Notice the name "The Design and Implementation of the 4.3 BSD UNIX Operating System
Notice the use of the phrase Netcraft stats? It was a joke is all. I actually got my start to this whole GNU thing on FreeBSD 4.* After you crash course into UNIX that way, Gentoo, Debian, etc. don't seem all that scary. I had KDE running over FreeBSD on a Pentium II. I thought I was the hottest things since sliced bread.
First they asked to see your Sam's Club receipt (for inventory control purposes) and you relented...then they asked to see ID before processing your credit card (to prevent you from being a victim of fraud) and you said okay....then they....oh nevermind!
Yeah it's a slippery slope from Sam's Club to despotism - pack a walking stick!
but paper reciepts are pretty useless and a waste of money IMHO
As opposed to the countless millions of dollars spent on productive things in a typical American election - such as confusing negative attack ads based on out of context statements?
I think that a paper ballot, held by an election body for X years, would serve as a traceable record of a vote and would go a long way in preventing the kinds of voting abuse that occur during elections.
What a coincidence - I just recieved an email today from someone in a very similar situation. MR. ALBERT WABANGO from Siera Leone (at least I think - he said he was "sieralionese"). Anyway, long story short, he's going to give me nearly 20% of his dearly departed Dad's money - AND pray to god for my health and safety. What a swell guy.
Seriously though, I'm still astounded that people ACTUALLY fall for this crap - I think there should be an entire class sometime in high school dedicated to giving some common sense "real life" skills (and at least a quarter of the time dedicated to online malfeasance-avoidance) - First lesson: If it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is!
but I'm pretty sure they had 100% market share for atleast a little while
Now you're just nitpicking. yes, on a pure technicality, the FIRST hdd mp3 player to market had 100% of the market until other HDD mp3 players came out. Wow, that just totally blew my point out of the water. No, wait - it didn't.
What I'm arguing is that the iPod has become THE mp3 player - it has decimated other HDD players AND flash players - it doesn't discriminate. Apple found the magic needed to bring the iPod to that kind of popularity (over 60% of the market share of ALL mp3 players). If semantics is all you have to reply with, I recommend saving your bandwidth.
And you're extremely dense. His point, to paraphrase was "Henry Ford is to the car as Apple is to the portable Mp3 Player"
And he's right. How many of those pre-ipod models had the market share the iPod does? Apple came and turned the iPod into THE mp3 player. They didn't invent the damn thing anymore than Ford invented the car - but they got it into the hands of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people better than anyone else. Period. Next time think a little before being a negative shit.
Re:Look north for proof how wrong you might be....
on
Smart Guns are Coming
·
· Score: 1
Comparing the United States to Canada (or any other country) is like comparing apples and rocks. You completely left out a lot of things that affect the homicide rate in the United States.
That would be the whole reason to use statistics and relative figures.
1. Your death rate failed to distinguish accidents, lawful homicides, and unlawful homicides.
While true, it still speaks in terms of deaths per million - and you guys are still at 62 vs 6 - surely "lawful homicides" and accidents aren't taking up all that slack - you're not that clumsy (take note of "per million" -- that's how you make the comparison between apples and rocks) Besides, in terms of behaviour, when you adjust for gun ownership, you see that the suicide rate by gun is the same - the two peoples aren't entirely different.
2. Drug-related violence and organized crime are resposible for a large portion of the gun-death rate in the U.S. As far as I know, Canada does not have the Crips and the Bloods, among others. I don't know about organized crime in Canada, but I imagine the opportunities are less in Canada.
No instead we have something far more sinister and dangerous. A near-national organized crime gang that can be found in the largest cities and smallest towns that controls a large majority of the drug trade from coast-to-coast. There are routinely raids on biker gangs where numerous guns and weapons are recovered.
3. Gun death rates are higher in major cities because cities tend to have higher crime rates than urban areas. (More opportunity, socioeconomic conditions, etc.) The U.S. has far more major cities than Canada.
Yes there are more major cities down there, but that's to be expected since there's over 300 million of you and only about 35 million of us...Again, that's why I went with gun deaths per million. But if you think that Vancouver's East side or large tracts of Toronto, or the Hell's Angels turf in Montreal are Candy Lands, you're mistaken.
4. Cultural conflicts. Canada (with the exception of the problems in Quebec) has largely a homogenous culture. In the United States, we have many hyphenated-Americans, and violence between cultural groups. This would account for for some of the increased death rate.
