...I'm still having hard time
understanding how you'd even have the perception that sports and religion
are in conflict. I think he's probably only referring to this particular story:
"For 200 members of the Immanuel Bible Church and their friends, the annual Super Bowl party is over thanks to the NFL"
Basically, just the "IBC vs NFL", not that religion and sports don't mix.
thank god no-one was ever killed on behalf of christianity... Who said Christianity doesn't suck too? You really think that's a fucking defense of the bullshit that is Sharia?
Well, that and the big fucking MISSILE that was used to shoot the plane down once it became obvious that that was the way to save more lives. Jesus fucking Christ, morons like you make me weep for the future. You really think the Air Force could load up and scramble combat-armed aircraft that quickly, much less get them over PENNSYLVANIA, find a wayward airliner, positively identify it, successfully determine whether it was actually hijacked, and still shoot it down in less than an hour? Let me know when you've got some time in the military under your belt, kid. Then maybe you'll understand why I'm rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off at your notion of how effective the Air Force is. God love 'em, they saved our bacon more than a few times in Afghanistan, but if I had a nickel for every time they showed up late (or not at all) because they got lost, or dropped ordinance on the wrong damn ridge (sometimes repeatedly), I'd have a whole lot of nickels. All military operations devolve into something of a clusterfuck, and the "hurry-up" ones doubly so. There ain't a chance in hell United 93 was shot down.
And for those who think the state of the wreckage (smashed to tiny pieces) is more consistent with a missile hit than a high-speed impact, you've never seen an aircraft shot down with a missile. An aircraft that comes apart in midair will leave a large debris field with BIG pieces. Go ahead, ask anyone who's seen the Naval test range at China Lake. Big pieces of aluminum skin, with chunks of structure attached, they float down like leaves off a tree when an aircraft comes apart at altitude. Again, get back to me when you have some first hand experience with shot down aircraft, rather than the word of some stupid nutcase with a web page and an axe to grind.
1. Do nothing. Now that the rules of hijacking have changed just enjoying watching Americans tear the limbs off of any would-be hijackers.
2. Seal the cockpit. Indeed, this is what infuriates me the most. The only reason the 3 successful 9/11 hijackings worked was because the passengers were unaware that the "rules" had changed. It wasn't 15 minutes from the time the news of WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon got to them that the passengers of United 93 decided that they weren't going to play by the rules anymore either and counterattacked the lightly armed chickenshit bastards, forcing them to nose into the ground because they were about to lose control of the plane. Likewise, "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid was forcibly hogtied and sedated within minutes of someone smelling him light a match. Hijacking planes is just plain fucking over. Hijacking was always a very tenuous balance between the hostages desire to avoid injury and the hijackers' desire to have their pals let out of prison, or get away with the money, or not die, or whatever. All that quaint old "take me to Cuba" shit is history. If it isn't something that's big enough to take out the whole plane, and do it essentially instantly, the second any dumbass makes the threat with a swiss army knife, he's hogtied and sedated by passengers who know the stakes have been elevated. There's simply no reason for the TSA to bother screening for small personal weapons or potentially dangerous pocket objects. Like Bruce Schneier says, it's all just wasteful, distracting security theater. Fine, screen for bombs and guns, maybe check for poison gas cannisters, but leave our fucking toothpaste alone, you morons!
the missing data is "after an unprovoked strike at Iran, probably by Special Ops coordinated out of SOCOM in Tampa, Florida" which is apparently out of contact with the Internet as we speak. Specifically, vortechosting is black, you can get through to Miami but there's major and continuing internet outage right around where CENTCOM and SOCOM are. Something's happening, guys. Yes, because it is standard military procedure to disrupt civilian internet communication (but not phone or any other) in the city nearest any base where men in dress uniforms sit in concrete bunkers handling the mundane logistics of a real combat operation thousands of miles away... just in case an internet blogger has xray specs and can see them at their desks? Seriously, if you actually knew anything about SOCOM there at MacDill AFB, you'd know how frickin' stupid you sound. There's nothing to see there. It's the administrative headquarters for special operations units. And even if it was a deployment center full of SEALs and Green Berets and such, you'd never know anything was going on anyway, because the normal activity level would be completely indistinguishable from the deployment of a handful of small special ops teams. What possible benefit could there be from cutting off Tampa's internet connectivity?
