In Inner city areas, you would have problems understanding how much a newspaper costs. That's how bad the dialects are
"'ew 'ont 'oo 'aye en oyce crim?"
Actual quote from an ice cream vendor in London. I think he was saying "You want to buy an ice cream?", but I'm not sure.
a ROCK can fly if launched from a catapult. i don't buy that a home made 4 cilinder engine was enough to keep Wright brother's airplane in the air. IMHO it was just a glider serving as a test bed to their engine.
the first REAL engine powered flight was made by Santos DuMont in 1906 at bagatele fields near paris.
1) a rock wont fly when propelled horizontally along the ground, which is what the Wright's catapult did.
2) The catapult was added long after the first flight
3) A "homemade" engine built by two machinists in those days could be as advanced as any other engine of the day, and the Wright's engine was pretty amazing from a simplicity/weight standpoint
4) by the time Santos flew, the Wrights had completed flights of 24 miles. Hard to pull that off "ballistically" or "as a glider".
5) you're a fool
Gotcha... although I certainly don't have a drill bit long enough for this -- probably need a 6-8 inch bit to drill from the top of the baseboard down at an angle, through the floorboards.
Man, you gotta get one then. It makes the job so much easier. Electrical suppliers often carry them. Get one like 12"-16" long.
Your original post talks about putting the wire in the chuck, but I really don't see hanger wire drilling through plywood
You'd be surprised. I've been installing phone and network wire for years, and that's one of the first tricks my boss showed me. The end of the wire gets a pinty chisel shape from cutting it with dikes, and this kinda compacts the wood to the sides as it goes. It'll also go right through drywall or plaster.
It's be easy enough to enact duel speed limits for vehicles over and under (say) 10,000 lbs.
Different speeds isn't safer. More dangerous than velocity alone is velocity relative to other vehicles. We have a 55 limit for trucks here in california, even on roads marked 70. Try driving an east-west interstate and see how the traffic goes chaotic as soon as you hit the california state line. I drove from Oklahoma to California and traffic was smooth through TX, NM, and AZ, because cars WEREN'T dodging left and right trying to get around trucks driving 10-15mph slower. Everyone was driving the same speed and there was very little lane changing.
What about people who need cell phones - would you want the attending physician for your wife / brother / etc. to be unreachable when they suddenly have a medical emergency
What, my [wife|brother|etc] has "Secret Sudden Cancer" that can be treated only by a specific physician? I can't think of any condition which can't be adequately treated by another qualified person. Besides, if it's such an emergency, what is a doctor in a theater across town going to do? Dash to the transporter room off the theater lobby and get beamed to the ER?
I wouldn't mind being able to jam phones within, say, 10 feet of me. One of my biggest pet peeves is people on their cell phones. Because, you know, the further away they are, the louder you have to yell into the phone for them to hear you...
Yeah, that drives me insane too. The problem with cell phones is that they don't have "sidetone" like regular phone. With regular phones you hear your own voice in your own ear at (roughly) the same volume level as the person you're talking to. Without the sidetone, people end up shouting for some reason. The one's who do it, I think, are slaves to the conditioned feedback response from regular phones and are too oblivious to realize that they're shouting at the top of their lungs.
Is it actually GPS, or just trackable by triangulation from the base stations? There are GPS phones around but they are still relatively expensive.
Actually, GPS is showing up in cheaper phones now. I have a Nextel i58sr with GPS and I got it for under $150. Mind you it's not very useful GPS-- antenna is inside the back of the phone, satellite acquisition takes forever, it gives your LAT-LON location and nothing else, and it only does it when you specifically go three menus deep and select "get my GPS location" (or, presumably, when I dial 911). Full featured GPS in a phone will cost you, I'm sure, but full featured GPS by itself can be pretty pricey compared to cell phones.
Modded funny but, doesn't anyone else thing that Ahhhnold is in fact going to put certain personal agendas in relation to movies/entertainment ahead.
Case and point, he's severely pissed off many in Vancouver (BC, Canada) because he's decided to pump "local jobs in the film industry," "keeping it American blah blah."
Creating jobs might not be a bad thing, but anything to do with movies from an ex movie-star certainly seems to be something of a prejudiced agenda.
