Of course the owner of the property has to maintain the hedges/trees. But since he doesn't, the rational thing is to compensate for his error and slow down (which you admirably did).
This is one of the things we get taught in our motorcycle riding courses here in.nl: never assume that others do the right thing, always be ready to compensate for others' errors. I flunked my first exam because I pulled past a car that was cornering backwards. I had right of way according to the rules, but as my instructor rightly mentioned, what use is that if I am not seen? Of course, taking the exam with a mild flu was a bad idea to begin with;-) (then again, since I would have been out my exam fee anyway if I had cancelled, I figured what the heck).
"Science" has absolutely nothing to do with "consensus" or "majority
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I invite you to meditate on the meaning of the words 'extraordinary' and 'ordinary'. Or, to quote a Skeptic: "They all laughed at Albert Einstein. They all laughed at Columbus. Unfortunately, they also all laughed at Bozo the Clown."
In short, just because you have a minority view, this does not make you right. The onus is on you to prove it. Now, on the one side we have literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers, by published scientists. On the other hand, we have one blogger. The balance of the probabilities is that the blogger is wrong, unless he can present extraordinary evidence. Since all he has is an insigificant error (read the numerical deconstructions in this thread), his evidence does not even meet the ordinary standard. He's wrong. By both consensus and "truth".
There is hunger crisis that can be solved with money. Guns, maybe. Money, no. We've been pouring money in since the 1950's and have made the problem worse, if anything.
I have to take issue with this. Money has been poured into Africa since the 1950s, yes, but that is not to say that it has been poured into actual hunger relief. If you pour in money towards dictatorial and/or corrupt regimes based on their professed stance towards sides in the Cold War, why are you surprised that none of those regimes actually make sure that this money lands where it is needed, instead of in the hands of the reigning cliques?
Trying to correlate money spent with actual hunger relief efforts, without tracking the money stream beyond the local government is a bit silly at best.
No, I don't get that off of horoscopes. I get that out of a decent knowledge of the ancient world. And ancient astrology is by no means the same as horoscopes in the paper. And note that I nowhere made any statements as to the validity of either. I kept myself very strictly to the methods used by the ancients, which was solid maths. The conclusions they drew from their calculations are irrelevant. As is your sneering arrogance.
But it's your call if you want to parade your wilful ignorance in front of the world. I don't mind, in so far as that I am sad that yet another being proves himself to be stupid.
[...] a motorbike [who had the right of way] came along. I couldn't see him because of a hedge so I was slowly easing onto the road.
As a motorbike rider, let me say on behalf of all my peers on two wheels: THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!
As any rider can tell you, car drivers who show some situational awareness and adapt their driving style to the situation (in your case slowing down due to bad visibility) are a rare breed. I make it a habit to always make a 'Thank you' sign when one does cross my path. You guys are good to share a road with.
People started using Windows because it had a useful GUI
Up until Windows 3.11 it sure as hell didn't have a useful GUI. And before that time there were alternatives, even on the PC hardware platform, like Digital Research's GEM.
That revisionist crap only flies for people who started computing around the Windows 95 days. Take it from one who lived through the entire microcomputer revolution and has experience with almost every major platform from those days: it's bullshit.
And, as it turns out, like most if not all of her writing, that famous quote was derivative anyway.
Which is why I can't take anyone seriously who upholds her as a great thinker. If one doesn't have either the background or the intellect to see the holes in her drivel, one is an idiot.
Yes, you are missing something. A whole lot of the basics of math came to us from the Babylonians, who not only needed math to get their buildings up, but also used it extensively to do astrological calculations.
That is part of the beauty of math, it is only interested in the correctness of the calculations. It makes no value judgment as to the veracity of the subject matter. This is also the basis of 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'.
You know, with every post, your gaffes and contradictions mount. The idea is to stop digging if you find yourself at the bottom of a hole. The fact that you apparently only know the meaning of 'due diligence' in the context of a TV series is but the least of your errors.
So why the cock-and-bull story about how it took so long to track down the netblock owner responsible? You were just racking up billable hours, weren't you?
If your customer was listed on one of the actual spam blacklists, the problem should have been lower in the hierarchy. I'm guessing your customer got on the DUHL. Well, guess what, that could have been prevented. I have two words for you: due diligence. It's not as if Qwest has a spotless reputation when it comes to spam.