Two things, do you have proof that your higher gun violence is the result of different hyphenated-Americans turning on each other? I don't. Second, Canada is only homogeneous in the sense that most of us don't shoot each other. There are huge regional differences at work here. B.C. is like your California/Washington. Alberta is essentially the entire MidWest (Biblebelt) condensed. Saskatchewan and Manitoba go somewhere in between. Ontario is a mixture of many things, from cosmopolitan Toronto to the ultraconservative North. Quebec...enough said. The Maritimes is a whole other world. There are plenty of differences across the country - and we have a huge immigrant population.
The simple fact is, it isn't just about gun availability, it's largely about culture and crime.
Are you suggesting that if there were less automatic guns and handguns around, just as many people would be shot and killed in the US??? Because that's was sort of my whole point in the previous post - If you had less guns in circulation that were built for only one purpose (ie shooting humans) you'd probably have less humans shot. And the numbers DO support that hypothesis.
Gun deaths are a symptom, the disease is something else.
Such as the belief that an amendment made 200 years ago during times when reinvasion by a British monarch were a possiblity is somehow a justification to be able to carry concealed and/or automatic weaponry around today?
Look north for proof how wrong you might be....
on
Smart Guns are Coming
·
· Score: 1
Here's an interesting tidbit:
Canada Households with guns: 26% Gun deaths per million: 6 Gun suicides per million: 33.5 Banned guns: Fully automatics; Converted automatics; Semi-automatic assault weapons; Some handguns
USA Households with guns: 41% Gun deaths per million: 62.4 Gun suicides per million: 72.3 Banned guns: some guns in some states
What's my point here? Let's see, if you adjust for households with guns you see that just as many people who want to shoot THEMSELVES to death get a chance to in both countries....Yet despite having only half the number of households with guns (ie ownership) we have ONE TENTH the number of gun murders...with the major difference being that in Canada it's not alright to be a one man army. Those numbers really do speak all for themselves.
Guns have a purpose (like hunting or law enforcement), but really, taking on burglars (That 6 vs 62.4 deaths per million thing would be the "perpetrated by criminals" number) or THE LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD (2nd amendment) probably aren't that high up on the list of things they're good for. This has been a really long winded way of asking you, did you ever think that maybe if you made less military grade/easily concealable weaponry available it might make you less likely to be shot by it? It works in lots of other places.
Mr. Tenet went on further to say that perhaps airlines should only be used for flight by Very Important People, and that "commoners" probably don't need to use the telephone for all that much either.
Will you look at those pictures of furniture? Why was Acclaim outfitted the same as some 18th century castles? There's fireplace hearths and what looks like cherry wood for crying out loud.
Actually, the US still leads most of the world in terms of the volume of money thrown at science. A quick example, your neighbours to the north (note the extraneous 'u') here allocate about $70 million a year for dedicated cancer research. We're a country about 1/10 the size of the US, which spends $7 Billion a year in the same area - that's more than your fair share (or we're just really underfunded here -- or a bit of both). Either way, when you look at postdoc studies, the US is one of THE places to go still - NIH, NCI, etc.
I myself will probably find myself there for a few years, but you can damn well bet I'll head back up North afterwards, for healthcare and school for my kids. And no neocons.
we can't put a dollar amount on the "total" costs of oil because we don't know what all the effects are, nor do we know what all the effects are of the hydrogen system suggested by the poster. There are too many unknowns in the equation.
So because not enough research has been done to figure out these values, we should just ignore them and not bother trying to determine them or figure them into cost/benefit analyses of major capital expenditures?
All of these costs may not be totally determined, but that does not mean theydon'texist. This is something we should all be working towards.
A much greater threat is theft of radioisotopes from hospitals, etc, which are relatively unguarded.
That was the case a few years ago (here in Canada anyway), but not anymore. Radioisotopes such as 32-Phosphorus are now required to be "securely" locked up. I agree with you that the pschological impact of this would be great, but most of the isotopes found in a lab/hospital are relatively safe, with very short halflife (32-P is only about 2 weeks). your favourite terrorists(tm) would have to get a hold of hundreds of buckets of the stuff to cause any significant harm.
Yet, in your scenario, one person (or corporation or government) shoulders the entire cost, and thus risk.
No, if you bothered to read my post you would realize I only wanted to draw attention to the fact that our system is skewed right now, because cost/benefit analysis essentially ignores the cost associated with a polluted environment/worsened health.
Example: if consumers electricity bills reflected the cost of generating juice from their coal-fired plants AND the cost to the healthcare system for lung cancer/emphesaema, then I highly doubt anyone would be building/using coal-fired electricity plants anymore.
They are only in use because we're offloading a significant portion of the costs to future generations.
