How about a standard appearing soon? Does anyone else get frustrated carrying around 9 chargers for trips?
Yes, I get frustrated too.
These chargers are affectionately called Wall-marts and they often have a large power rectifier that is right where the wall plug is. Its often difficult to plug more than one of these things into a standard 2 outlet wall receptacle or a power strip without. They add up, and are ugly to have lying around the house. I too am pissed that I have to buy a few extra chargers/power supplies to keep around my house and for work. Its too difficult to unpack them and remember to pack them up in the morning.
My favorite cell phone (besides it sucked for talking on it) was an older flip phone that had a cradle charger _AND_ a holder for a second battery _AND_ it could charge both at the same time. Battery running low and low on time? Swap the batteries, and your off. I don't remember the make or model of the phone, I believe it was from Sprint, and their coverage sucked in my area at the time.
From my POV, Google is a service company. They may expand to a software company with the Google Desktop and Google Earth and the like, but I see them as an advertising magnet by having the most popular search capabilities in the world, and selling advertising is where they are currently making money, not software sales.
I'm of the opinion that anyone who gets 3 DUIs should be forbidden from consuming alcohol for the rest of their lives. These people have abused their freedom to use alcohol and cannot be trusted to use it ever again. For all I care, they can get sloshed all they want on private property, but the moment they appear on the road behind a wheel, they become everyone's problem.
True. The problem is drinking and driving, so why not take away their license? Rape doesn't seem like a more civil means of dealing with the problem.
I used to run DUI classes, and one guy in my class had _7_ and was under 30 years old, AND still had a license. This was years ago, so he is probably in prison now.
But there is definitely the other side of the coin. In June of 1995, Delmas Maxwell Johnson of the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported the finding that, with passenger cars, there were actually significant increases in fatal rollover crashes in vehicles with ABS. E. Hertz, also with NHTSA, likewise noted that passenger cars with ABS were "more likely to experience fatal rollovers." Johnson, in his article, "Analysis of the Crash Experience of Vehicles Equipped with Antilock Braking Systems (ABS)", observed at the time: "...NHTSA estimates that there has been little or no net crash reduction with ABS, to date." from http://www.brennanlaw.com/lemonlaw/absjury.htm
And...
Agency evaluations have found that vehicles with anti-lock brake systems (ABS) have a statistically significant increase in the single vehicle run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects). It is unknown to what extent, if any, this increase is due to incorrect use of the ABS system by drivers. from http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/LTV /
same url:
In fatal crashes, SUVs are twice as likely to have rolled over than passenger cars. A rollover increases the likelihood of occupant ejection, fatality or injury.
same url:
Agency evaluations have found that vehicles with anti-lock brake systems (ABS) have a statistically significant increase in the single vehicle run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects). It is unknown to what extent, if any, this increase is due to incorrect use of the ABS system by drivers.
We just rolled a 2000 Tahoe on the highway at under 55 mph. Appling brakes firmly on dry surface should seemingly not cause the vehicle to start skidding sideways leading to a roll should it?
Dude, on the right side of your keyboard there is an enter/return key. Pressing it every now and then between thoughts makes reading what you have written much easier.
To some degree, especially on slashdot, I think the anti SUV thing is a little bit much, but it is not without merit either.
I miss having my SUV for camping and snow. However, with the money difference that I spend in gas (17-20MPG with SUV vs 30-39MPG with sedan), I can rent an SUV or whatever for camping, and I don't have to clean it afterwards.
SUVs are a trend like bell bottoms and belly button piercing. The trend will lessen, but will never go away. Proof of this being a trend is to watch suburban senior citizens or single older women without kids that drive one. There is no reason for them to have an SUV except for the trend and styling. Another proof that SUVs are just a styling trend is that you can buy them without 4x4. What is the difference between a station wagon and a minivan vs a non 4x4 SUV functionally? The SUV just seems cooler than the others.
Regarding the utility of an SUV, for on road city-type hauling and transportation, I find them to be about the same as a station wagon except SUVs are slightly taller and have less room in the back. Right now, minivans and regular vans are the best for something like a band to move instruments around. The seats in these vehicles are (re)moveable and the ceiling clearance is good. My friends that tour use a full size bus. Think greyhound or one of those travel busses that older people take. The compartment bays at the bottom are easily accessible, flat, smooth metal. I highly recommend one of those:)
it is your choice to drink so when you drink alcohol you deliberately make yourself unsafe for driving
I'm glad I don't drink with you or anybody you know. I drink alcohol for relaxation, enjoyment, and social interaction. I have never heard of a person that drank to deliberately make themselves unsafe for driving or as dangerous as someone who is tired, over 50, or has a cold. Oh, and living over 50 is a choice too. To think that they daily deliberately make themselves be alive and be as unsafe as an intoxicated person... That should be illegal.