The issue of production money going out of the state, and even out of the country (in the case of Vancouver) has been an issue for a long time in Hollywood. Just because Vancouver has benefitted from the idiocy of city governments in CA (they milk production co's for permits, fees, etc.) doesn't give it guranteed "best place to film" status forever. If Schwarzenegger can convince local municipalities to ease back on squeezing production budgets and they start filming in-state more, then hey, too fucking bad for Vancouver. His status as a movie star just means he is more aware of the issue and is willing to do something about it-- you'd have a better argument accusing previous governors of ignoring the problem of production money leaving the state. Besides, what, exactly, is the benefit to his "personal agenda" of encouraging movie production locally? The only difference I can see is that the production money gets spent in-state, which seems to be exactly what a governor should be encouraging.
So does this story sound like complete B.S.? Or is it vaguely plausible, if someone straightens out the errors I probably made due to it being about 25 years since I heard this? And if anyone else has heard this anecdote, would you happen to know just WHO it was?
There likely wasn't an actual person who did such a thing. My father (who is Austrian) told me the story of the absent-minded german professor as he heard it fifty years ago and his understanding of it was as a joke. He and his friends would sometimes try to see how long a sentence they could write using this form of construction just for entertainment value. There very likely existed at some time german physics professors who would speak in nested clauses two or three deep (making note-taking difficult) and this probably gave rise to the [humorous anecdote/urban legend] of the professor who spoke only in one long string of nested sentences.
Dude, the cost of operating a car is FAR more than just the cost of mining, processing, and shipping the oil.
You didn't say "the cost of operating a car in the US is held artificaially low", you said "gas prices in the US are held artificially low". Electric cars use roads but not gasoline. Leaf blowers and lawn mowers use gasoline but not roads. The price of gasoline does not have a direct natural relationship with the cost of the road system, thus your definition of the "true price" of gasoline depends entirely on political philosophy rather than actual fact. You may philosophically believe that gasoline should reflect the cost of the road system, but the world seems evenly split both directions on the issue, so your claims of "artificially low" depend on what country you decide is "normal".
Artificially low? Gas prices in the US are driven by the market for the most part, except when oil companies see a chance to profiteer and they all simultaneously jack prices up. If you mean US gas prices are kept low by not taxing the crap out of them, as they do in other countries, then it's actually a case of prices not being kept artificially high. You want to see the actual price of gas? Go look at what they pay in the persian gulf states. In Kuwait they pay $0.77 a gallon. In the US we pay about twice that. This reflects, for the most part, cost of transport.
Working as a locksmith, I've noticed that over-complicated security measures often end up being bypassed if they're too complicated. Special lock on the back door and only give three people keys? When it's too hard to find someone with a key to take out the trash, the door get propped open with a brick. Electronic keypad controlled lock and the code is "too hard to remember"? Someone writes the code on the wall next to the keypad, or the door gets propped open with a brick. Prox card readers on the lobby and stairwell doors, but people always forget their cards when they run out the back to the liquor store accross the street? They find an "extra" prox card meant for vendors and hang it next to the door on the outside, or the door gets propped open with a brick.
I swear, more security measures are overidden by propping doors open with a brick than any other way I've seen. Worst part is, a propped open door is a worse risk than a closed door that's not locked. You have to balance security with convenience, because if the convenience ain't there, the end users will make their own. This is true for more than just doors.
And in my opinion, a hole not being in the body is NOT the best indicator of successful body armour
(shrug) I don't know what you think body armor is supposed to do, other than that. With the exception of armor equipped with a non-flexible trauma plate covering the sternum area, modern body armor is flexible. When one is shot wearing body armor, even if the slug doesn't penetrate, there will be blunt trauma. It can range from feeling like having a golf ball thrown at you, all the way up to a rib-cracking hit from a baseball bat. It all depends on the rating of the vest (level I-VII) and the caliber/velocity of the projectile. They most certainly do not test vests by putting them on live people and then shooting at them. The risk of a miss, a flaw in the vest, or a mistimed twitch of the vest wearer can mean death. The way they test vests is to put them on a soft clay fronted dummy. The clay records the depth of the blunt trauma caused by the impact. This is how they rate new designs. Not with human targets, but with dummies. You don't need to see a videotape of someone surviving a close range gunshot wearing a vest to know they work. An understanding of the physics behind how body armor works is sufficient. I met a fellow whe I was in the army whose life was saved by his kevlar vest, but I didn't need to hear it from him to believe they work.
