If you have been researching for years on the mating habits of the Papuan purple-eyed spider, finding the differences between their behaviour and that of other spider genii, you would surely include that description as part of your title — It would not be responsible to make others think the article is general when it deals with a very specific variety.
(please note that the example is entirely fictional and I know zero about spiders or biological taxonomy)
Algorithmically generated papers try to imitate what's generated by legitimate writers. If people were to mostly write papers with short titles, it would be a tad harder to hide the voidness of meaning in titles any person could understand:)
People are often satisfied with using "S3krit" as an encryption key. Explain why you need a key with decent entropy/randomness and so large there's no use in trying to remember it... Users will store the key in the same medium as the encrypted data. So much for crypto strength.
In most Latin American countries, the best universities are fully or partly State-run. Tuition is often free or symbolic up to Bachelors, and for posgraduate studies it is still *really* cheap by US standards — i.e. I'm studying a Masters degree in the second most important university in Mexico, and pay less than US$100 per semester. Of course, that's because I chose not to be a full-time student; as I would automaticallyreceive a grant of ~US$600 per month.
They complain about there being sharp stuff over there, then they put on tires that are made of kleenex which can't handle any sharp stuff. If I put tires like that on my car, I wouldn't be able to use the roads at all. Stop crying, get some real tires, and get the fuck over. We have to deal with all the same shit on the roads. We got better rubber.
Again, we (cyclists) must be responsible users of the public space. Those tires you mention are for competition, for speed bike, or if at all, for touring long-hauls — but not for city trips. For the city, we need good rubber tires, with enough texture to be able to stop effectively, and able to withstand minor puncturing objects. And if we don't, well, our bike is not fit for urban use.
I'd laugh at people using Monster Trucks to go to work (unless,of course, they work at a Monster Truck show:-P ), or people using Scandinavian winter tires in my (tropical) country. They are just not fit for it.
Cars and bicycles sharing the same space is madness. It makes no goddamned sense. Let's build cycle paths so that cyclists can have a place to ride.
They can share the space if they do so responsibly. Most city roads are not meant for high-speed driving. Most city roads will by themselves impose a ~40Km/h effective limit on cars — And bikes are not that much of a hassle then. Of course, motorways are off limits for cyclists.
But let's also expect cyclists to behave themselves when they're on the road. That's not how they behave in California. Most of them behave like total fuckheads
And yes, here we agree again. We can only coexist when both motorists and cyclists abide by the basic rules.
Fortunately car drivers are also trained to keep at least a meter distance when passing a cyclist. It seems that the problem in the US is that automobilists pass too closely and that because of that, cyclist claim the whole lane out of self-defense.
We claim the whole lane because we need to. If there is a hole in the pavement, I must be able to quickly move around it — Of course, I instintively do so to the right (with no chances of a car passing by too quick), but it's not always possible. But I can do it only because I ride near the center of the lane. If I were in the right side of the rightmost lane, I would not have any wiggle space. And, of course, that's where all of the (what's the name for the sewer openings?) are.
Don't know about your city, but in our driving law using the sidewalk is expressly forbidden unless you unmount your bike. And yes, I carry a copy of this law with me; it's not often useful, but I have taken it out a couple of times (when arguing with motorists, not with cops)
And it is somewhat true. I also have my tricks for my usual drive to work. If you bike to work, you will spend some weeks finding the best route and then optimizing it a bit — but after that, you will just basically repeat known patterns.
Cycling in places I am not familiar with means I must be even more careful, which translates to driving slower. And absolutely with no distractions (i.e. radio).
I agree with half of your message. And –as an urban cyclist– violently disagree with the other half.
YES, cyclists should share the road with motorists.
But, YES, cyclists are driving a vehicle, and thus subject to driving regulations.
People often honk at me when I'm just standing waiting for the light to turn green — Well, guess what? The traffic light also applies to me on my bike. I expect to ride on the center of the rightmost, non-parking available lane AND RESPECT ALL TRAFFIC INDICATIONS. Running traffic lights or going against the legal direction are just deathwishes. I love cycling. But I love being alive.
