Actually, no. Read up on how commerce clause has evolved. Based on all of that, let's try having an ISP immune to federal regulation.
Your ISP can't have suppliers from out of state or customers from out of state. Yes, that means their entire server farm and telephony hardware must be locally produced, and they can't be attached to the national and international internet. They can't provide services which could be exported out of state or provide services that facilitate interstate transfer, so no email or web hosting that is accessible out of state. The porn provider must also be local and have no non-local suppliers (from the images to the hardware to the pipe). Lastly neither business can have employees other than the owner to avoid labor regulations.
Even with all of these measures in place, if such a business is a complete edge case (like the farmer growing wheat for himself) or if there's enough public outrage at the business (like for marijuana) then you're screwed anyway.
This is actually true, I do know the first 100 digits by heart.
Out of curiosity, are you an excellent driver?
Regeneration vs. scarring
on
An Alternate Human
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Actually scarring is what mammals have instead of regeneration. Due to our higher energy metabolisms, we can't afford the weeks of downtime without eating to regenerate like reptiles can.
Instead, we evolved scarring, which cuts off resources to an area in the hopes that we can still feed ourselves without it. As another benefit, we close off wounds from infection faster than animals with regeneration.
Studies in mice have shown that shutting off the ability to scar leads to regeneration. The ability lies with in us, but it closed off by the benefits of scarring. Now, under modern societial pressure, we may be better off learning how to suppress scarring since it no longer means an inability to feed ourselves. Some have argued that organ regeneration will be the antibiotics of the 21st century in that it will revolutionize medicine.
"Unwilling to extend himself or exert undue effort (with the possible exception of sexual activity). Feels that further progress requires more from him than he is willing or able to give. Would prefer reasonable comfort and security rather than the rewards of greater ambition."
That reads like a horoscope.. besides that, it couldn't be further from the truth.
Wait. Isn't you nick "Adult film producer?" I'm just saying the first and third sentence seem a little funny in that light.
Heh. Seriously, though, those things are little better than a horoscope for vagueness and accuracy, but I have a friend who had to take one of these before for a job, so I know they're out there.
It is one thing to be knowledgeable of the business. There are plenty of principled people who have worked in such businesses before. It's another thing entirely to be a shill for irresponsible behavior by such businesses.
I'll pick James Connaughton for my example. This man is a lawyer who has lobbied on behalf of coal, chemical, and utility companies to avoid having to pay to clean up Superfund sites that they created. One of these companies was GE, which has been responsible for creating the largest number of Superfund sites of any other company in the nation. They've also pumped a ton of money into lobbying against having to pick up the bill for toxic waste dumping and against the designation of sites as toxic waste dumps in the first place. A real good cause there, huh?
He also helped head up the ISO 14000 standard for environmental policy which has no real requirements beyond minimal compliance with the law and no external audit requirement. It's toothless and basically just a free sticker you can apply to your company to claim that you care about the environment without actually having to do so.
Once in office, he helped lead the charge to prevent the government from tightening standards on arsenic in the water supply. He has been a passionate advocate against any policy to reduce greenhouse gasses and has been implicated in censoring language in research studies that support the existence of global warming. He's been a supporter of the "Clean Skies" initiative which destroys a lot of the Clean Air Act's protective provisions. He likes to push for "volunatry standards" a.k.a. "not having to do anything about a problem."
He's just one example. His expertise has entirely been in helping business pursue profits at the expense of public health. His kind of industry experience the people can do without.
I was going to ask him, but if you're claiming to be the source, I guess I'll ask you instead:
How are those number for algal biodiesel obtained? As we talking flat ponds or tower structures for exposing more water to sunlight? Is active pumping of CO2 into the system required, or is this taken from the air? Does the system require any fertilizers? How much water does this system require?
(The last question is extremely important in light of possible global water shortages due to climate change in increased industrial and residential demand from cities in the next few decades.)
Laws exist because of people that do not possess personal responsibility. If we all behaved responsibly, we wouldn't need laws. Unfortunately, we don't all behave responsibly. One of two of us apparently thinks it's okay to drive drunk, for example, and most people would consider that to be a lack of personal responsibility.
You seem to think that the right to hurt people who have done you no wrong is an essential liberty or at least that you right to carelessly endanger others is one. I disagree, and I think most people would have to side with me on this one. If you don't think so, then I ask you to poll people you know to see how they react to the idea that it is your right to drive drunk.