He was never a "enemy combantant"! He is part of the so called "dirty bomb" plot. He was arrested on American soil.
You're right-- my bad. I thought he was the one caught in Afghanistan, but that was Yaser Hamdi. Interesting, though, how they are still pushing the "enemy combatant" angle with Jose Padilla by claiming that the "battlefield" is anywhere a terrorist plans to strike! That's pretty fucked up.
except for illustrating how the Gitmo situation is not in keeping with 200+ years of stated american policy, i.e. no indefinite imprisonment.
200+ years you say? Check your facts.
60 years ago
160 years ago (PDF file)
I'm with you all the way, man. Both slavery and the internment of japanese-looking people were utterly immoral, and you'd be hard pressed to find any rational person in this day and age who thinks otherwise. I see the Gitmo situation the same way. What I meant by "stated policy" was that the US constitution prohibits such imprisonment and that "technical work-arounds" (i.e. POWs) and convenient amnesia conflict with the spirit and intent of said law. The fact that it happens despite it being in glaring conflict with the philosophical basis of the nation's government is, to me, quite reprehensible.
US citizens fighting against the US in foreign countries and subsequently captured as POWs are being held under rules of war, rather than as criminals. Saying that Mr. Padilla should have access to legal counsel because he's a citizen, so the argument goes, is as absurd as saying that US soldiers should be tried for murder for shooting enemy soldiers. Both premises ignore the fact that POWs are not arrestees being held for criminal trial, they are POWs. As such, there's no real basis for them to request access to the domestic legal system.
Now, that being said, they morality of them being held indefinitely as POWs is quite questionable. The fact that the enemy is not a foreign state that can surrender, but is a vaguely defined group of somewhat like-minded individuals scattered throughout the world makes the POW thing pretty fucked up. If there's no enemy leadership to capitulate and make arrangements for their troops to be remanded back to them, then when do these poor bastards get to go home? Domestic law in the US is really beside the point, except for illustrating how the Gitmo situation is not in keeping with 200+ years of stated american policy, i.e. no indefinite imprisonment.
Actually, there are an abundance of crimes for which you can be made to stand trial twice in the US. For example, murder is illegal in most states, as well as the federal level. If you are acquitted at the state level, you can still be brought to trial at the federal level, in effect, being tried twice for the same crime.
That isn't quite true, as I understand it. As I recall, the feds can only pursue murder charges if the crime took place on federal property. You may be thinking of federal prosecution under Civil Rights law, which is a de facto end run around double jeopardy intended for retrying cases where regional juries refuse to convict obvious criminals (e.g. murdering civil rights workers in the south, cops beating the crap out of a drug addict on videotape). Whether this double jeopardy is morally justified, however, is a tough call. So far it hasn't been abused much, but the potential is there.
You haven't done that at all, since you supposedly chose not to dignify the comment with any kind of analysis. Refusing to make any kind of point doesn't demonstrate anything other than that you're too retarded to make the point.
OK then, how's this: If you said you had a magic breathing device that lets you stay underwater forever and show as proof a dummy underwater wearing the device, I'd call you an assclown because dummies don't breath and people do. Furthermore, saying that this compares to buying body armor that's only been tested on dummies completely fails the sanity test because a dummy shot without functional body armor will have a hole in it, whereas one with functional body armor will not. This is, in the case of body armor, a satisfactory test. I didn't think it was necessary to point out the absurdity of your analogy, but apparently it was. Consider it dignified with an analysis.
Sure, you can get away with "just writing it", but that is how buggy software is born. Mistakes will be made, code will be messy above a certain level of size/complexity. And yes, many companies do this, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
I had a software design teacher that was able to explain this to me quite satisfactorily, and always used real-world examples to back up his points. Sorry that your teacher seems to have been a bit too airy. I'll never understand not doing proper design first.
Sorry, I wasn't quite clear enough in my story. The part he was most insistent about was the hand-computation of input/output traces, and that you'd have to write out and hand test the code and have it approved first before you'd even be allowed to compile it. The fact that we could compile our own modules in mere seconds and did a couple full builds a day and could do live testing was what was totally beyond him. You're absolutely right about planning, though. There's no way we could've ported some of those games down to the C64 just typing 6502 assembly "on the fly".
down the road the U.S. decides to invade a country which uses the Galileo system for its weaponry, what's to keep the U.S. from jamming and disabling their systems for a clean sweep? In a word, this is unfair.