Well, as it turns out, having a BAC in the 0.08 - 0.10% range has the same effect on driving ability as (a) having a cold; (b) getting a poor night's sleep; (c) being over the age of 50.
If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51?
Being convicted of a DUI is a crime in most states. In mine, you get 3 years in prison after the third one. Here is an account of such an unfortunate person:
I've been sentenced for a D.U.I. offense. My 3rd one. When I first came to prison, I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a tall white male, who unfortunately has a small amount of feminine characteristics. And very shy. These characteristics have got me raped so many times I have no more feelings physically. I have been raped by up to 5 black men and two white men at a time. I've had knifes at my head and throat. I had fought and been beat so hard that I didn't ever think I'd see straight again. One time when I refused to enter a cell, I was brutally attacked by staff and taken to segragation though I had only wanted to prevent the same and worse by not locking up with my cell mate. There is no supervision after lockdown. I was given a conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the issue was. He told me that off the record, He suggests I find a man I would/could willingly have sex with to prevent these things from happening. I've requested protective custody only to be denied. It is not available here. He also said there was no where to run to, and it would be best for me to accept things . . . . I probably have AIDS now. I have great difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after nightmares or thinking to hard on all this . . . . I've laid down without physical fight to be sodomized. To prevent so much damage in struggles, ripping and tearing. Though in not fighting, it caused my heart and spirit to be raped as well. Something I don't know if I'll ever forgive myself for.
-A letter to Human Rights Watch
Although I thought that the US was bad about their BAC limits, they are about the same if not more lenient than many other countries. Some have legal limit of 0.0.
I always get landblasted when I say that this is a feminine thing, but historically women are more against alcohol than men are. Examples are the prohibition phase in the 20s and MADD.
It annoys me that my local media have to make a point that "alcohol and drugs were not involved" -- to which I always think, "Great, a clean kill." Running over a pedestrian is the safest way to experience the thrill of murder. Unlikely you'll even get the workhouse if you aren't too blatent about it. But be warned that if you only wing your pedestrian you could be paying off the multi-million dollar lawsuit for the rest of your life under the new bankrupcy rules. So in the end it's smarter not to run over pedestrians, ok?
I find it annoying as well. Keep in mind that from the age of about 16 to 50 your most likely death situation is going to be while you are sober in a car.
Oh, and the bankruptcy stuff, its probably better to kill the pedestrian than to just hurt them. Killing them will get you a manslaughter case that you can get out of provided you didn't have 100 eye witnesses see you accelerate on purpose and swerve to hit the pedestrian. After getting off of the criminal case, the surviving family will loose their confidence in winning a civil one. Also, by killing the person, you eliminate the most likely person that will file a civil suit.
Since when? Are you alluding to the misconception that a good driver can stop faster without ABS than an average driver with?
No, I am alluding to the fact that antilock brakes keep you from skidding which increases your likelihood of flipping your car which is much more fatal than skidding into something.
Antilock brakes are best at reducing the most common and least serious of accidents -- rear end collisions. They simply do not help in dangerous high velocity situations, in fact they are more dangerous.
Also, from the GP that says "keep your speed down and your vehicle weight down".
I would rather be in a fully loaded 18 wheeler going 100 MPH than in a Honda Prelude sitting still.
Now with the SUVs not being any safer for kids, the same is true with antilock breaks. They are both better at reducing injuries in not so hazardous situations, but both are more likely to kill you in serious situations.
Bullshit. Punchcards were first made in the early 1800's and then used more commonly by big computer companies like IBM in the late 1800's. They were not used after the late 70's because they sucked. I work with people that used punch cards to program computers. They never talk about "chads" they talk about things like getting cards out of order, dropping them on the ground and not being able to edit them once made. They don't talk about "chads", those are invented words for the 2000 election well after nobody used punchcards for over 20 years.
I've taken a number of standardized tests for over 20 years that have never, ever used punchcards or had hanging chads. They were all done with standard #2 pencils and a piece of paper that could scan them at remarkable speeds and accuracy. I'm sure somebody could counter with a time that one kid had his SAT score off by a point or two out of 1600 or the 2400 or whatever it is now, but AFAK they are beyond human accuracy, and never, ever have "chad" issues.
So, why all the talk and fuss about this stuff? Are elections routinely rigged? Is this the new terrorist plot? Are the scantron type ballots that I have used rigged or wrong? Are the mechanical vote counters rigged or wrong? Was the President of the United States chosen by popular ballot in 2000? Does it even matter?