Also, I'm having a real hard time debating this because I honestly can't get a bead on your beliefs. Do you feel that we should have any of the following other laws: -- Laws banning the sale of defective cars (aka lemon laws)? -- Laws banning the sale of contaminated meat? -- Laws against firing a weapon into the air in a crowd? -- Laws against dueling in the streets? -- Controls on the sale of high explosives? -- Controls on the sale of radioactive materials? -- Laws requiring a basic proficiency test before being allowed to drive / pilot? -- Laws requiring safety equipment at work?
If it's anything like the ones I've taken, the 'correct' response will be pretty obvious.
"What would you do if you found a coworker has been stealing office supplies?" (actual question)
Not to be a snob or anything, but that's a pretty telling sign of a crappy job where you're untrusted, unskilled, and replaceable. That's a fast food / call center job quiz. We're talking about something a little more subtle where they're more interested in how well you play with others than whether you're a petty criminal.
The kind of personality tests for corporate office workers are more along the lines of Myers-Briggs tests and and color-ranking quizzes than "don't do drugs; don't steal" tests. I don't trust these quizzes for two reasons:
1) They're not always accurate.
I vary strongly on E/I and J/P scales on a Myers-Briggs test depending on my mood, and with a little understanding of the categories, I can get any result I want. (Solid NT, though -- that part of the test is dead on, and it's extremely obvious in everything I say and do.)
The color test is just so much voodoo, in my opinion. However, since the system is totally opaque to the person being interviewed, you can't game it like you can a test that asks actual questions with recognizeable "right" and "wrong" answers. Similarly, there are all sorts of Bayesian-based tests with crazy questions that somehow tend to correlate to certain personality traits.
2) I don't trust my employer with the results.
Even if they were accurate, I see absolutely no reason to let my employer know anything about who I am beyond what I bring to work every day. Some of the tests purport to tell fears, points of anxiety, reasons for self-doubt, etc. If these results were true, then I don't trust my employers with that information. (I might trust my current boss with that info since we get along well, but I don't trust HR at all.)
Actually, it's even worse that they're frequently inaccurate. HR people who don't ever interact with you beyond an interview or some sort of legal difficulty will ardently believe the results to accurately measure you. What if your test says your intolerant or dishonest even if you're not?
I try to avoid these tests whenever I can. They inherently says that I can't be trusted as much as some scientifically-shaky questionaire since I could be a faker while these tests will reveal "the true me."
Well, I'm immediately sceptical of any Bush appointees motives.
You have... The mining lobbyist as a number 2 in the Department of the Interior and a cattle rancher laywer as the chief counsel. The pharmaceutical lawyer acting as lead counsel for the FDA. The meat industry lobbyist running our meat labelling program. The number 2 in the EPA was a Monsanto executive, and his pick for chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality represented GE in its fight against cleaning up its own toxic waste. The chief of staff left to go work for Southern Company (a major owner of coal plants) a week after clean air standard were relaxed.
Essentially, Bush has packed every government enforcement agency with people who have spent their careers trying to help companies get out of complying with regulations meant to protect the people. Even his own Supreme Court nominees are strong advocates of executive power. His legacy has been to undermine every control meant to keep him and his supports from running out of control.
Can we find someone whose love of country music has brought them to the studied position that "only money-grubbing assholes want DRM"?
You could try finding fans of Van Zant, I suppose since their CD was one of the XCP rootkit CDs. Then again, I don't listen to country music, so I'm not sure if that's a hard or easy task to find Van Zant fans, but given all the other artists affected by the root kit, I'm leaning towards hard.
That's sort of a "chicken and the egg" question, but I think that those who actively seek power are of two casts generally:
1) Those who want the leverage to change the world in a way that they couldn't accomplish without power. 2) Those who want to benefit themselves in a way that they couldn't accomplish without power.
In many cases, the line between the two is very fine since most people believe that what will benefit them will benefit society in general. It's what you do when you know they're in conflict that defines your character and your ability to recognize they're in conflict that defines your wisdom.
The point where you're too drunk to drive isn't the same as mine, so who decides what "drunk" is?
I've got a friend that drinks beer all day, and no matter how Shithoused he gets, he seems more sober than me (and I've never had a sip in my life). He's also a very safe driver.