Now, it may not have been you that set up their domain, but it is still not SORBS' problem that your customer is easily fleeced by a bunch of con men. It's guys like you and the ones that set up their domain that give consultants a bad name.
And as for my job, I wasn't bragging that I was a one-hunderd-dollar-an-hour consultant that couldn't find his arse with two hands. Even if I did work at Burger King, my arguments as to why you should remove yourself from the gene pool are relevant. You are just trying to blame others for your own failures.
So, because you're too stupid to find out who the actual owner of an address block is, SORBS is to blame?
I've met a lot of wannabes in this business, but you take the cake so far. Please increase the average intelligence of the human race: shoot yourself, OK?
I see the spammers are out in force to day, to see this modded up to +5.
SORBS does not ask for donations for a mere delisting. All you have to do is submit a request to their automated request system, and you will be delisted. I have actually done this for a customer of ours who got a false positive listing. 48 hours later, listing gone, and most of that was propagation delay.
Off-topic comment: you know that if you persist in using language like this, the anti-intellectual crowd will start yelling about your elitism for daring to write above high-school sophomore level, right?
Microsoft is acting as if it is being totally innovative by implementing a scatter/gather download mechanism, while they are just reimplementing an old idea. And every time they do so, idiots like you come out of the woodwork to point out that others do so too. Well DUH! That's the root of the complaint.
And as for your groupthink shot: if many people are disagreeing with you, it might just be that you are flat-out wrong.
Nice dodge. I notice you didn't answer the question: when did AT&T phase out the manual switchboard? Wide use of automated switch gear means nothing if you still employ manual operators when the rest of the world is fully automated, not if you want to portray yourself as 'ahead of the curve'.
Now, can you answer the question instead of throwing up lame strawmen? I am genuinely curious as to how long manual operators were a fixture of the US phone system. From what I can see from here, it was still fairly recent that the concept of dialing an operator was an integral part of US culture. I may be wrong, but a strawman answer is not going to help educate me, now is it?
Maybe it is because the US has the best, most reliable land line network in the world from the days of the AT&T monopoly.
Pray tell, when did AT&T phase out the last manual switchboard? Meanwhile, the Royal Dutch Mail & Telephone has had fully automatic switching for decades.
Suuure you can switch, in theory. In actual practice, as you can see from the complaints of U.S. customers, switching is a hassle, unless you are willing to wait until your current onerous contract lapses.
And what's the use in switching to TDMA when all your friends are on GSM? At best your telco gets to hit you with a roaming charge.
And finally, it is time you woke up and actually looked at the European market, as it is currently transitioning to UMTS. Without giving up on compatibility with the existing GSM network.
Unfortunately, as is usual when the rubber of ideology hits the road of reality, the countries that have a mandated government standard for mobile communications are the countries that are pushing technology forward. They are also countries where there is a vibrant free marketplace for technology, none of that neo-feudalism of the U.S. mobile market.
Wrong. In Europe, the GSM standard effectively means you could switch out SIM cards to just switch providers. Since telephone manufacturers and telcos have a mutual contract, usually you buy a phone that is subsidised by a fixed term contract, enforced by locking the SIM to the phone.
However, there is enough competition that contract terms rarely go above one year, and in cases they do, the standard term is 2 years. I have not seen a longer-term contract and attendant sim-lock in 10 years.
'terminal, no more care' line keeps trending younger and younger and more and more people being condemned as not-worth-treating-anymore (look at the Netherlands).
Got an actual cite that that happens in the Netherlands?
I'll spare you the work: you won't, because it doesn't. The only cites you'll be able to find is conservative Catholics screaming that lie to the sky.
She is saved by being a competent scenecrafter in action scenes, a tight plotter (believe me, plotting is almost a lost art), pretty good at characterisation and last but not least, if she stops taking herself too seriously (major flaw of book 5 and 6), gifted with an ironic sense of humour that fits perfectly with her story.
However, book 7 was almost marred to the point of failure by her persistent use of third person narrator intervention to tell us what the protagonists feel, instead of using the dialogue, scene description or action to show the reader.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the owner of the property has to maintain the hedges/trees. But since he doesn't, the rational thing is to compensate for his error and slow down (which you admirably did).