The more this disinformation keeps us busy, it makes those who really matter in these matters more free to have more room to do whatever they want to do.
I don't believe its any more difficult to count nominal data accurately than it ever was. Its the people that do the counting that are always variable, and will always be.
We posess the innovative genius to eventually create machines which are for all intents and purposes, smarter than we are.
So, we've used levers and machines that are much stronger than our weak bodies that can lift hundreds of tons. Even a baseball bat swung by someone is more likely to kill them than their bare fists
Even though these machines are smarter, will they ever match human ingenuity? Are we as a race ready to accept man-made devices that become smarter than the man who created them?
Again, the bat does not have the desire to smash a person. It takes a special person for that desire, or a special need:)
Machines at most can perform repetitive operations and raw logic, but they don't care about being right or wrong, they don't care about dominating the world, they don't do anything that they are not told to do.
Actually, people don't do anything that they aren't told to do either. I have more problems with people than machines.
Being open source makes it tamper-resistent, not tamper-proof.
Somebody, probably not me or you will compile the final code to be run on some computer that we don't know the details of anyway. That somebody may know how to alter the code, maybe not.
I know of no way that a computer recount could happen without a paper trail.
Would it not be easier to just use a paper ballot in the first place?
I don't see how this is so difficult. Each voting place I've been to scratches off your name when you show up to vote off of a roster of registered voters, and there should be a total count of those registered which should equal the number of pieces of paper in the ballot box.
There can be simple large scantron type cards that are immediately sorted into something like X party, Y party and Z party, and maybe "other". These can be quickly gone though and if there was an X in the Y party box, something might be fishy. If the Z party box weighs more than the X party box which has more than Y, then Z won. It could counted if mass is that big of a controversy.
In this country, people have the right to anonymously vote for a particular candidate, but not to vote anonymously. It is known when you vote, and for good reason so that dead people don't go around voting over and over again or even live people.
What is so difficult with counting nominal data these days?
When it comes time to actually pass the budget, the government gives you a budget of $125 a day budget, a 25% increase over this year's budget. However, government projections of prices and enrollments were on target. Apples now cost 60 cents and you have to provide apples for 220 students each day.
You can only purchase 208 applies, which means that 12 students are no longer covered.
Did your budget increase? Yes. Did you cut back on the percentage of students you can serve and the services you offer? Yes.
Thus not increasing by as much as planned does equal cutting back.
The thing with our society that is never discussed is its dependance on an increasing population for economic gain.
The US is the only industrialized nation with an increasing population. Sure, the students will go from 200 to 220, but its also under the assumption that you now have 40 new tax paying citizens to pay for the rise in the number of students.
Even if the 40 new tax paying "citizens" are illegal immigrants, they still pay residual taxes, and allow for 40 other legal citizens to be freed up to do higher paying jobs (higher taxes) than your typical illegal immigrant labor position.
The thing is that the US cannot depend on this rise in population forever. SSN is going bust, the debt keeps rising, yada yada.
College costs about the same as a new car, but much less than a TV.
I've found that the US system for doing things has little to no provision for those that are capable, but are in temporary need vs those that are simply incapable and in chronic need.
Millions of people every year get student loans like from these guys.
Right now, for me, the big issue is the repairability, so I'm probably going the PC route right now.
If you can reliably and for free fix a computer within the usual 2 to 3 day time that Apple can fix one, then it might be worth weighing that as an option.
Otherwise, being that your comfortable with Macs already and they support windows and linux filesharing and remote access, for the form factor, quietness, and price, I don't see how you could do any better.
Grub has no equivalent to this, and its a reason I sometimes still use lilo.
True, the only equivalent is that grub will boot a failover entry if the first kernel does not boot, it does not have the feature of booting once from one kernel, and then to another subsequent kernel after that.
I can see the use for that when trying out untested drivers or new kernels on production systems.
This allows me to install a new kernel on a box I'm not in front of, and tell LILO to boot it by default for the next boot only.
Its been years since I've used LILO, but from what I remember, you had to either edit the lilo.conf file and then run the lilo command on each box, or just overwrite the kernel with the new one and then type lilo.
The only difference that I know of is that grub does not need to be "run" to reparse the config file and change the MBR. grub is able to read its config file natively.
I'm fine with both bootloaders, but grub has more features and is more flexible. Bootloaders don't do much, so long as they work, they are fine. I've found grub to be more handy in a bind. You can browse filesystems, look at files, pick a kernel, edit boot parameters, the works. Of course those latter features need to be done on the console of some type, but remotely I don't see too much of a difference between grub and lilo.