Like I said, please try to restrict my liberty further. That'd be great.
I cannot believe this. You're actually arguing that people should be allowed to drive drunk. You're arguing that people be allowed to engage in reckless behavior that is proven to lead to the death of innocent bystanders because it's too hard to tell objectively what "drunk" is based on anecdotal evidence of a single friend.
Moral checkmate. You lose for lack of common sense and an inability to see the forest for a single tree. Even if your friend does have some miracle metabolism that's no justification for allowing the rest of us mortals to go out on the road plastered. The rest of us mere humans have measurably affected reflexes and attention when drunk no matter how composed we behave.
Honestly, if you think DUI should be permissable, then you don't have the common sense to deserve to be on the road yourself. Please tell me you don't have kids to pass this kind of stupid to.
[Devotees] just will NOT criticize [anything] they're emotionally involved with. It's the most ridiculous thing I've seen... these theoretically intelligent, rational [people] that become absolutely insane when you suggest [the object of their affection] is imperfect.
This more generalized statement applies not just to software, but to politics, religion, sports teams, brands of cars, etc., etc. Nationalists, religious zealots, OS zealots, hardcore fans, etc. are all the same kind of person -- someone who cannot handle objectivel criticism of something they love because they think that criticism and disdain are equal. They have a "mommy is never wrong" kind of love instead of a "my kid's not perfect, but I'm still proud of him" attitude.
These people drive me insane in every arena of life that I encounter them in.
No sooner do I post the question than I find the answer myself since I never stopped looking for answers elsewhere. So then I am faced with the question: Should I attempt to retract my posting or should I reply to my own question with the solution? Most of the time, I decide to do the later. Even though it makes me seem like an idiot answering my own question, I am always hopeful that someone else asks the same question but doesn't find the answer on their own.
From all of us using Google to solve our issues to people like you: "You rock."
Honestly, there's nothing more frustrating than finding a post from someone who's had the EXACT SAME PROBLEM as you that was never answered. People who actually go back and tell their answer help the rest of us out a lot.
After talking again to them, the only reason Student A was using Gentoo was because he had some crazy chipset he needed to compile everything for (a dual AMD setup which was rare back then) and he also revealed that he spent every Sunday night "emerging."
A lot of Gentoo users are the ricers of the Linux world -- a lot of pretense and futile effort for marginal performance gains. Unfortunately, tuning-weenies are really attracted to the distro, and these people are the worst kinds of OS snobs bar none.
However, there are a lot of other users of Gentoo for other reasons. Personally, I've started using the distribution because of the Hardened Gentoo project. While the distro's not as easy as Mandrake, I personally find portage more user friendly than dselect (as used by Debian, Ubuntu, etc.). Out of curiosity, what kind of snags did you run into, and what made you dislike it?
What with all these "getting older" stories? Is the gaming community having a mid-life crisis?
Basically, yes.
Those of us who grew up as the first generation of video gamers are growing older. Sure, there's all sorts of new gamers, but we're starting to see gamers in their thirties who started on video games in elementary school. As a result, there's a lot of navel-gazing about people who still love games but can't play all the games they used to as a kid.
I'm a big console RPG gamer. When I was a kid, I used to regularly rack up over 50 hours on a run through FF4, and I probably played the game from start to finish over 8 times. I'd disdain strategy guides on the first run or two while trying to find everything myself.
Now, as a gainfully employed adult, I'm lucky to have enough time to play through one of my RPGs once. I don't have time to get everything I missed on a second run, so at this point, I'm hitting FAQs from before I start the game and using cheat codes at the end to bypass some of the tedium of finishing side quests. I have a lot of games that I've bought thinking that they'd be great that are sitting on my shelf unopened because I just don't have time anymore.
I also haven't played a good 4X TBS game in ages because I just can't see myself spending a week to finish one play-through.
That's a demographic shift for gamers that does actually mean something in terms of what kinds of products we buy, and since we're the money makers now, the industry is catering to us. That's why you're seeing so much about this.
I see no reason to not allow built in hands-free kits when many drivers can use them safely. I really wonder about the accuracy of the ONE study that claims talking while driving is as bad as driving drunk.
I've actually more thoroughly addressed this in another post. It's not just ONE study. That post is just about the body work of a single researcher, but he's one of the few researchers to actually put people in simulators and measure reaction times instead of doing after-the-fact statistical analysis of accidents.