When was the last time you heard of an underwater cable being cut? Never? Yeah, me neither. Then, boom! 3 or 4 in a few weeks. It happens about once a year or so, judging by a quick Google news search.
Jun 2007, Colombia, Panama, Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua, broken undersea cable
Dec 2006, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan, earthquake damages cable
Jun 2005, Pakistan loses internet connectivity due to a broken undersea cable.
Jun 2004, Hong Kong and Vietnam see internet service disruption due to broken undersea fiber
Nov 2003, UK sees connectivity trouble due to broken transatlantic cable
Nov 2001, Singapore...same
Feb 2001, China....same
Really, the 2 of the 3 cables that were cut were only noteworth because BOTH were damaged. The FLAG and SeaWeMe-4 cable outages have forced European traffic to go WEST to get to most of Asia. Had only one been lost, it would not have been nearly as noteworthy. Cables go out all the time. The fact that two outages coincide ain't really enough to make it a conspiracy. Call me when the bombs are being dropped.
Calling something a coincidence, on the other hand, is a way of psychologically dismissing it. It's a way of protecting a persons sense of being in control, which is very important to most people. The desire to be in control makes people see controllable events as random and uncontrollable? Interesting analysis, to say the least! The same theory would be more accurately applied to conspiracy theorists. The compulsion to see undesirable events as having human instigators is an expression of the desire for control. Some folks find the idea that there isn't someone behind these events, that there's nothing that can be done to prevent these random horrors, too frightening for words. They grimly cling to the notion that someone, somewhere is in control of things, making bad stuff happen. Someone who, if the conspiracy were only exposed, could be made to stop these terrible events.
...I seriously question the authors assumption that LANs as we know them will cease to exist. Indeed, this is often the problem with "visionaries". They have no real sense for the reality of the situation. It's like the quote supposedly from Steve Jobs at the private Segway unveiling: "Cities of the future will be built around this". This is a classic "visionary" statement. The same exact thing from a realistic (i.e. engineer's) point of view is: "Cities would have to be rebuilt before this thing would be particularly useful".
With regard to networks, it's basically inarguable that the many network-enabled devices in people's homes will be sharing a single pipe from an ISP. It is also essentially inarguable that (for the foreseeable future) Ethernet will remain the common hard-wire standard for network connections. Multiple Ethernet connections will require some sort of switching hub to manage the traffic into and out of the shared internet connection, as well as between the various devices. Wireless will likewise still require some sort of central access point. So where, exactly, does this "visionary" genius see the change happening? This is already what we have now, and there's no real reason to change it. Is it a veiled reference to IPv6? Is he simply saying that NAT is going to become superfluous and that somehow that means the same as "the LAN will disappear"? Is he really claiming that no one will firewall their home devices at their [cablemodem/DSL/FiOS] connection, and will choose to allow anyone on their subnet to come browse their shares? Seriously, the internet is a great tool for mass communication, but this ain't no hippy commune. Anyone with enough sense to come in out of the rain is going to want to separate their stuff from the rabble outside. And if so, how is that--- a set of IP addresses behind a firewall--- not basically a LAN?