...Unless, by adding a bike lane, you take current cars out out of the city center. Each cyclist that uses the path is one less motorist. Less congestion.
Oh, FFS... I am an urban cyclist in Mexico City. Yes, non-bike-riders often tell me I'm crazy for risking my life daily in one of the world's largest cities, with all kinds of expeltives directed at my fellow countrymen......And they are all wrong.
Of course, I don't cycle in highways/motorways. Of course, I go out of my way to be sure I am seen. Of course, I know all of the driving rules (and many of the usual wrongs). Of course, I am very very careful. I am not the least interested in making my kids orphan.
But riding a bike in a city not thought for bikes is perfectly doable. And we will only achieve greater visibility and better city design by breaking the balance and becoming more visible. By becoming more cyclists. By being seen so often on the roads that motorists will *expect* us to be there.
I don't need (and often don't want, as they are usually not very well planned nor enough drivable) cyclist-only paths. We are a moving vehicle, and should coexist with traffic. After all, as GGP said, motorists average 22MPH (35.2Km/h). I average 20-25Km/h. It's not that much of a difference.
I bought my first-generation Acer Aspire One in 2008, back when the "netbook" segment was still new. It even became my main computer for some months, and was quite happy with it — Except, of course, for the 9" 1024x600 screen.
Two years ago, I upgraded to a Acer Aspire One 756. Better processor and more memory allow me to virtualize whenever I need to do some Windows stuff (twice a year or so). That and a 10.5" 1366x768 screen, with mostly the same weight became godsend.
Having a computer that allows me to upgrade once every five years, and that can be bought at US$300 at the supermarket... That's what I call convenience.
There was a wholeline of Commodore PCs. The computing school I learnt at was a pure-Commodore shop, and it had some PCs that we students didn't ever care about.
Over 15 years ago, at the school I worked for, we were offered satellite-based Internet via DirectPC (a DirecTV subsidiary). The speed was amazing by late-1990s standards, 400Kbps sustained! But latency was a killer, at approximately one second minimum. Routing was also nightmarish, as the uplink was phone-based (thus not requiring immense power to transmit, and keeping the lag well, not acceptable, but almost).
I hope "low orbit" is close enough to the Earth to dillute all that latency. Say, if the distance is comparable to what we get in a transatlantic connection, it might just be usable for everything-but-gamers:)
In the USA, and for almost ten years already in Mexico as well, retirement plans are personal: You save the money for your retirement, usually through a banking branch devoted to long-term finances. And hope for the best.
The scheme we had in Mexico until 2007, and that Argentina enjoys, is largely different: It's solidary retirement. You pay your retirement basically as a tax, it happens automatically before your paycheck arrives to your hands. What retired people receive comes from the active workers' dues.
How much do you receive for retirement? A large percentage (IIRC ~80%) of the salary you got during your last three years of employment, multiplied by the accumulated inflation/devaluation.
FWIW, Argentina moved to individual retirement schemes in the 1990s, when they followed rigidly neoliberal schemes. Retirement funds plummeted at the 2002 crisis, and –to avoid all retired people from losing everything, plus working people's money to disappear as well– they went back to the solidary retirement scheme.
My Argentinian family has employed, for house cleaning duty, several people over the years — It's sadly common in Latin America. They have kept in touch with several of those people and their families. Many of their children have pursued higher education, and social mobility is something clearly possible in Argentina. Of course, social mobility also means you can go down — But being born in a poor family in the province does not mean your children will as well.
Here in Mexico it's sad and frankly depressing. Social mobility is close to nil; poverty and lack of opportunities are self-perpetuating. I know a couple of people who have managed to break the "curse" of their history, but it's really, really hard to come by.
Socioeconomic distances in Argentina are way shorter. There are rich and poor people, yes, but most rich people are not *that* much richer and secluded, there is much more social interaction, less ghettoization. That leads to a healthier society.
right! Maybe it's because the government is doing a good job (or at least, a not-bad-enough job) for people not to want to change them. Remember that Argentina is a really lively democracy, with people much more involved in politics than what I know in other countries. And that there are not only two or three parties, but a rich gradient of political viewpoints.