Hands free vs. handset is mostly irrelevant for reaction time, so it's not possible to use a hands-free set "safely." It's the problem of dual-task separation that causes slower reaction times when using a cellphone. You can't concentrate as well on the road when concentrating on a conversation. We aren't as capable of multitasking as we think we are, and controlled experiments have measured the difference.
From the 7th study on Strayer's site:
Compared to single-task conditions, cell-phone drivers'
reactions were 18% slower, their following distance was 12% greater, and they took 17% longer to recover the speed that was lost following braking.
Incidentally, in the 8th study where he compares people with a BAC of 0.08 vs cellphone drivers, the drunk drivers manage to get away without an accident while the cellphone drivers had 3. I found that funny.
Of course there are other authors to consider: This study looks at 699 accidents and checks the phone records of the drivers to arrive at the conclusion that you are 4X more likely to be in an accident while on a cell phone. This study notes that people who use cell phones while driving are 1.77X more likely to not use a seat belt than people who did not, indicating an overall lack of safety concern while driving.
I have a good researcher to follow for you, then. His work compares hands-free use, handset use, passive listening to radio and books on tape, and talking with passengers. He also compared younger & older drivers and the cellphones vs. alcohol. Check out David Strayer's work from the University of Utah.
The first paper linked there, Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular phone, covers handset use vs. hands-free use vs. listening to the radio vs. listening to books on tape. It also includes a test to weed out whether holding a phone had a seperate effect from not holding one (for purposes of attention). The results were that talking on a cell phone itself caused attention problems and reduced reaction time due to "dual-task interference." Remeber that term -- it's very important to why cell phones are distracting.
Now to go down the list of studies linked from that page: 2 - Finds change blindness when having a conversation 3 - People using CPs are twice as likely to miss traffic signals right in front of them as people listening to radio or without distractions. 5 - Showed people on CPs have worse braking time, miss info on billboards, and track less objects with their eyes while driving. 7 - Shows that old and young people are affected in equal proportion by CP usage and that young people become equivalent to old people in reaction times. 8 - Shows CP drivers are more impaired than legally drunk drivers but that drunk drivers are more aggressive while CP drivers give themselves more space to react than normal. 9 - Shows CP drivers don't strongly form memories about things they see while driving due to paying less attention. 10 - Compares CP use and talking to passengers. Both impair drivers compared to having no distractions, but CP users were more impaired. Passengers tended to talk more about traffic and yield conversation more often than CP conversants.
How do you enforce this? My cell has a speakerphone which I can use with the phone sitting down in the console. Nobody outside even knows its there. I suppose they could see my lips moving, but do we really want people being pulled over just for singing in their car?
Well, it would be a multi-pronged effort, but there would be people that slip through. Think of it as an analogy to drunk driving.
1) Pull over obvious offenders. Just as you pull over people weaving in their lane, you pull over people using a handset or wearing an earpiece. You then ticket them and have the station pull phone records before the court date.
2) Punish harshly those in an accident. Just as you do breathalizer tests on people you suspect being drunk in an accident, you pull cell phone records on people who get in accidents likely caused by inattention (rear endings, swideswiping during lane changes, etc.).
3) Some will get away. There are people who can act completely sober while legally intoxicated and there will be people with invisible hands-free kits.
The last thing you can do that doesn't have a good comparison to DUI is to simply ban the selling of hands-free kits built into the car in the US market. There will of course be grandfathered-in vehicles, but if driving while talking is illegal, then there's no legitimate reason to let them be sold after a certain date since they enable illegal behavior. This is why radar-detectors are illegal in many states, for example.
How about, if you are in an accident while using your cell phone, you accept the responsibility for your actions? Would that be such an unthinkable thing?
How about you not do something stupid that gets someone else injured in the first place?
By your logic, why do we pull over drunk drivers before they get in an accident anyway?
I think this is probably an example of prosecutors trying to throw every single law they think could stick on a guy to make sure he goes to prison for as long as possible.
"But Currie said the Argentine deposit had the remains of at least seven animals from 18 feet to 40 feet long, suggesting they may have been a herd or family in which different group members could provide either speed or strength."
Why else would you find multiple of the same kind of animal at various stages of growth dead in the same place if they weren't social animals?