Just ask Russia, which has desended into a country run by criminals. Please. Russia has ALWAYS been a country run by criminals. It's been that way for centuries.
the gauge scale... is logarithmic so 19 gauge is 2x the diameter of 20 gauge Errrr.....no. 19AWG wire is, by the very table you link, 35.9 mils in diameter vs 32 mils for 20AWG. The ratio of successive sizes is only 1.1229322:1, not 2:1.
no way dude, i would think most people would expect a 'hot' liquid to be closer to boiling (212 deg) than the hot water that comes out of the tap (usually 120-140 deg). heck, i'd probably be annoyed if it weren't hotter than hot tap water... Only if asked "in degrees, what temperature is hot coffee", because people have no fucking clue what constitutes "drinkable" temperatures, they only know that it's made with boiling water so they ignorantly would say (like you) "closer to boiling, more than 175 degrees*". And, no, you wouldn't be annoyed by 140 degree coffee, because any higher than 140 constitutes a burn hazard. Most people drinking out of a Mr Coffee are drinking at 135-140.
Really, the moral here is that just because you think you know something doesn't mean you do.
* 176 degrees is exactly half way between 140 and 212, and water that temperature could easily strip the skin off the roof of your mouth
no way dude, i would think most people would expect a 'hot' liquid to be closer to boiling (212 deg) than the hot water that comes out of the tap (usually 120-140 deg). heck, i'd probably be annoyed if it weren't hotter than hot tap water... Only if asked "in degrees, what temperature is hot coffee", because people have no fucking clue what constitutes "drinkable" temperatures, they only know that it's made with boiling water so they ignorantly would say (like you) "closer to boiling, more than 175 degrees*". And, no, you wouldn't
Really, the moral here is that just because you think you know something doesn't mean you do.
* 176 degrees is exactly half way between 140 and 212, and water that temperature could easily strip the skin off the roof of your mouth
The US went through a serious recession for several years after victory in WWII. Bullcrap. You don't know jack shit about the history of the US economy, obviously. The 1945 recession lasted 8 months, and was little more than an adjustment of the economy from wartime mobilization. There wasn't another recession until 1948, and it only lasted 11 months. In fact, the average length of the recessions since WW2 ended has been 10 months. Hell, before WW2 the average length was 18 months. The only US recession that could be even remotely said to have lasted "several years" was the Great Depression (43 months).
It went through another one after defeat in Vietnam. Yes, the 1973 oil crisis, 16 months. Only partly caused by war spending.
Really, the rest of your point is rendered moot because all your supporting evidence is nonsense.
The US didn't become successful because it won the 2WW. It won the 2WW because it was already on the way to become successful. Seriously? The US economy was tottering along on the brink following the Great Depression, with that ass FDR's alphabet soup of make-work programs doing little more than acting as a sideshow to distract people from the fact that the economy was in the shitter. The demands on manufacturing infrastructure and technological progress created by WW2 saved our bacon. Our capacity for success was always high, but it wasn't until WW2 that it was fully realized.
First, I have yet to meet a human that does not massively multitask all of the time. Even while sleeping, your body and brain are doing lots of different tasks at the same time. Generally when people say "multi tasking" they're talking about higher functions. Anyone can talk while taking a piss, watch TV while walking on a treadmill, or scratch their itchy ass while reading a book. This is about writing an email while talking on the phone, or driving a car while programming a destination into the GPS.