Wrong. My wife is from Paraná, Entre Ríos. They have pretty good 3G coverage there. I was for a couple of weeks in Rosario, Santa Fé, which has also great 3G coverage. Of course, Rosario is a big city, and Paraná is after all a central province capital... But it is clearly not just Buenos Aires.
The current Argentinian government has among the highest approval rates historically in their country. And everything points towards the same project winning this years' elections.
Argentinian economy fares way better and is way stabler than everything they had in most of our lifetimes. Until the early 1980s, the corrupt, inept, USA-backed military broke one of the strongest economies in the post-world-war era; in the 1980s, Alfonsín had to resign after having >1000% yearly deflation. During the 1990s, everything seemed rosy at first as Menem dollarized the economy pegging AR$1=US$1, but the cracks started to appear towards the end of his regime. In 2000-2002, everything crashed down, the currency deflated to a fourth of its value, and there were even provincial currencies because nobody believed in the peso (sounds familiar?)
Then, starting 2003, Nestor Kirchner narrowly won the presidency (24% vs 22% IIRC). He was a huge success at stopping chaos. Four year later, Cristina Fernández took over, nationalized several industries, invested in national development and started a weak currency control. She was overwhemingly reelected in 2011. And despite everything, Argentina looks healthier than it ever was. Life for my friends is not a panacea, but they have a GREAT social security system, state-run health care, universal coverage of MANY important social programs...
And of course, they will most probably elect their great government to continue for the next four years.
Yes, you have a point — And specially in point #3. I live in Mexico, where few people can afford to buy a house as well. And there's a big difference favoring Argentina: The rental contracts. Legal rental contracts are always for two years or more, and with prices fixed in pesos (this means, you know how much you will pay for your rental two years from now). Although this won't allow you to buy a house, it does allow you to mid-term plan your finances better than in most of our continent.
Remember this is the third voted Argentinian government that implements this line of policies. Last election (2011) was won by an overwhelming 58% (which, in a real multi-party country, is a landmark to achieve — Kirchner's government won with slightly over 20%. There is a presidental election for this year, and everything points at a fourth mandate.
So, do you really think they are bad economically or desperate?
Slashdot Mirror
If you have been researching for years on the mating habits of the Papuan purple-eyed spider, finding the differences between their behaviour and that of other spider genii, you would surely include that description as part of your title — It would not be responsible to make others think the article is general when it deals with a very specific variety.
(please note that the example is entirely fictional and I know zero about spiders or biological taxonomy)
Algorithmically generated papers try to imitate what's generated by legitimate writers. If people were to mostly write papers with short titles, it would be a tad harder to hide the voidness of meaning in titles any person could understand :)
People are often satisfied with using "S3krit" as an encryption key. Explain why you need a key with decent entropy/randomness and so large there's no use in trying to remember it... Users will store the key in the same medium as the encrypted data. So much for crypto strength.
You can look sat thereasoning in the 1999 article Why Johnny can't encrypt: a usability evaluation of PGP 5.0. It's quite sad how little progress we have seen in 16 years.
In most Latin American countries, the best universities are fully or partly State-run. Tuition is often free or symbolic up to Bachelors, and for posgraduate studies it is still *really* cheap by US standards — i.e. I'm studying a Masters degree in the second most important university in Mexico, and pay less than US$100 per semester. Of course, that's because I chose not to be a full-time student; as I would automaticallyreceive a grant of ~US$600 per month.
Again, we (cyclists) must be responsible users of the public space. Those tires you mention are for competition, for speed bike, or if at all, for touring long-hauls — but not for city trips. For the city, we need good rubber tires, with enough texture to be able to stop effectively, and able to withstand minor puncturing objects. And if we don't, well, our bike is not fit for urban use.
I'd laugh at people using Monster Trucks to go to work (unless,of course, they work at a Monster Truck show :-P ), or people using Scandinavian winter tires in my (tropical) country. They are just not fit for it.
They can share the space if they do so responsibly. Most city roads are not meant for high-speed driving. Most city roads will by themselves impose a ~40Km/h effective limit on cars — And bikes are not that much of a hassle then. Of course, motorways are off limits for cyclists.