A guy I work with is returning his G4 PowerBook because it got one of the bunk screens. I returned mine because of a bad harddrive. I returned my iMac because of a bad CD/DVD thingy.
I've had issues with my other Apple product as well, but it may have been resolved with the latest firmware update.
I've had other Apple owners that had fewer problems, but these are about industry standard at this time. I will say that apple support is pretty good and fast at fixing broken hardware. Most companies do not have local service centers like Apple does.
I is worth noting that many of the problems were due to "dropping", which could account for a vast number of the ones that were not reported as being dropped.
"When the Mozilla project began, much of the feedback was that the code itself was too complicated to learn and contribute to. As a result, there was little in contributions from outside Netscape employees. It was decided that it would be best to change the layout engine, which constituted a total rewrite of the code. The new layout (Gecko) was cleaner and much easier to learn, thus contributions would increase. Netscape Communicator was laid to rest, and Mozilla.org had a completely separate product."
"Netscape" browsers were just old repackaged Mozilla browsers that somebody put together because some PHBs remembered when Netscape == browser.
I would guess other browsers are similar, but in Safari, I type usually 1 or 2 characters in my address bar after typing Apple-L to load the location. If its a site I've been to recently or is bookmarked, I'm there. If its a new site, I hit tab and then put the company name in the google search and the first link will usually suffice.
Having to press shift+control+enter takes me about the same time as pressing.org. Having to press shift+enter is about the same as typing.net. Having to remember 1 to 2 characters of an URL... or not having to remember if.org is shift+control+enter vs shift+enter -- sanity.
Being that it is difficult to obtain statistics on adults of voting age that use marijuana in the United States, the closest thing I can find is http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html,
Which says, "In 2002, over 14 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, and 12.2 percent of past year marijuana users used marijuana on 300 or more days in the past 12 months."
The US population at the time (including minors was 288 million) so:
14/288 = 0.0486111111111111
If the US had a parliamentary system and 4% was required for a party, I would guess there would be a marijuana party.
Keep in mind that the 14 million number is probably a gross underestimate.
Streaming high resolution video and high-quality audio to a cellphone might not seem useful on a tiny little LCD with a crappy speaker, but what about to a phone that has an external "eye-projector" thingamajig and a nice headphone jack? You could watch HDTV on your mobile, reveling in the privacy of the eye screen.
That is surely more comfortable than my couch! Why didn't I think of that.
So, is this yet another subway or public transportation thing in lieu of whatever misery you suffer on the way to and from work?
I mean, I would not feel comfortable staring into a telescope or eyepiece while having others that are clearly less fortunate than I staring at me while I duck at the latest action movie, or laugh at the latest comedy, or cry at the latest drama. They might want to take it from me or act rude to me or something stranger.
Streaming similar audio/video FROM the cellphone, LIVE, to remote locations. Can you say "instant news feed"? I knew you could. (And you thought the guy with the pics from the explosive decompression on the airplane was cool?!)
First, there is no news that needs to be acquired in realtime. If you can't be at your child's birth or wedding, then a simulcast of it would not every satisfy you or your family. The most pressing "news day" in my lifetime was on 9/11/2001 because of the nasty stuff that was going on at the time. Most everyone knew of it within 1/2 an hour despite the complete devastation of the online news sites and telephone networks. I don't think instant news feeds would do anything to propagate the news any faster or better. Sure people may need more portable stock tickers, but that is different. Does realtime deathcounts and bombings help people feel any better than saving it up for incremental updates?
Replacing expensive, proprietary mobile equipment (visual-overlay eyewear, biometrics) with a reasonably-priced, off-the-shelf cellphone.
See #1
And come on, don't you think that one of the primary intended uses IS to connect to a laptop?
If I could have a wireless, reliable net connection anywhere and only pay about $50 a month and be able to ditch my land line (~$30 a month) and my home internet (~$40 a month), yeah I would like to hook this thing up to my laptop.
Somehow, I don't believe I would be able to have my home PC downloading or serving stuff while my portable phone is with me though.
Slashdot Mirror
How about a standard appearing soon? Does anyone else get frustrated carrying around 9 chargers for trips?
Yes, I get frustrated too.
These chargers are affectionately called Wall-marts and they often have a large power rectifier that is right where the wall plug is. Its often difficult to plug more than one of these things into a standard 2 outlet wall receptacle or a power strip without. They add up, and are ugly to have lying around the house. I too am pissed that I have to buy a few extra chargers/power supplies to keep around my house and for work. Its too difficult to unpack them and remember to pack them up in the morning.