This is one of the things we get taught in our motorcycle riding courses here in .nl: never assume that others do the right thing, always be ready to compensate for others' errors. I flunked my first exam because I pulled past a car that was cornering backwards. I had right of way according to the rules, but as my instructor rightly mentioned, what use is that if I am not seen? Of course, taking the exam with a mild flu was a bad idea to begin with ;-) (then again, since I would have been out my exam fee anyway if I had cancelled, I figured what the heck).
Mart"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I invite you to meditate on the meaning of the words 'extraordinary' and 'ordinary'. Or, to quote a Skeptic: "They all laughed at Albert Einstein. They all laughed at Columbus. Unfortunately, they also all laughed at Bozo the Clown."
In short, just because you have a minority view, this does not make you right. The onus is on you to prove it. Now, on the one side we have literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers, by published scientists. On the other hand, we have one blogger. The balance of the probabilities is that the blogger is wrong, unless he can present extraordinary evidence. Since all he has is an insigificant error (read the numerical deconstructions in this thread), his evidence does not even meet the ordinary standard. He's wrong. By both consensus and "truth".
MartI have to take issue with this. Money has been poured into Africa since the 1950s, yes, but that is not to say that it has been poured into actual hunger relief. If you pour in money towards dictatorial and/or corrupt regimes based on their professed stance towards sides in the Cold War, why are you surprised that none of those regimes actually make sure that this money lands where it is needed, instead of in the hands of the reigning cliques?
Trying to correlate money spent with actual hunger relief efforts, without tracking the money stream beyond the local government is a bit silly at best.
MartNo, I don't get that off of horoscopes. I get that out of a decent knowledge of the ancient world. And ancient astrology is by no means the same as horoscopes in the paper. And note that I nowhere made any statements as to the validity of either. I kept myself very strictly to the methods used by the ancients, which was solid maths. The conclusions they drew from their calculations are irrelevant. As is your sneering arrogance.
But it's your call if you want to parade your wilful ignorance in front of the world. I don't mind, in so far as that I am sad that yet another being proves himself to be stupid.
MartAs a motorbike rider, let me say on behalf of all my peers on two wheels: THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!
As any rider can tell you, car drivers who show some situational awareness and adapt their driving style to the situation (in your case slowing down due to bad visibility) are a rare breed. I make it a habit to always make a 'Thank you' sign when one does cross my path. You guys are good to share a road with.
MartYes, you are indeed silly. Ancient astrology was very much concerned with the mapping of heavenly bodies, and correct predictions of their cycles.
Go study up some history and/or archaeology texts.
MartYou owe me a new keyboard.
MartUp until Windows 3.11 it sure as hell didn't have a useful GUI. And before that time there were alternatives, even on the PC hardware platform, like Digital Research's GEM.
That revisionist crap only flies for people who started computing around the Windows 95 days. Take it from one who lived through the entire microcomputer revolution and has experience with almost every major platform from those days: it's bullshit.
MartAnd, as it turns out, like most if not all of her writing, that famous quote was derivative anyway.
Which is why I can't take anyone seriously who upholds her as a great thinker. If one doesn't have either the background or the intellect to see the holes in her drivel, one is an idiot.
MartYes, you are missing something. A whole lot of the basics of math came to us from the Babylonians, who not only needed math to get their buildings up, but also used it extensively to do astrological calculations.
That is part of the beauty of math, it is only interested in the correctness of the calculations. It makes no value judgment as to the veracity of the subject matter. This is also the basis of 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'.
MartYou know, with every post, your gaffes and contradictions mount. The idea is to stop digging if you find yourself at the bottom of a hole. The fact that you apparently only know the meaning of 'due diligence' in the context of a TV series is but the least of your errors.
MartSo why the cock-and-bull story about how it took so long to track down the netblock owner responsible? You were just racking up billable hours, weren't you?
If your customer was listed on one of the actual spam blacklists, the problem should have been lower in the hierarchy. I'm guessing your customer got on the DUHL. Well, guess what, that could have been prevented. I have two words for you: due diligence. It's not as if Qwest has a spotless reputation when it comes to spam.