Whenever I see someone cite "cost" as a major hurdle to this kind of investment I just shake my head. What you actually mean is "short-sightedness", since the cost of not doing something like this is never represented properly. Someone needs to put a dollar figure on what the total destruction of our environment (ie the planet), and the impact on human health, of car exhaust/smog/fossil fuels truly is.
I think that if these costs were factored into the equation, the money involved in building a few nukes to power a clean, H2O-exhausting economy would be MINISCULE by comparison.
On a related note, as a graduate student in a biosciences lab, I always chuckle when I see one of the CSI lab techs at a bench - without fail there's a pipettor used in most episodes. Usually dispensing some sort of coloured mystery liquid. Obviously it can't be science without your trusty pipette in hand.
Seriously, any other science geeks get a kick everytime they see a lab coat and pipette?
The reviewers added the disclaimer that MSN was having "teething problems" (ie. still in progress), so the informed reader needs to keep this in mind as they compare MSN to the other more established competitors.
There are plenty of Gmail reviews out there, even though it is still in beta. I think it's perfectly acceptable to review/test a beta product that has been put online (for the express purpose of testing) if for no other reason than to provide feedback for MSFT to use if they so desire.
Slashdot should just ignore SCO stories, especially minor ones like this.
Haha - you make funny - but here on/., the slashbots won't leave SCO alone until they have videotaped evidence of Darl statues being pulled over with big ropes and a written confession from M$FT saying that it was actually their doing all along.
Don't believe me? I'm not saying that SCO isn't slimey evil, just that it sounds like your smoking the good stuff.
First, thanks to whoever added the funny mod to my original post - it WAS supposed to be mostly tongue-in-cheek (I used the term 'mega-jerks' for cryin' out loud).
Secondly, my general feeling is that just because something is 'technically' okay (it's okay to put tons of convential armaments in space, so long as it's not a nuke), doesn't mean that it's really that great an idea. So the USofA throws a bunch of missles up there, then geopolitical oneupmanship dictates that countries like China have to do the same, this escalates, history repeats itself, and we're stuck with a new Cold War (or worse). I realize these are trying times, but if we don't all strive (ie TRY) to act in a good faith manner (ie don't put weapons in space), then there's ZERO possiblity that good things can happen.
I have no problem with the U.S.A. doing the research and ensuring that they have the capabilities in place to respond to such a situation, but being the first one up there reeks of ickiness. Can't we have one place in or around this world that's not littered with man-made things that kill people? Just one place...
Please stop being mega-jerks and maybe start keeping SOME of the promises you make. I believe you did just re-elect someone who campaigned on 'values' or some such business - abiding by international treaties probably falls somewhere under that category.
Slashdot Mirror
Notice the name "The Design and Implementation of the 4.3 BSD UNIX Operating System
Notice the use of the phrase Netcraft stats? It was a joke is all. I actually got my start to this whole GNU thing on FreeBSD 4.* After you crash course into UNIX that way, Gentoo, Debian, etc. don't seem all that scary. I had KDE running over FreeBSD on a Pentium II. I thought I was the hottest things since sliced bread.
What about *BSD? I think the absence of any mention here is a clear indicator that it's dying. Anyone have some Netcraft stats?
First they asked to see your Sam's Club receipt (for inventory control purposes) and you relented...then they asked to see ID before processing your credit card (to prevent you from being a victim of fraud) and you said okay....then they....oh nevermind!
Yeah it's a slippery slope from Sam's Club to despotism - pack a walking stick!
but paper reciepts are pretty useless and a waste of money IMHO
As opposed to the countless millions of dollars spent on productive things in a typical American election - such as confusing negative attack ads based on out of context statements?
I think that a paper ballot, held by an election body for X years, would serve as a traceable record of a vote and would go a long way in preventing the kinds of voting abuse that occur during elections.
What a coincidence - I just recieved an email today from someone in a very similar situation. MR. ALBERT WABANGO from Siera Leone (at least I think - he said he was "sieralionese"). Anyway, long story short, he's going to give me nearly 20% of his dearly departed Dad's money - AND pray to god for my health and safety. What a swell guy.
Seriously though, I'm still astounded that people ACTUALLY fall for this crap - I think there should be an entire class sometime in high school dedicated to giving some common sense "real life" skills (and at least a quarter of the time dedicated to online malfeasance-avoidance) - First lesson: If it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is!
That joke really made me laugh - first time I read it
Now you're just nitpicking. yes, on a pure technicality, the FIRST hdd mp3 player to market had 100% of the market until other HDD mp3 players came out. Wow, that just totally blew my point out of the water. No, wait - it didn't.