You're worried about one side having an unfair advantage in war? That's just weird, man. There's no "fairness" in war. The US dictating to the EU how their nav sats should work, that's pretty lame. But the EU will be even more lame if they knuckle under.
write you program using pen and paper. Then you had to prove (in D. Knuth's way) to the teacher that it works. Only after that you were allowed to type your code in and try compiling it.
Now that, is retarded.
Totally. I had a "Programming Logic" instructor in 1990 who had us writing pseudocode, flowcharts, in and output traces, etc. and kept telling us that's how they do it in the real world. Quite a surprise for me, working as I did for a company porting C64 games, where we'd write a littlle, compile to test, write some more, compile again, etc.; when I pointed this out he said BIG companies don't let you do that. Then another guy said "we do at Novell, where I work". He handwaved that comment and said "on paper is still the ideal". I'll never understand the mindset.
In Heinlein's "The Roads Must Roll" (a short science fiction story) THE ROADS MOVE ala escalators and moving sidewalks at airport terminals. Any "vehicle" on them just moves SIDEWAYS to the faster or slower lanes.
Yes they do. It's called MHT. IE does it. If you ask them, they'll claim it's "microsoft html format", but it actually stands for "MIME HTML" (all the pages, images, etc, are encoded as MIME and embedded in a plaintext file).
MHT is not HTML. It may contain HTML, but unless it can be rendered with a standard HTML engine, it's essentially just another archive format. Might as well say ZIP is a single-file HTML format too, if you're just talking about stuff you can open in MSIE. Since the Windows file browser can treat a ZIP archive as a directory, opening it on the fly , an HTML doc therein is accessable.
Slashdot Mirror
"'ew 'ont 'oo 'aye en oyce crim?"
Actual quote from an ice cream vendor in London. I think he was saying "You want to buy an ice cream?", but I'm not sure.
1) a rock wont fly when propelled horizontally along the ground, which is what the Wright's catapult did.
2) The catapult was added long after the first flight
3) A "homemade" engine built by two machinists in those days could be as advanced as any other engine of the day, and the Wright's engine was pretty amazing from a simplicity/weight standpoint
4) by the time Santos flew, the Wrights had completed flights of 24 miles. Hard to pull that off "ballistically" or "as a glider".
5) you're a fool
Man, you gotta get one then. It makes the job so much easier. Electrical suppliers often carry them. Get one like 12"-16" long. Your original post talks about putting the wire in the chuck, but I really don't see hanger wire drilling through plywood
You'd be surprised. I've been installing phone and network wire for years, and that's one of the first tricks my boss showed me. The end of the wire gets a pinty chisel shape from cutting it with dikes, and this kinda compacts the wood to the sides as it goes. It'll also go right through drywall or plaster.
Different speeds isn't safer. More dangerous than velocity alone is velocity relative to other vehicles. We have a 55 limit for trucks here in california, even on roads marked 70. Try driving an east-west interstate and see how the traffic goes chaotic as soon as you hit the california state line. I drove from Oklahoma to California and traffic was smooth through TX, NM, and AZ, because cars WEREN'T dodging left and right trying to get around trucks driving 10-15mph slower. Everyone was driving the same speed and there was very little lane changing.
I would like to purchase one of these cancer cannons, as soon as you have one ready.
What, my [wife|brother|etc] has "Secret Sudden Cancer" that can be treated only by a specific physician? I can't think of any condition which can't be adequately treated by another qualified person. Besides, if it's such an emergency, what is a doctor in a theater across town going to do? Dash to the transporter room off the theater lobby and get beamed to the ER?
Yeah, that drives me insane too. The problem with cell phones is that they don't have "sidetone" like regular phone. With regular phones you hear your own voice in your own ear at (roughly) the same volume level as the person you're talking to. Without the sidetone, people end up shouting for some reason. The one's who do it, I think, are slaves to the conditioned feedback response from regular phones and are too oblivious to realize that they're shouting at the top of their lungs.