these writers should log into IRC sometime and chat with people that know how this stuff works. I could have rewritten portions of this movie to be more plausible as well as more compelling. Let me let you in on a dirty little secret about script writers: they're mostly idiots. Granted, many are far more literate and intelligent than most people, but those tend to have a really bizarre streak of arrogant self importance that monkey-wrenches their ability to recognize their own fallibility. The works of those very few screenwriters that are diligent in their research don't turn out much better either. Once the script gets into the hands of the director and the producers, it often gets "fixed" so that it "won't be so confusing". Really, it all goes back to the primary problem with the entertainment industry in general: nepotism. There are too many blockhead writers, directors, producers, and general studio executives that got where they are because of who they know and/or who they are related to, rather than any particular display of skill at their craft (JJ Abrams, I am looking in your direction!). By the time a script goes from Final Draft Pro on the writer's iMac to the projector at your local UA GoogolPlex, it's passed through the hands of so many potential cow-eyed idiots that it's a wonder if the film contains any technical sophistication at all. Seriously, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard of (or personally experienced) a studio exec suggesting utterly asinine changes to a script before accepting it, well... I'd have a lot of freakin' nickels! The voiceover in the first release of Blade Runner? Fox execs asking Joss Whedon to make Mal in Firefly "less dark, more cheerful"? It happens all the time. It's sad, really, but because the industry is so intellectually inbred, there's just no place for meritocracy to take hold. How do they react when a movie somehow manages to do well because there were somehow fewer idiots involved? Do they say "we need to get more smart, competent folks in here to make movies"? No! They simply copy it relentlessly, somehow thinking the public is simply "hungry" for that genre, not that we want to see good movies. How many abysmal space movies came out after Star Wars was a hit? How many movies with stupid "twist" endings after The Sixth Sense*? The endless plethora of fantasy dreck following the successes of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter*? It's a mass of idiots and fools, all patting each other on the back, telling each other how smart they all are. If they weren't smart, they wouldn't be paid so much, right?
* themselves not particularly good, but they made enough money to induce the cloning process
With breeder reactors, I'm unaware of what their procedure is for handling any sort of failure with the sodium coolant. They have a negative temperature coefficient due to the fuel and fuel cladding design. Thermal expansion causes more neutrons to escape, thus creating an upper limit on reactivity, even in the absence of sodium coolant. When this upper limit is reached, the core loses too many neutrons to sustain the reaction and it pretty much stops completely.
sodium cooled reactors also have a tendancy to produce radioactive isotopes of sodium like Na22 or Na24 Eh. The chemical dangers are more significant. Na-22 isn't particularly radioactive, and the highly radioactive Na-24 has a half-life of only 15 hours.
speech recognition systems aren't as generally versatile or accurate as the human brain, but they're getting better all the time. Give it ten years or so, with improved algorithms and a sixteen core processor to handle them I think we'll be interacting with computers on a much different level. I'll believe it when I see it. This is one of those areas where various folks have been promising "[five|ten] more years" since the late sixties. Trouble is, the only thing greater storage and processing capacity get you is bigger personalized dictionaries of memorized [words|phrases|phonemes]. You still have to invest time to train the system in recognizing your speech. The greater capacity/accuracy, the longer it takes to "fine tune" the dictionary. It just doesn't seem like simply a problem of lack of "clocks n' bits", but a lack of a way of processing speech like people. It may perhaps be that we are only 10 years from having the capacity to mimic human speech processing, but I think the human brain is so infuriatingly complicated that there'll always be some subtle snag fouling it up until we can actually simulate a WHOLE BRAIN.... and even then, I suspect something else will fall short...
Clearly not all, but maybe we can get some evolutionary pressure to become smarter. If the average person isn't smart enough to handle day to day life, then the average person will need to become smarter. Unfortunately, the yardstick of "success" from an evolutionary standpoint is very simply "procreation". The bar remains exceptionally low for that, no matter what happens on the technology front. Even worse, the indications are that smarter folks have fewer children. With modern society having a distinct shortage of wild tigers roaming around eating the slow and stupid, there isn't any evolutionary pressure to become smarter. Between liability lawsuits and modern farming techniques, we've set up a petri dish where the foolish not only survive, but grow fat and multiply like crazy. No, the pressure won't be on the dense to become brighter, it'll be on the product engineers to make technology "friendlier", so even the daft can handle it.
Salesman: This new user-friendly computer only has one button, and we press it for you before it leaves the factory.
Dilbert: What does the button do?
Salesman: Whoa, I'm in way over my head here. Let me give you our tech support number.