My favorite cell phone (besides it sucked for talking on it) was an older flip phone that had a cradle charger _AND_ a holder for a second battery _AND_ it could charge both at the same time. Battery running low and low on time? Swap the batteries, and your off. I don't remember the make or model of the phone, I believe it was from Sprint, and their coverage sucked in my area at the time.
Google and MS are software companies.
From my POV, Google is a service company. They may expand to a software company with the Google Desktop and Google Earth and the like, but I see them as an advertising magnet by having the most popular search capabilities in the world, and selling advertising is where they are currently making money, not software sales.
I'm of the opinion that anyone who gets 3 DUIs should be forbidden from consuming alcohol for the rest of their lives. These people have abused their freedom to use alcohol and cannot be trusted to use it ever again. For all I care, they can get sloshed all they want on private property, but the moment they appear on the road behind a wheel, they become everyone's problem.
True. The problem is drinking and driving, so why not take away their license? Rape doesn't seem like a more civil means of dealing with the problem.
I used to run DUI classes, and one guy in my class had _7_ and was under 30 years old, AND still had a license. This was years ago, so he is probably in prison now.
From the same guys:
V /
7 .html
But there is definitely the other side of the coin. In June of 1995, Delmas Maxwell Johnson of the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported the finding that, with passenger cars, there were actually significant increases in fatal rollover crashes in vehicles with ABS. E. Hertz, also with NHTSA, likewise noted that passenger cars with ABS were "more likely to experience fatal rollovers." Johnson, in his article, "Analysis of the Crash Experience of Vehicles Equipped with Antilock Braking Systems (ABS)", observed at the time: "...NHTSA estimates that there has been little or no net crash reduction with ABS, to date." from http://www.brennanlaw.com/lemonlaw/absjury.htm
And...
Agency evaluations have found that vehicles with anti-lock brake systems (ABS) have a statistically significant increase in the single vehicle run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects). It is unknown to what extent, if any, this increase is due to incorrect use of the ABS system by drivers. from http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/LT
same url:
In fatal crashes, SUVs are twice as likely to have rolled over than passenger cars. A rollover increases the likelihood of occupant ejection, fatality or injury.
same url:
Agency evaluations have found that vehicles with anti-lock brake systems (ABS) have a statistically significant increase in the single vehicle run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects). It is unknown to what extent, if any, this increase is due to incorrect use of the ABS system by drivers.
From http://forums.vmag.com/suvtahyuk1099/messages/721
We just rolled a 2000 Tahoe on the highway at under 55 mph. Appling brakes firmly on dry surface should seemingly not cause the vehicle to start skidding sideways leading to a roll should it?
Dude, on the right side of your keyboard there is an enter/return key. Pressing it every now and then between thoughts makes reading what you have written much easier.
:)
To some degree, especially on slashdot, I think the anti SUV thing is a little bit much, but it is not without merit either.
I miss having my SUV for camping and snow. However, with the money difference that I spend in gas (17-20MPG with SUV vs 30-39MPG with sedan), I can rent an SUV or whatever for camping, and I don't have to clean it afterwards.
SUVs are a trend like bell bottoms and belly button piercing. The trend will lessen, but will never go away. Proof of this being a trend is to watch suburban senior citizens or single older women without kids that drive one. There is no reason for them to have an SUV except for the trend and styling. Another proof that SUVs are just a styling trend is that you can buy them without 4x4. What is the difference between a station wagon and a minivan vs a non 4x4 SUV functionally? The SUV just seems cooler than the others.
Regarding the utility of an SUV, for on road city-type hauling and transportation, I find them to be about the same as a station wagon except SUVs are slightly taller and have less room in the back. Right now, minivans and regular vans are the best for something like a band to move instruments around. The seats in these vehicles are (re)moveable and the ceiling clearance is good. My friends that tour use a full size bus. Think greyhound or one of those travel busses that older people take. The compartment bays at the bottom are easily accessible, flat, smooth metal. I highly recommend one of those
it is your choice to drink so when you drink alcohol you deliberately make yourself unsafe for driving
I'm glad I don't drink with you or anybody you know. I drink alcohol for relaxation, enjoyment, and social interaction. I have never heard of a person that drank to deliberately make themselves unsafe for driving or as dangerous as someone who is tired, over 50, or has a cold. Oh, and living over 50 is a choice too. To think that they daily deliberately make themselves be alive and be as unsafe as an intoxicated person... That should be illegal.
Well, as it turns out, having a BAC in the 0.08 - 0.10% range has the same effect on driving ability as (a) having a cold; (b) getting a poor night's sleep; (c) being over the age of 50.
If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51?