What I'm arguing is that the iPod has become THE mp3 player - it has decimated other HDD players AND flash players - it doesn't discriminate. Apple found the magic needed to bring the iPod to that kind of popularity (over 60% of the market share of ALL mp3 players). If semantics is all you have to reply with, I recommend saving your bandwidth.
And you're extremely dense. His point, to paraphrase was "Henry Ford is to the car as Apple is to the portable Mp3 Player"
And he's right. How many of those pre-ipod models had the market share the iPod does? Apple came and turned the iPod into THE mp3 player. They didn't invent the damn thing anymore than Ford invented the car - but they got it into the hands of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people better than anyone else. Period. Next time think a little before being a negative shit.
Post anonymously - that's gotta be wife proof
That would be the whole reason to use statistics and relative figures.
While true, it still speaks in terms of deaths per million - and you guys are still at 62 vs 6 - surely "lawful homicides" and accidents aren't taking up all that slack - you're not that clumsy (take note of "per million" -- that's how you make the comparison between apples and rocks) Besides, in terms of behaviour, when you adjust for gun ownership, you see that the suicide rate by gun is the same - the two peoples aren't entirely different.
No instead we have something far more sinister and dangerous. A near-national organized crime gang that can be found in the largest cities and smallest towns that controls a large majority of the drug trade from coast-to-coast. There are routinely raids on biker gangs where numerous guns and weapons are recovered.
Yes there are more major cities down there, but that's to be expected since there's over 300 million of you and only about 35 million of us...Again, that's why I went with gun deaths per million. But if you think that Vancouver's East side or large tracts of Toronto, or the Hell's Angels turf in Montreal are Candy Lands, you're mistaken.
Two things, do you have proof that your higher gun violence is the result of different hyphenated-Americans turning on each other? I don't. Second, Canada is only homogeneous in the sense that most of us don't shoot each other. There are huge regional differences at work here. B.C. is like your California/Washington. Alberta is essentially the entire MidWest (Biblebelt) condensed. Saskatchewan and Manitoba go somewhere in between. Ontario is a mixture of many things, from cosmopolitan Toronto to the ultraconservative North. Quebec...enough said. The Maritimes is a whole other world. There are plenty of differences across the country - and we have a huge immigrant population.
Are you suggesting that if there were less automatic guns and handguns around, just as many people would be shot and killed in the US??? Because that's was sort of my whole point in the previous post - If you had less guns in circulation that were built for only one purpose (ie shooting humans) you'd probably have less humans shot. And the numbers DO support that hypothesis.
Such as the belief that an amendment made 200 years ago during times when reinvasion by a British monarch were a possiblity is somehow a justification to be able to carry concealed and/or automatic weaponry around today?
Here's an interesting tidbit:
Canada
Households with guns: 26%
Gun deaths per million: 6
Gun suicides per million: 33.5
Banned guns: Fully automatics; Converted automatics; Semi-automatic assault weapons; Some handguns
USA
Households with guns: 41%
Gun deaths per million: 62.4
Gun suicides per million: 72.3
Banned guns: some guns in some states
What's my point here? Let's see, if you adjust for households with guns you see that just as many people who want to shoot THEMSELVES to death get a chance to in both countries....Yet despite having only half the number of households with guns (ie ownership) we have ONE TENTH the number of gun murders...with the major difference being that in Canada it's not alright to be a one man army. Those numbers really do speak all for themselves.
Guns have a purpose (like hunting or law enforcement), but really, taking on burglars (That 6 vs 62.4 deaths per million thing would be the "perpetrated by criminals" number) or THE LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD (2nd amendment) probably aren't that high up on the list of things they're good for. This has been a really long winded way of asking you, did you ever think that maybe if you made less military grade/easily concealable weaponry available it might make you less likely to be shot by it? It works in lots of other places.
Just my 2x$0.25 (adjusted for currency exchange)
Buy a Windows handheld.
Haha. Just kidding.
(ducks his head)
Mr. Tenet went on further to say that perhaps airlines should only be used for flight by Very Important People, and that "commoners" probably don't need to use the telephone for all that much either.
This is like hearing the following newscast:
"In other news, the news we told you about yesterday is still true news today."
I'm wondering how much taxpayer money went in to this ground breaking work to reprove those silly Laws of Thermodynamics?
Will you look at those pictures of furniture? Why was Acclaim outfitted the same as some 18th century castles? There's fireplace hearths and what looks like cherry wood for crying out loud.