Ever since Linnaeus came up with the modern taxonomical system, it's been one of the rewards of research to get to name a new species anything you want. That motivation drove a good many gentlemen science hobbyists in the 19th century to seek out and classify new animals at home and across the world for the pleasure of getting to name it whatever they felt like. The only frowned upon thing is to name if after yourself.
If the researcher who did this felt enough gratitude to his sponsor to name it after her, then good for him. It's not like anyone's making him do it. It's a sincere way of saying thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no. Read up on how commerce clause has evolved. Based on all of that, let's try having an ISP immune to federal regulation.
Your ISP can't have suppliers from out of state or customers from out of state. Yes, that means their entire server farm and telephony hardware must be locally produced, and they can't be attached to the national and international internet. They can't provide services which could be exported out of state or provide services that facilitate interstate transfer, so no email or web hosting that is accessible out of state. The porn provider must also be local and have no non-local suppliers (from the images to the hardware to the pipe). Lastly neither business can have employees other than the owner to avoid labor regulations.
Even with all of these measures in place, if such a business is a complete edge case (like the farmer growing wheat for himself) or if there's enough public outrage at the business (like for marijuana) then you're screwed anyway.
Have a nice day.
This is actually true, I do know the first 100 digits by heart.
Out of curiosity, are you an excellent driver?
Actually scarring is what mammals have instead of regeneration. Due to our higher energy metabolisms, we can't afford the weeks of downtime without eating to regenerate like reptiles can.
Instead, we evolved scarring, which cuts off resources to an area in the hopes that we can still feed ourselves without it. As another benefit, we close off wounds from infection faster than animals with regeneration.
Studies in mice have shown that shutting off the ability to scar leads to regeneration. The ability lies with in us, but it closed off by the benefits of scarring. Now, under modern societial pressure, we may be better off learning how to suppress scarring since it no longer means an inability to feed ourselves. Some have argued that organ regeneration will be the antibiotics of the 21st century in that it will revolutionize medicine.
That reads like a horoscope.. besides that, it couldn't be further from the truth.
Wait. Isn't you nick "Adult film producer?" I'm just saying the first and third sentence seem a little funny in that light.
Heh. Seriously, though, those things are little better than a horoscope for vagueness and accuracy, but I have a friend who had to take one of these before for a job, so I know they're out there.
It is one thing to be knowledgeable of the business. There are plenty of principled people who have worked in such businesses before. It's another thing entirely to be a shill for irresponsible behavior by such businesses.
I'll pick James Connaughton for my example. This man is a lawyer who has lobbied on behalf of coal, chemical, and utility companies to avoid having to pay to clean up Superfund sites that they created. One of these companies was GE, which has been responsible for creating the largest number of Superfund sites of any other company in the nation. They've also pumped a ton of money into lobbying against having to pick up the bill for toxic waste dumping and against the designation of sites as toxic waste dumps in the first place. A real good cause there, huh?
He also helped head up the ISO 14000 standard for environmental policy which has no real requirements beyond minimal compliance with the law and no external audit requirement. It's toothless and basically just a free sticker you can apply to your company to claim that you care about the environment without actually having to do so.
Once in office, he helped lead the charge to prevent the government from tightening standards on arsenic in the water supply. He has been a passionate advocate against any policy to reduce greenhouse gasses and has been implicated in censoring language in research studies that support the existence of global warming. He's been a supporter of the "Clean Skies" initiative which destroys a lot of the Clean Air Act's protective provisions. He likes to push for "volunatry standards" a.k.a. "not having to do anything about a problem."
He's just one example. His expertise has entirely been in helping business pursue profits at the expense of public health. His kind of industry experience the people can do without.
I was going to ask him, but if you're claiming to be the source, I guess I'll ask you instead:
How are those number for algal biodiesel obtained? As we talking flat ponds or tower structures for exposing more water to sunlight? Is active pumping of CO2 into the system required, or is this taken from the air? Does the system require any fertilizers? How much water does this system require?
(The last question is extremely important in light of possible global water shortages due to climate change in increased industrial and residential demand from cities in the next few decades.)
Laws exist because of people that do not possess personal responsibility. If we all behaved responsibly, we wouldn't need laws. Unfortunately, we don't all behave responsibly. One of two of us apparently thinks it's okay to drive drunk, for example, and most people would consider that to be a lack of personal responsibility.