Being convicted of a DUI is a crime in most states. In mine, you get 3 years in prison after the third one. Here is an account of such an unfortunate person:
I've been sentenced for a D.U.I. offense. My 3rd one. When I first came to prison, I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a tall white male, who unfortunately has a small amount of feminine characteristics. And very shy. These characteristics have got me raped so many times I have no more feelings physically. I have been raped by up to 5 black men and two white men at a time. I've had knifes at my head and throat. I had fought and been beat so hard that I didn't ever think I'd see straight again. One time when I refused to enter a cell, I was brutally attacked by staff and taken to segragation though I had only wanted to prevent the same and worse by not locking up with my cell mate. There is no supervision after lockdown. I was given a conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the issue was. He told me that off the record, He suggests I find a man I would/could willingly have sex with to prevent these things from happening. I've requested protective custody only to be denied. It is not available here. He also said there was no where to run to, and it would be best for me to accept things . . . . I probably have AIDS now. I have great difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after nightmares or thinking to hard on all this . . . . I've laid down without physical fight to be sodomized. To prevent so much damage in struggles, ripping and tearing. Though in not fighting, it caused my heart and spirit to be raped as well. Something I don't know if I'll ever forgive myself for.
-A letter to Human Rights Watch
Although I thought that the US was bad about their BAC limits, they are about the same if not more lenient than many other countries. Some have legal limit of 0.0.
I always get landblasted when I say that this is a feminine thing, but historically women are more against alcohol than men are. Examples are the prohibition phase in the 20s and MADD.
It annoys me that my local media have to make a point that "alcohol and drugs were not involved" -- to which I always think, "Great, a clean kill." Running over a pedestrian is the safest way to experience the thrill of murder. Unlikely you'll even get the workhouse if you aren't too blatent about it. But be warned that if you only wing your pedestrian you could be paying off the multi-million dollar lawsuit for the rest of your life under the new bankrupcy rules. So in the end it's smarter not to run over pedestrians, ok?
I find it annoying as well. Keep in mind that from the age of about 16 to 50 your most likely death situation is going to be while you are sober in a car.
Oh, and the bankruptcy stuff, its probably better to kill the pedestrian than to just hurt them. Killing them will get you a manslaughter case that you can get out of provided you didn't have 100 eye witnesses see you accelerate on purpose and swerve to hit the pedestrian. After getting off of the criminal case, the surviving family will loose their confidence in winning a civil one. Also, by killing the person, you eliminate the most likely person that will file a civil suit.
Since when? Are you alluding to the misconception that a good driver can stop faster without ABS than an average driver with?
No, I am alluding to the fact that antilock brakes keep you from skidding which increases your likelihood of flipping your car which is much more fatal than skidding into something.
Antilock brakes are best at reducing the most common and least serious of accidents -- rear end collisions. They simply do not help in dangerous high velocity situations, in fact they are more dangerous.
I learned the old school stuff like F=ma.
Also, from the GP that says "keep your speed down and your vehicle weight down".
I would rather be in a fully loaded 18 wheeler going 100 MPH than in a Honda Prelude sitting still.
Now with the SUVs not being any safer for kids, the same is true with antilock breaks. They are both better at reducing injuries in not so hazardous situations, but both are more likely to kill you in serious situations.
They don't have to make things much safer, they only have to make people feel that things are much safer now.
Reminds me of the BASF commercial. "we don't make the things, we make them better.."
Being that they can't make things much safer, I would guess that is all they have to do.
Now remind me the job of the press? Here are the current "headlines" on CNN. I could not make this up.
National
Abramoff pleads guilty in casino case
Unable to produce visa, teen is jailed
Police: Pups get sitter, kids left home alone
World
40 killed in Karbala suicide bombing
Egypt troops killed at Gaza border
First bird flu death outside of Asia
Politics
Bush: Iraqi forces will take more control in 2006
Cheney: NSA eavesdropping critical
Legal
Justices order Padilla transferred to Miami
Abramoff pleads guilty in casino case
With competition for perceived safety from these guys, Unisys has their job cut out for them.
I wish I was on a website with computer geeks.
"hanging chads"
Bullshit. Punchcards were first made in the early 1800's and then used more commonly by big computer companies like IBM in the late 1800's. They were not used after the late 70's because they sucked. I work with people that used punch cards to program computers. They never talk about "chads" they talk about things like getting cards out of order, dropping them on the ground and not being able to edit them once made. They don't talk about "chads", those are invented words for the 2000 election well after nobody used punchcards for over 20 years.
I've taken a number of standardized tests for over 20 years that have never, ever used punchcards or had hanging chads. They were all done with standard #2 pencils and a piece of paper that could scan them at remarkable speeds and accuracy. I'm sure somebody could counter with a time that one kid had his SAT score off by a point or two out of 1600 or the 2400 or whatever it is now, but AFAK they are beyond human accuracy, and never, ever have "chad" issues.