And yes, here we agree again. We can only coexist when both motorists and cyclists abide by the basic rules.
We claim the whole lane because we need to. If there is a hole in the pavement, I must be able to quickly move around it — Of course, I instintively do so to the right (with no chances of a car passing by too quick), but it's not always possible. But I can do it only because I ride near the center of the lane. If I were in the right side of the rightmost lane, I would not have any wiggle space. And, of course, that's where all of the (what's the name for the sewer openings?) are.
Don't know about your city, but in our driving law using the sidewalk is expressly forbidden unless you unmount your bike. And yes, I carry a copy of this law with me; it's not often useful, but I have taken it out a couple of times (when arguing with motorists, not with cops)
And it is somewhat true. I also have my tricks for my usual drive to work. If you bike to work, you will spend some weeks finding the best route and then optimizing it a bit — but after that, you will just basically repeat known patterns.
Cycling in places I am not familiar with means I must be even more careful, which translates to driving slower. And absolutely with no distractions (i.e. radio).
I agree with half of your message. And –as an urban cyclist– violently disagree with the other half.
YES, cyclists should share the road with motorists.
But, YES, cyclists are driving a vehicle, and thus subject to driving regulations.
People often honk at me when I'm just standing waiting for the light to turn green — Well, guess what? The traffic light also applies to me on my bike. I expect to ride on the center of the rightmost, non-parking available lane AND RESPECT ALL TRAFFIC INDICATIONS. Running traffic lights or going against the legal direction are just deathwishes. I love cycling. But I love being alive.
...Unless, by adding a bike lane, you take current cars out out of the city center. Each cyclist that uses the path is one less motorist. Less congestion.
Oh, FFS... I am an urban cyclist in Mexico City. Yes, non-bike-riders often tell me I'm crazy for risking my life daily in one of the world's largest cities, with all kinds of expeltives directed at my fellow countrymen... ...And they are all wrong.
Of course, I don't cycle in highways/motorways. Of course, I go out of my way to be sure I am seen. Of course, I know all of the driving rules (and many of the usual wrongs). Of course, I am very very careful. I am not the least interested in making my kids orphan.
But riding a bike in a city not thought for bikes is perfectly doable. And we will only achieve greater visibility and better city design by breaking the balance and becoming more visible. By becoming more cyclists. By being seen so often on the roads that motorists will *expect* us to be there.
I don't need (and often don't want, as they are usually not very well planned nor enough drivable) cyclist-only paths. We are a moving vehicle, and should coexist with traffic. After all, as GGP said, motorists average 22MPH (35.2Km/h). I average 20-25Km/h. It's not that much of a difference.
I bought my first-generation Acer Aspire One in 2008, back when the "netbook" segment was still new. It even became my main computer for some months, and was quite happy with it — Except, of course, for the 9" 1024x600 screen.
Two years ago, I upgraded to a Acer Aspire One 756. Better processor and more memory allow me to virtualize whenever I need to do some Windows stuff (twice a year or so). That and a 10.5" 1366x768 screen, with mostly the same weight became godsend.
Having a computer that allows me to upgrade once every five years, and that can be bought at US$300 at the supermarket... That's what I call convenience.
There was a wholeline of Commodore PCs. The computing school I learnt at was a pure-Commodore shop, and it had some PCs that we students didn't ever care about.
Yes, low orbit is a must.
Over 15 years ago, at the school I worked for, we were offered satellite-based Internet via DirectPC (a DirecTV subsidiary). The speed was amazing by late-1990s standards, 400Kbps sustained! But latency was a killer, at approximately one second minimum. Routing was also nightmarish, as the uplink was phone-based (thus not requiring immense power to transmit, and keeping the lag well, not acceptable, but almost).
I hope "low orbit" is close enough to the Earth to dillute all that latency. Say, if the distance is comparable to what we get in a transatlantic connection, it might just be usable for everything-but-gamers :)
What's the difference between this and, say, Bochs 20 years ago?
Emulating x86 is not hard. It's not efficient either.
In 10K? If anything, it's Linux-inspired. I joined by ~1.2.x (1995), and the minimum specs were already ~2MB RAM.
