two other cops I met were completely professional and at least made it clear that they were encouraging me to drive safer. Hell, one of them I saw again when I showed up for the court day from the earlier cop. When he saw how nervous I was, he asked about it being my first time in court. Then he walked me there, explained the whole process, what to look and listen for, and was overall very friendly and helpful.
Cops are people too, they can get off on a power trip, or they can be there "to protect and to serve". It's up to the cop. Overall, most cops I've noticed have been of the later type.
I think people are misinterpreting "check email" to mean that they go through and read each one. But checking your e-mail can mean just looking at the subjects. You break your concentration on your current task, even just for a split second, to make a decision on if you should answer your e-mail or not.
I think the ideal solution depends on your job.
Part of my job is to keep an eye on servers. Since I have the system email me with status updates and the like, I pretty much have to "check" constantly, even if it's just to see if it's the system e-mailing me or some silly human. One of my coworkers has taken the opposite approach. He has the notification turned off (or ignores it) and makes it a point to not check e-mail except about ever 2 hours. He's a lot more relaxed about his e-mail and gets more work done in a day that way.
Personally, I think that's great. I'd do it the same way if I didn't have to keep an eye on servers.
They won't need high calibre pilots to fly these things. They can get anyone who is good at video games to pilot the bloody things. It would not be impossible for them to substitute the actual video from the plane with something else, making a civilian target look like a military one. Pretty soon, you have an Air Force that thinks it's bombing the hell out of purely military targets, when in fact it is bombing a myriad number of things ranging from schools and hospitals to political targets.
This reminds me of a game from a while back. It was along the lines of you running around, killing all these aliens, but little tiny things that seemed wrong kept coming up. Then finally, at the end you're in the middle of a battlefield and the helmet gets damaged. You take off the helmet and instead of invading aliens, you see civilians, and they're just getting mowed down... It was pretty freaky in a game. I'd rather not think about all the ramifications of it becoming reality...
I'm glad that we can get people moved out of the way, away from danger. But we'll have to watch this...
Ideally, if an elected official only represents his party's interests, and not his entire constituency, he will be voted out of office.
Ideally, yes. Realistically, no. Only applies if he's blatant about it in ways that the other politicians disagree.
This is why Democrats are elected to office more often, historically speaking, than Republicans, because Democrats work for everyone, including their special interests, but Republicans are solely focused on keeping the party faithful and their special interests happy.
Ha-ha-ha-ha! Oh, you're such a joker. The noble Democrats who work for the people, and the evil Republicans who try to steal candy from babies.
*sigh* The term "Republicrats" has come up a lot more recently because people are seeing more and more that there really isn't a difference between Democrats and Republicans, they're both out for their own interested, to the point of being criminal. They disagree on a few minor issues here and there just to make themselves look good, and for the illusion of there being an actual choice in your voting. Nevermind that the actual big issues have both parties supporting or opposing them, thus giving virtually no voice to any real opposition. If you think there's an actual significant difference between the two, you're just fooling yourself.
Futurama was right. We'll have clones running against each other in a couple more years...
A couple years ago, our company was having us sign some contracts. I didn't like the wording of mine, and asked about it. They told me to mark it up and go talk to legal. I went over there and sat down with the head lawyer (who had put together this particular contract, as well), and talked it over.
To be honest, he was a little annoyed that his contract was being taken apart, but being a lawyer, he was understanding that it may not be as clear as it could be. For the most part, I got my changes, and all but one other part we negotiated some better wording that was a little more solid. On several occasions during the discussion, he said "That's not what was intended, of course. But I see your point. I'm not sure how I can improve it anymore though. What are your thoughts?" You've got to realize, that as much as we love to say "kill all the lawyers!", they really are just normal people. It's their job to try and protect the company, and if you work *with* them, you can usually come up with something that helps protect both your behinds a bit better. Just be reasonable with them, don't try to change the contract so that they're totally screwed (but don't accept your own screwage!), and generally you can work these things out.
Working out the contract wording to be as unambiguous as possible is tough work. Work with them and they'll generally work with you.