Now, it may not have been you that set up their domain, but it is still not SORBS' problem that your customer is easily fleeced by a bunch of con men. It's guys like you and the ones that set up their domain that give consultants a bad name.
And as for my job, I wasn't bragging that I was a one-hunderd-dollar-an-hour consultant that couldn't find his arse with two hands. Even if I did work at Burger King, my arguments as to why you should remove yourself from the gene pool are relevant. You are just trying to blame others for your own failures.
Have a nice day, luser.
So, because you're too stupid to find out who the actual owner of an address block is, SORBS is to blame?
I've met a lot of wannabes in this business, but you take the cake so far. Please increase the average intelligence of the human race: shoot yourself, OK?
MartI see the spammers are out in force to day, to see this modded up to +5.
SORBS does not ask for donations for a mere delisting. All you have to do is submit a request to their automated request system, and you will be delisted. I have actually done this for a customer of ours who got a false positive listing. 48 hours later, listing gone, and most of that was propagation delay.
MartOff-topic comment: you know that if you persist in using language like this, the anti-intellectual crowd will start yelling about your elitism for daring to write above high-school sophomore level, right?
And your comment is the worst kind of shilling.
Microsoft is acting as if it is being totally innovative by implementing a scatter/gather download mechanism, while they are just reimplementing an old idea. And every time they do so, idiots like you come out of the woodwork to point out that others do so too. Well DUH! That's the root of the complaint.
And as for your groupthink shot: if many people are disagreeing with you, it might just be that you are flat-out wrong.
MartNice dodge. I notice you didn't answer the question: when did AT&T phase out the manual switchboard? Wide use of automated switch gear means nothing if you still employ manual operators when the rest of the world is fully automated, not if you want to portray yourself as 'ahead of the curve'.
Now, can you answer the question instead of throwing up lame strawmen? I am genuinely curious as to how long manual operators were a fixture of the US phone system. From what I can see from here, it was still fairly recent that the concept of dialing an operator was an integral part of US culture. I may be wrong, but a strawman answer is not going to help educate me, now is it?
MartAnd whose problem is this...?
MartPray tell, when did AT&T phase out the last manual switchboard? Meanwhile, the Royal Dutch Mail & Telephone has had fully automatic switching for decades.
<shake type="head">Americans</shake>.
MartSuuure you can switch, in theory. In actual practice, as you can see from the complaints of U.S. customers, switching is a hassle, unless you are willing to wait until your current onerous contract lapses.
And what's the use in switching to TDMA when all your friends are on GSM? At best your telco gets to hit you with a roaming charge.
And finally, it is time you woke up and actually looked at the European market, as it is currently transitioning to UMTS. Without giving up on compatibility with the existing GSM network.
MartUnfortunately, as is usual when the rubber of ideology hits the road of reality, the countries that have a mandated government standard for mobile communications are the countries that are pushing technology forward. They are also countries where there is a vibrant free marketplace for technology, none of that neo-feudalism of the U.S. mobile market.
MartWrong. In Europe, the GSM standard effectively means you could switch out SIM cards to just switch providers. Since telephone manufacturers and telcos have a mutual contract, usually you buy a phone that is subsidised by a fixed term contract, enforced by locking the SIM to the phone.
However, there is enough competition that contract terms rarely go above one year, and in cases they do, the standard term is 2 years. I have not seen a longer-term contract and attendant sim-lock in 10 years.
So no, that argument won't fly.
MartGot an actual cite that that happens in the Netherlands?
I'll spare you the work: you won't, because it doesn't. The only cites you'll be able to find is conservative Catholics screaming that lie to the sky.
MartOh hell yes, JK Rowlings' style is atrocious.
She is saved by being a competent scenecrafter in action scenes, a tight plotter (believe me, plotting is almost a lost art), pretty good at characterisation and last but not least, if she stops taking herself too seriously (major flaw of book 5 and 6), gifted with an ironic sense of humour that fits perfectly with her story.
However, book 7 was almost marred to the point of failure by her persistent use of third person narrator intervention to tell us what the protagonists feel, instead of using the dialogue, scene description or action to show the reader.
MartName five? Heck, can you name even one? Even UAC is a mere patch on the existing users/permissions architecture.
Mart