So, why all the talk and fuss about this stuff? Are elections routinely rigged? Is this the new terrorist plot? Are the scantron type ballots that I have used rigged or wrong? Are the mechanical vote counters rigged or wrong? Was the President of the United States chosen by popular ballot in 2000? Does it even matter?
The more this disinformation keeps us busy, it makes those who really matter in these matters more free to have more room to do whatever they want to do.
I don't believe its any more difficult to count nominal data accurately than it ever was. Its the people that do the counting that are always variable, and will always be.
We posess the innovative genius to eventually create machines which are for all intents and purposes, smarter than we are.
:)
So, we've used levers and machines that are much stronger than our weak bodies that can lift hundreds of tons. Even a baseball bat swung by someone is more likely to kill them than their bare fists
Even though these machines are smarter, will they ever match human ingenuity? Are we as a race ready to accept man-made devices that become smarter than the man who created them?
Again, the bat does not have the desire to smash a person. It takes a special person for that desire, or a special need
Machines at most can perform repetitive operations and raw logic, but they don't care about being right or wrong, they don't care about dominating the world, they don't do anything that they are not told to do.
Actually, people don't do anything that they aren't told to do either. I have more problems with people than machines.
Being open source makes it tamper-resistent, not tamper-proof.
Somebody, probably not me or you will compile the final code to be run on some computer that we don't know the details of anyway. That somebody may know how to alter the code, maybe not.
I know of no way that a computer recount could happen without a paper trail.
Would it not be easier to just use a paper ballot in the first place?
I don't see how this is so difficult. Each voting place I've been to scratches off your name when you show up to vote off of a roster of registered voters, and there should be a total count of those registered which should equal the number of pieces of paper in the ballot box.
There can be simple large scantron type cards that are immediately sorted into something like X party, Y party and Z party, and maybe "other". These can be quickly gone though and if there was an X in the Y party box, something might be fishy. If the Z party box weighs more than the X party box which has more than Y, then Z won. It could counted if mass is that big of a controversy.
In this country, people have the right to anonymously vote for a particular candidate, but not to vote anonymously. It is known when you vote, and for good reason so that dead people don't go around voting over and over again or even live people.
What is so difficult with counting nominal data these days?
When it comes time to actually pass the budget, the government gives you a budget of $125 a day budget, a 25% increase over this year's budget. However, government projections of prices and enrollments were on target. Apples now cost 60 cents and you have to provide apples for 220 students each day.
You can only purchase 208 applies, which means that 12 students are no longer covered.
Did your budget increase? Yes.
Did you cut back on the percentage of students you can serve and the services you offer? Yes.
Thus not increasing by as much as planned does equal cutting back.
The thing with our society that is never discussed is its dependance on an increasing population for economic gain.
The US is the only industrialized nation with an increasing population. Sure, the students will go from 200 to 220, but its also under the assumption that you now have 40 new tax paying citizens to pay for the rise in the number of students.
Even if the 40 new tax paying "citizens" are illegal immigrants, they still pay residual taxes, and allow for 40 other legal citizens to be freed up to do higher paying jobs (higher taxes) than your typical illegal immigrant labor position.
The thing is that the US cannot depend on this rise in population forever. SSN is going bust, the debt keeps rising, yada yada.
College costs about the same as a new car, but much less than a TV.
I've found that the US system for doing things has little to no provision for those that are capable, but are in temporary need vs those that are simply incapable and in chronic need.
Millions of people every year get student loans like from these guys.
Now, if your only skilled at watching TV...
Right now, for me, the big issue is the repairability, so I'm probably going the PC route right now.
If you can reliably and for free fix a computer within the usual 2 to 3 day time that Apple can fix one, then it might be worth weighing that as an option.
Otherwise, being that your comfortable with Macs already and they support windows and linux filesharing and remote access, for the form factor, quietness, and price, I don't see how you could do any better.
Grub has no equivalent to this, and its a reason I sometimes still use lilo.
True, the only equivalent is that grub will boot a failover entry if the first kernel does not boot, it does not have the feature of booting once from one kernel, and then to another subsequent kernel after that.
I can see the use for that when trying out untested drivers or new kernels on production systems.
Then there was EFI. Open standard, some open source, compatible with the BIOS, scriptable, able to be updated without a DOS floppy disk.
This is the 21st century.
This allows me to install a new kernel on a box I'm not in front of, and tell LILO to boot it by default for the next boot only.
Its been years since I've used LILO, but from what I remember, you had to either edit the lilo.conf file and then run the lilo command on each box, or just overwrite the kernel with the new one and then type lilo.