Actually, GPS is showing up in cheaper phones now. I have a Nextel i58sr with GPS and I got it for under $150. Mind you it's not very useful GPS-- antenna is inside the back of the phone, satellite acquisition takes forever, it gives your LAT-LON location and nothing else, and it only does it when you specifically go three menus deep and select "get my GPS location" (or, presumably, when I dial 911). Full featured GPS in a phone will cost you, I'm sure, but full featured GPS by itself can be pretty pricey compared to cell phones.
The issue of production money going out of the state, and even out of the country (in the case of Vancouver) has been an issue for a long time in Hollywood. Just because Vancouver has benefitted from the idiocy of city governments in CA (they milk production co's for permits, fees, etc.) doesn't give it guranteed "best place to film" status forever. If Schwarzenegger can convince local municipalities to ease back on squeezing production budgets and they start filming in-state more, then hey, too fucking bad for Vancouver. His status as a movie star just means he is more aware of the issue and is willing to do something about it-- you'd have a better argument accusing previous governors of ignoring the problem of production money leaving the state. Besides, what, exactly, is the benefit to his "personal agenda" of encouraging movie production locally? The only difference I can see is that the production money gets spent in-state, which seems to be exactly what a governor should be encouraging.
There likely wasn't an actual person who did such a thing. My father (who is Austrian) told me the story of the absent-minded german professor as he heard it fifty years ago and his understanding of it was as a joke. He and his friends would sometimes try to see how long a sentence they could write using this form of construction just for entertainment value. There very likely existed at some time german physics professors who would speak in nested clauses two or three deep (making note-taking difficult) and this probably gave rise to the [humorous anecdote/urban legend] of the professor who spoke only in one long string of nested sentences.
You didn't say "the cost of operating a car in the US is held artificaially low", you said "gas prices in the US are held artificially low". Electric cars use roads but not gasoline. Leaf blowers and lawn mowers use gasoline but not roads. The price of gasoline does not have a direct natural relationship with the cost of the road system, thus your definition of the "true price" of gasoline depends entirely on political philosophy rather than actual fact. You may philosophically believe that gasoline should reflect the cost of the road system, but the world seems evenly split both directions on the issue, so your claims of "artificially low" depend on what country you decide is "normal".
Artificially low? Gas prices in the US are driven by the market for the most part, except when oil companies see a chance to profiteer and they all simultaneously jack prices up. If you mean US gas prices are kept low by not taxing the crap out of them, as they do in other countries, then it's actually a case of prices not being kept artificially high. You want to see the actual price of gas? Go look at what they pay in the persian gulf states. In Kuwait they pay $0.77 a gallon. In the US we pay about twice that. This reflects, for the most part, cost of transport.
I swear, more security measures are overidden by propping doors open with a brick than any other way I've seen. Worst part is, a propped open door is a worse risk than a closed door that's not locked. You have to balance security with convenience, because if the convenience ain't there, the end users will make their own. This is true for more than just doors.
(shrug) I don't know what you think body armor is supposed to do, other than that. With the exception of armor equipped with a non-flexible trauma plate covering the sternum area, modern body armor is flexible. When one is shot wearing body armor, even if the slug doesn't penetrate, there will be blunt trauma. It can range from feeling like having a golf ball thrown at you, all the way up to a rib-cracking hit from a baseball bat. It all depends on the rating of the vest (level I-VII) and the caliber/velocity of the projectile. They most certainly do not test vests by putting them on live people and then shooting at them. The risk of a miss, a flaw in the vest, or a mistimed twitch of the vest wearer can mean death. The way they test vests is to put them on a soft clay fronted dummy. The clay records the depth of the blunt trauma caused by the impact. This is how they rate new designs. Not with human targets, but with dummies. You don't need to see a videotape of someone surviving a close range gunshot wearing a vest to know they work. An understanding of the physics behind how body armor works is sufficient. I met a fellow whe I was in the army whose life was saved by his kevlar vest, but I didn't need to hear it from him to believe they work.
You're right-- my bad. I thought he was the one caught in Afghanistan, but that was Yaser Hamdi. Interesting, though, how they are still pushing the "enemy combatant" angle with Jose Padilla by claiming that the "battlefield" is anywhere a terrorist plans to strike! That's pretty fucked up.
200+ years you say? Check your facts.