(fp?)
Actually, the US still leads most of the world in terms of the volume of money thrown at science. A quick example, your neighbours to the north (note the extraneous 'u') here allocate about $70 million a year for dedicated cancer research. We're a country about 1/10 the size of the US, which spends $7 Billion a year in the same area - that's more than your fair share (or we're just really underfunded here -- or a bit of both). Either way, when you look at postdoc studies, the US is one of THE places to go still - NIH, NCI, etc.
I myself will probably find myself there for a few years, but you can damn well bet I'll head back up North afterwards, for healthcare and school for my kids. And no neocons.
we can't put a dollar amount on the "total" costs of oil because we don't know what all the effects are, nor do we know what all the effects are of the hydrogen system suggested by the poster. There are too many unknowns in the equation.
So because not enough research has been done to figure out these values, we should just ignore them and not bother trying to determine them or figure them into cost/benefit analyses of major capital expenditures?
All of these costs may not be totally determined, but that does not mean they don't exist. This is something we should all be working towards.
A much greater threat is theft of radioisotopes from hospitals, etc, which are relatively unguarded.
That was the case a few years ago (here in Canada anyway), but not anymore. Radioisotopes such as 32-Phosphorus are now required to be "securely" locked up. I agree with you that the pschological impact of this would be great, but most of the isotopes found in a lab/hospital are relatively safe, with very short halflife (32-P is only about 2 weeks). your favourite terrorists(tm) would have to get a hold of hundreds of buckets of the stuff to cause any significant harm.
Yet, in your scenario, one person (or corporation or government) shoulders the entire cost, and thus risk.
No, if you bothered to read my post you would realize I only wanted to draw attention to the fact that our system is skewed right now, because cost/benefit analysis essentially ignores the cost associated with a polluted environment/worsened health.
Example: if consumers electricity bills reflected the cost of generating juice from their coal-fired plants AND the cost to the healthcare system for lung cancer/emphesaema, then I highly doubt anyone would be building/using coal-fired electricity plants anymore.
They are only in use because we're offloading a significant portion of the costs to future generations.
Whenever I see someone cite "cost" as a major hurdle to this kind of investment I just shake my head. What you actually mean is "short-sightedness", since the cost of not doing something like this is never represented properly. Someone needs to put a dollar figure on what the total destruction of our environment (ie the planet), and the impact on human health, of car exhaust/smog/fossil fuels truly is.
I think that if these costs were factored into the equation, the money involved in building a few nukes to power a clean, H2O-exhausting economy would be MINISCULE by comparison.
On a related note, as a graduate student in a biosciences lab, I always chuckle when I see one of the CSI lab techs at a bench - without fail there's a pipettor used in most episodes. Usually dispensing some sort of coloured mystery liquid. Obviously it can't be science without your trusty pipette in hand.
Seriously, any other science geeks get a kick everytime they see a lab coat and pipette?
The reviewers added the disclaimer that MSN was having "teething problems" (ie. still in progress), so the informed reader needs to keep this in mind as they compare MSN to the other more established competitors.
There are plenty of Gmail reviews out there, even though it is still in beta. I think it's perfectly acceptable to review/test a beta product that has been put online (for the express purpose of testing) if for no other reason than to provide feedback for MSFT to use if they so desire.
Haha - you make funny - but here on
Don't believe me? I'm not saying that SCO isn't slimey evil, just that it sounds like your smoking the good stuff.
First, thanks to whoever added the funny mod to my original post - it WAS supposed to be mostly tongue-in-cheek (I used the term 'mega-jerks' for cryin' out loud).
Secondly, my general feeling is that just because something is 'technically' okay (it's okay to put tons of convential armaments in space, so long as it's not a nuke), doesn't mean that it's really that great an idea. So the USofA throws a bunch of missles up there, then geopolitical oneupmanship dictates that countries like China have to do the same, this escalates, history repeats itself, and we're stuck with a new Cold War (or worse). I realize these are trying times, but if we don't all strive (ie TRY) to act in a good faith manner (ie don't put weapons in space), then there's ZERO possiblity that good things can happen.
I have no problem with the U.S.A. doing the research and ensuring that they have the capabilities in place to respond to such a situation, but being the first one up there reeks of ickiness. Can't we have one place in or around this world that's not littered with man-made things that kill people? Just one place...
That's all folks.
Please stop being mega-jerks and maybe start keeping SOME of the promises you make. I believe you did just re-elect someone who campaigned on 'values' or some such business - abiding by international treaties probably falls somewhere under that category.
Thanks,
the rest of the world