The only difference that I know of is that grub does not need to be "run" to reparse the config file and change the MBR. grub is able to read its config file natively.
I'm fine with both bootloaders, but grub has more features and is more flexible. Bootloaders don't do much, so long as they work, they are fine. I've found grub to be more handy in a bind. You can browse filesystems, look at files, pick a kernel, edit boot parameters, the works. Of course those latter features need to be done on the console of some type, but remotely I don't see too much of a difference between grub and lilo.
A guy I work with is returning his G4 PowerBook because it got one of the bunk screens. I returned mine because of a bad harddrive. I returned my iMac because of a bad CD/DVD thingy.
I've had issues with my other Apple product as well, but it may have been resolved with the latest firmware update.
I've had other Apple owners that had fewer problems, but these are about industry standard at this time. I will say that apple support is pretty good and fast at fixing broken hardware. Most companies do not have local service centers like Apple does.
I is worth noting that many of the problems were due to "dropping", which could account for a vast number of the ones that were not reported as being dropped.
Netscape-derived browsers would probably be dead were it not for open source
FWIW, there are no Netscape derived browsers anymore.
Mozilla was at first a stripped down Netscape, then rewritten. For more than enough info read http://ilias.ca/MozillaNetscapeRelationship.html or the specific quote:
"When the Mozilla project began, much of the feedback was that the code itself was too complicated to learn and contribute to. As a result, there was little in contributions from outside Netscape employees. It was decided that it would be best to change the layout engine, which constituted a total rewrite of the code. The new layout (Gecko) was cleaner and much easier to learn, thus contributions would increase. Netscape Communicator was laid to rest, and Mozilla.org had a completely separate product."
"Netscape" browsers were just old repackaged Mozilla browsers that somebody put together because some PHBs remembered when Netscape == browser.
I would guess other browsers are similar, but in Safari, I type usually 1 or 2 characters in my address bar after typing Apple-L to load the location. If its a site I've been to recently or is bookmarked, I'm there. If its a new site, I hit tab and then put the company name in the google search and the first link will usually suffice.
Having to press shift+control+enter takes me about the same time as pressing
Being that it is difficult to obtain statistics on adults of voting age that use marijuana in the United States, the closest thing I can find is http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html,
Which says, "In 2002, over 14 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, and 12.2 percent of past year marijuana users used marijuana on 300 or more days in the past 12 months."
The US population at the time (including minors was 288 million) so:
14/288 = 0.0486111111111111
If the US had a parliamentary system and 4% was required for a party, I would guess there would be a marijuana party.
Keep in mind that the 14 million number is probably a gross underestimate.
Streaming high resolution video and high-quality audio to a cellphone might not seem useful on a tiny little LCD with a crappy speaker, but what about to a phone that has an external "eye-projector" thingamajig and a nice headphone jack? You could watch HDTV on your mobile, reveling in the privacy of the eye screen.
That is surely more comfortable than my couch! Why didn't I think of that.
So, is this yet another subway or public transportation thing in lieu of whatever misery you suffer on the way to and from work?
I mean, I would not feel comfortable staring into a telescope or eyepiece while having others that are clearly less fortunate than I staring at me while I duck at the latest action movie, or laugh at the latest comedy, or cry at the latest drama. They might want to take it from me or act rude to me or something stranger.
Streaming similar audio/video FROM the cellphone, LIVE, to remote locations. Can you say "instant news feed"? I knew you could. (And you thought the guy with the pics from the explosive decompression on the airplane was cool?!)
First, there is no news that needs to be acquired in realtime. If you can't be at your child's birth or wedding, then a simulcast of it would not every satisfy you or your family. The most pressing "news day" in my lifetime was on 9/11/2001 because of the nasty stuff that was going on at the time. Most everyone knew of it within 1/2 an hour despite the complete devastation of the online news sites and telephone networks. I don't think instant news feeds would do anything to propagate the news any faster or better. Sure people may need more portable stock tickers, but that is different. Does realtime deathcounts and bombings help people feel any better than saving it up for incremental updates?
Replacing expensive, proprietary mobile equipment (visual-overlay eyewear, biometrics) with a reasonably-priced, off-the-shelf cellphone.
See #1
And come on, don't you think that one of the primary intended uses IS to connect to a laptop?
If I could have a wireless, reliable net connection anywhere and only pay about $50 a month and be able to ditch my land line (~$30 a month) and my home internet (~$40 a month), yeah I would like to hook this thing up to my laptop.
Somehow, I don't believe I would be able to have my home PC downloading or serving stuff while my portable phone is with me though.