60 years ago
160 years ago (PDF file)
I'm with you all the way, man. Both slavery and the internment of japanese-looking people were utterly immoral, and you'd be hard pressed to find any rational person in this day and age who thinks otherwise. I see the Gitmo situation the same way. What I meant by "stated policy" was that the US constitution prohibits such imprisonment and that "technical work-arounds" (i.e. POWs) and convenient amnesia conflict with the spirit and intent of said law. The fact that it happens despite it being in glaring conflict with the philosophical basis of the nation's government is, to me, quite reprehensible.
US citizens fighting against the US in foreign countries and subsequently captured as POWs are being held under rules of war, rather than as criminals. Saying that Mr. Padilla should have access to legal counsel because he's a citizen, so the argument goes, is as absurd as saying that US soldiers should be tried for murder for shooting enemy soldiers. Both premises ignore the fact that POWs are not arrestees being held for criminal trial, they are POWs. As such, there's no real basis for them to request access to the domestic legal system.
Now, that being said, they morality of them being held indefinitely as POWs is quite questionable. The fact that the enemy is not a foreign state that can surrender, but is a vaguely defined group of somewhat like-minded individuals scattered throughout the world makes the POW thing pretty fucked up. If there's no enemy leadership to capitulate and make arrangements for their troops to be remanded back to them, then when do these poor bastards get to go home? Domestic law in the US is really beside the point, except for illustrating how the Gitmo situation is not in keeping with 200+ years of stated american policy, i.e. no indefinite imprisonment.
That isn't quite true, as I understand it. As I recall, the feds can only pursue murder charges if the crime took place on federal property. You may be thinking of federal prosecution under Civil Rights law, which is a de facto end run around double jeopardy intended for retrying cases where regional juries refuse to convict obvious criminals (e.g. murdering civil rights workers in the south, cops beating the crap out of a drug addict on videotape). Whether this double jeopardy is morally justified, however, is a tough call. So far it hasn't been abused much, but the potential is there.
OK then, how's this: If you said you had a magic breathing device that lets you stay underwater forever and show as proof a dummy underwater wearing the device, I'd call you an assclown because dummies don't breath and people do. Furthermore, saying that this compares to buying body armor that's only been tested on dummies completely fails the sanity test because a dummy shot without functional body armor will have a hole in it, whereas one with functional body armor will not. This is, in the case of body armor, a satisfactory test. I didn't think it was necessary to point out the absurdity of your analogy, but apparently it was. Consider it dignified with an analysis.
Sorry, I wasn't quite clear enough in my story. The part he was most insistent about was the hand-computation of input/output traces, and that you'd have to write out and hand test the code and have it approved first before you'd even be allowed to compile it. The fact that we could compile our own modules in mere seconds and did a couple full builds a day and could do live testing was what was totally beyond him. You're absolutely right about planning, though. There's no way we could've ported some of those games down to the C64 just typing 6502 assembly "on the fly".
You're worried about one side having an unfair advantage in war? That's just weird, man. There's no "fairness" in war. The US dictating to the EU how their nav sats should work, that's pretty lame. But the EU will be even more lame if they knuckle under.
Sure, you'll dignify it with an ad hominem attack instead,
Huh? You apparently don't know what it means to "dignify a statement". Go back to your hole, feeb.
but try and make it sound like thinking is your strong point.
You're apparently upset that I illustrated that thinking clearly isn't your strong point. Sorry.
Now that, is retarded.
Totally. I had a "Programming Logic" instructor in 1990 who had us writing pseudocode, flowcharts, in and output traces, etc. and kept telling us that's how they do it in the real world. Quite a surprise for me, working as I did for a company porting C64 games, where we'd write a littlle, compile to test, write some more, compile again, etc.; when I pointed this out he said BIG companies don't let you do that. Then another guy said "we do at Novell, where I work". He handwaved that comment and said "on paper is still the ideal". I'll never understand the mindset.
This is NOTHING like that.
Not even a little bit.
See the quote below, jackass.
MHT is not HTML. It may contain HTML, but unless it can be rendered with a standard HTML engine, it's essentially just another archive format. Might as well say ZIP is a single-file HTML format too, if you're just talking about stuff you can open in MSIE. Since the Windows file browser can treat a ZIP archive as a directory, opening it on the fly , an HTML doc therein is accessable.