(The whole thing from Who Killed the Electric Car) Forgive the OT rant, but the whole conspiracy theory that GM had something against electric cars is just asinine. The only reason they leased them at all was to comply with a nutjob California law that attempted to dictate consumer demand in law ("by 1998, 2% of all new cars sold by the seven major auto manufacturers in the state of California were to meet 'zero emission' standards"). The EV1, as a production vehicle, was a quick and dirty hack job. It was developed from the Impact, a hand-crafted prototype car. Production of the vehicle was a nightmare. Maintenance was a nightmare. Repair was a nightmare. It was all a stop-gap measure until GM could get the stupid California law overturned. Why did they destroy them? Liability and spare parts. No amount of waiver-signing will ever keep product liability lawyers away, and US law requires manufacturers to maintain a supply of repair parts for any production vehicle sold for at least 10 years after the last one is made. It was already unprofitable, and not taking them back would have only cost them more.
Seriously, they weren't that great. They were perfect for a very tiny and vocal minority, but they were ridiculously impractical for the mass market.
Not if is is treated as a contract, You "contract" theory is a dead end.
Even if it is treated as a contract, you may not back out of a contract simply because you no longer care for the terms. There is no provision in the GPL for undoing it, and he is going to be held to the provisions of the license--- which includes perpetual re-licensing to anyone who wants it.
Slashdot Mirror
...I'm still having hard time understanding how you'd even have the perception that sports and religion are in conflict. I think he's probably only referring to this particular story:"For 200 members of the Immanuel Bible Church and their friends, the annual Super Bowl party is over thanks to the NFL"
Basically, just the "IBC vs NFL", not that religion and sports don't mix.
And for those who think the state of the wreckage (smashed to tiny pieces) is more consistent with a missile hit than a high-speed impact, you've never seen an aircraft shot down with a missile. An aircraft that comes apart in midair will leave a large debris field with BIG pieces. Go ahead, ask anyone who's seen the Naval test range at China Lake. Big pieces of aluminum skin, with chunks of structure attached, they float down like leaves off a tree when an aircraft comes apart at altitude. Again, get back to me when you have some first hand experience with shot down aircraft, rather than the word of some stupid nutcase with a web page and an axe to grind.
1. Do nothing. Now that the rules of hijacking have changed just enjoying watching Americans tear the limbs off of any would-be hijackers.
2. Seal the cockpit. Indeed, this is what infuriates me the most. The only reason the 3 successful 9/11 hijackings worked was because the passengers were unaware that the "rules" had changed. It wasn't 15 minutes from the time the news of WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon got to them that the passengers of United 93 decided that they weren't going to play by the rules anymore either and counterattacked the lightly armed chickenshit bastards, forcing them to nose into the ground because they were about to lose control of the plane. Likewise, "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid was forcibly hogtied and sedated within minutes of someone smelling him light a match. Hijacking planes is just plain fucking over. Hijacking was always a very tenuous balance between the hostages desire to avoid injury and the hijackers' desire to have their pals let out of prison, or get away with the money, or not die, or whatever. All that quaint old "take me to Cuba" shit is history. If it isn't something that's big enough to take out the whole plane, and do it essentially instantly, the second any dumbass makes the threat with a swiss army knife, he's hogtied and sedated by passengers who know the stakes have been elevated. There's simply no reason for the TSA to bother screening for small personal weapons or potentially dangerous pocket objects. Like Bruce Schneier says, it's all just wasteful, distracting security theater. Fine, screen for bombs and guns, maybe check for poison gas cannisters, but leave our fucking toothpaste alone, you morons!
Looks like a variation of the old classic:
As I was climbing up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
He must be from the CIA
This one goes back about 40 years.
Jun 2007, Colombia, Panama, Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua, broken undersea cable
Dec 2006, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan, earthquake damages cable
Jun 2005, Pakistan loses internet connectivity due to a broken undersea cable.