In the USA, and for almost ten years already in Mexico as well, retirement plans are personal: You save the money for your retirement, usually through a banking branch devoted to long-term finances. And hope for the best.
The scheme we had in Mexico until 2007, and that Argentina enjoys, is largely different: It's solidary retirement. You pay your retirement basically as a tax, it happens automatically before your paycheck arrives to your hands. What retired people receive comes from the active workers' dues.
How much do you receive for retirement? A large percentage (IIRC ~80%) of the salary you got during your last three years of employment, multiplied by the accumulated inflation/devaluation.
FWIW, Argentina moved to individual retirement schemes in the 1990s, when they followed rigidly neoliberal schemes. Retirement funds plummeted at the 2002 crisis, and –to avoid all retired people from losing everything, plus working people's money to disappear as well– they went back to the solidary retirement scheme.
My Argentinian family has employed, for house cleaning duty, several people over the years — It's sadly common in Latin America. They have kept in touch with several of those people and their families. Many of their children have pursued higher education, and social mobility is something clearly possible in Argentina. Of course, social mobility also means you can go down — But being born in a poor family in the province does not mean your children will as well.
Here in Mexico it's sad and frankly depressing. Social mobility is close to nil; poverty and lack of opportunities are self-perpetuating. I know a couple of people who have managed to break the "curse" of their history, but it's really, really hard to come by.
Socioeconomic distances in Argentina are way shorter. There are rich and poor people, yes, but most rich people are not *that* much richer and secluded, there is much more social interaction, less ghettoization. That leads to a healthier society.
right! Maybe it's because the government is doing a good job (or at least, a not-bad-enough job) for people not to want to change them. Remember that Argentina is a really lively democracy, with people much more involved in politics than what I know in other countries. And that there are not only two or three parties, but a rich gradient of political viewpoints.
Wrong. My wife is from Paraná, Entre Ríos. They have pretty good 3G coverage there. I was for a couple of weeks in Rosario, Santa Fé, which has also great 3G coverage. Of course, Rosario is a big city, and Paraná is after all a central province capital... But it is clearly not just Buenos Aires.
The current Argentinian government has among the highest approval rates historically in their country. And everything points towards the same project winning this years' elections.
Argentinian economy fares way better and is way stabler than everything they had in most of our lifetimes. Until the early 1980s, the corrupt, inept, USA-backed military broke one of the strongest economies in the post-world-war era; in the 1980s, Alfonsín had to resign after having >1000% yearly deflation. During the 1990s, everything seemed rosy at first as Menem dollarized the economy pegging AR$1=US$1, but the cracks started to appear towards the end of his regime. In 2000-2002, everything crashed down, the currency deflated to a fourth of its value, and there were even provincial currencies because nobody believed in the peso (sounds familiar?)
Then, starting 2003, Nestor Kirchner narrowly won the presidency (24% vs 22% IIRC). He was a huge success at stopping chaos. Four year later, Cristina Fernández took over, nationalized several industries, invested in national development and started a weak currency control. She was overwhemingly reelected in 2011. And despite everything, Argentina looks healthier than it ever was. Life for my friends is not a panacea, but they have a GREAT social security system, state-run health care, universal coverage of MANY important social programs...
And of course, they will most probably elect their great government to continue for the next four years.
Yes, you have a point — And specially in point #3. I live in Mexico, where few people can afford to buy a house as well. And there's a big difference favoring Argentina: The rental contracts. Legal rental contracts are always for two years or more, and with prices fixed in pesos (this means, you know how much you will pay for your rental two years from now). Although this won't allow you to buy a house, it does allow you to mid-term plan your finances better than in most of our continent.
This. Mod parent up. Few people commenting this thread have the slightest idea on how Argentina is.It's living among its best moments in decades.
Remember this is the third voted Argentinian government that implements this line of policies. Last election (2011) was won by an overwhelming 58% (which, in a real multi-party country, is a landmark to achieve — Kirchner's government won with slightly over 20%. There is a presidental election for this year, and everything points at a fourth mandate.
So, do you really think they are bad economically or desperate?