Jun 2004, Hong Kong and Vietnam see internet service disruption due to broken undersea fiber
Nov 2003, UK sees connectivity trouble due to broken transatlantic cable
Nov 2001, Singapore...same
Feb 2001, China....same
Really, the 2 of the 3 cables that were cut were only noteworth because BOTH were damaged. The FLAG and SeaWeMe-4 cable outages have forced European traffic to go WEST to get to most of Asia. Had only one been lost, it would not have been nearly as noteworthy. Cables go out all the time. The fact that two outages coincide ain't really enough to make it a conspiracy. Call me when the bombs are being dropped.
There, fixed that for ya
...I seriously question the authors assumption that LANs as we know them will cease to exist. Indeed, this is often the problem with "visionaries". They have no real sense for the reality of the situation. It's like the quote supposedly from Steve Jobs at the private Segway unveiling: "Cities of the future will be built around this". This is a classic "visionary" statement. The same exact thing from a realistic (i.e. engineer's) point of view is: "Cities would have to be rebuilt before this thing would be particularly useful".With regard to networks, it's basically inarguable that the many network-enabled devices in people's homes will be sharing a single pipe from an ISP. It is also essentially inarguable that (for the foreseeable future) Ethernet will remain the common hard-wire standard for network connections. Multiple Ethernet connections will require some sort of switching hub to manage the traffic into and out of the shared internet connection, as well as between the various devices. Wireless will likewise still require some sort of central access point. So where, exactly, does this "visionary" genius see the change happening? This is already what we have now, and there's no real reason to change it. Is it a veiled reference to IPv6? Is he simply saying that NAT is going to become superfluous and that somehow that means the same as "the LAN will disappear"? Is he really claiming that no one will firewall their home devices at their [cablemodem/DSL/FiOS] connection, and will choose to allow anyone on their subnet to come browse their shares? Seriously, the internet is a great tool for mass communication, but this ain't no hippy commune. Anyone with enough sense to come in out of the rain is going to want to separate their stuff from the rabble outside. And if so, how is that--- a set of IP addresses behind a firewall--- not basically a LAN?
Only if asked "in degrees, what temperature is hot coffee", because people have no fucking clue what constitutes "drinkable" temperatures, they only know that it's made with boiling water so they ignorantly would say (like you) "closer to boiling, more than 175 degrees*". And, no, you wouldn't be annoyed by 140 degree coffee, because any higher than 140 constitutes a burn hazard. Most people drinking out of a Mr Coffee are drinking at 135-140.
Really, the moral here is that just because you think you know something doesn't mean you do.
* 176 degrees is exactly half way between 140 and 212, and water that temperature could easily strip the skin off the roof of your mouth
Only if asked "in degrees, what temperature is hot coffee", because people have no fucking clue what constitutes "drinkable" temperatures, they only know that it's made with boiling water so they ignorantly would say (like you) "closer to boiling, more than 175 degrees*". And, no, you wouldn't
Really, the moral here is that just because you think you know something doesn't mean you do.
* 176 degrees is exactly half way between 140 and 212, and water that temperature could easily strip the skin off the roof of your mouth
It went through another one after defeat in Vietnam. Yes, the 1973 oil crisis, 16 months. Only partly caused by war spending.
Really, the rest of your point is rendered moot because all your supporting evidence is nonsense.
* themselves not particularly good, but they made enough money to induce the cloning process
You realize that you are ignorant on the subject of breeder reactors?
Salesman: This new user-friendly computer only has one button, and we press it for you before it leaves the factory.
Dilbert: What does the button do?
Salesman: Whoa, I'm in way over my head here. Let me give you our tech support number.
Seriously, they weren't that great. They were perfect for a very tiny and vocal minority, but they were ridiculously impractical for the mass market.
Even if it is treated as a contract, you may not back out of a contract simply because you no longer care for the terms. There is no provision in the GPL for undoing it, and he is going to be held to the provisions of the license--- which includes perpetual re-licensing to anyone who wants it.