You seem to think that the right to hurt people who have done you no wrong is an essential liberty or at least that you right to carelessly endanger others is one. I disagree, and I think most people would have to side with me on this one. If you don't think so, then I ask you to poll people you know to see how they react to the idea that it is your right to drive drunk.
Also, I'm having a real hard time debating this because I honestly can't get a bead on your beliefs. Do you feel that we should have any of the following other laws:
-- Laws banning the sale of defective cars (aka lemon laws)?
-- Laws banning the sale of contaminated meat?
-- Laws against firing a weapon into the air in a crowd?
-- Laws against dueling in the streets?
-- Controls on the sale of high explosives?
-- Controls on the sale of radioactive materials?
-- Laws requiring a basic proficiency test before being allowed to drive / pilot?
-- Laws requiring safety equipment at work?
If it's anything like the ones I've taken, the 'correct' response will be pretty obvious.
"What would you do if you found a coworker has been stealing office supplies?" (actual question)
Not to be a snob or anything, but that's a pretty telling sign of a crappy job where you're untrusted, unskilled, and replaceable. That's a fast food / call center job quiz. We're talking about something a little more subtle where they're more interested in how well you play with others than whether you're a petty criminal.
The kind of personality tests for corporate office workers are more along the lines of Myers-Briggs tests and and color-ranking quizzes than "don't do drugs; don't steal" tests. I don't trust these quizzes for two reasons:
1) They're not always accurate.
I vary strongly on E/I and J/P scales on a Myers-Briggs test depending on my mood, and with a little understanding of the categories, I can get any result I want. (Solid NT, though -- that part of the test is dead on, and it's extremely obvious in everything I say and do.)
The color test is just so much voodoo, in my opinion. However, since the system is totally opaque to the person being interviewed, you can't game it like you can a test that asks actual questions with recognizeable "right" and "wrong" answers. Similarly, there are all sorts of Bayesian-based tests with crazy questions that somehow tend to correlate to certain personality traits.
2) I don't trust my employer with the results.
Even if they were accurate, I see absolutely no reason to let my employer know anything about who I am beyond what I bring to work every day. Some of the tests purport to tell fears, points of anxiety, reasons for self-doubt, etc. If these results were true, then I don't trust my employers with that information. (I might trust my current boss with that info since we get along well, but I don't trust HR at all.)
Actually, it's even worse that they're frequently inaccurate. HR people who don't ever interact with you beyond an interview or some sort of legal difficulty will ardently believe the results to accurately measure you. What if your test says your intolerant or dishonest even if you're not?
I try to avoid these tests whenever I can. They inherently says that I can't be trusted as much as some scientifically-shaky questionaire since I could be a faker while these tests will reveal "the true me."
Well, I'm immediately sceptical of any Bush appointees motives.
You have...
The mining lobbyist as a number 2 in the Department of the Interior and a cattle rancher laywer as the chief counsel.
The pharmaceutical lawyer acting as lead counsel for the FDA.
The meat industry lobbyist running our meat labelling program.
The number 2 in the EPA was a Monsanto executive, and his pick for chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality represented GE in its fight against cleaning up its own toxic waste. The chief of staff left to go work for Southern Company (a major owner of coal plants) a week after clean air standard were relaxed.
Read more.
Essentially, Bush has packed every government enforcement agency with people who have spent their careers trying to help companies get out of complying with regulations meant to protect the people. Even his own Supreme Court nominees are strong advocates of executive power. His legacy has been to undermine every control meant to keep him and his supports from running out of control.
"Any bests?"
Yesssss. The flithy bloggerssss gives uss the dirts. Filthy, fats bloggerssss....
That is a wonderfully insightful comment and succinctly put, too.
What are you doing on Slashdot?
Generally speaking? Proving Sturgeon's Law inductively by way of posting.
Can we find someone whose love of country music has brought them to the studied position that "only money-grubbing assholes want DRM"?
You could try finding fans of Van Zant, I suppose since their CD was one of the XCP rootkit CDs. Then again, I don't listen to country music, so I'm not sure if that's a hard or easy task to find Van Zant fans, but given all the other artists affected by the root kit, I'm leaning towards hard.
That's sort of a "chicken and the egg" question, but I think that those who actively seek power are of two casts generally:
1) Those who want the leverage to change the world in a way that they couldn't accomplish without power.
2) Those who want to benefit themselves in a way that they couldn't accomplish without power.
In many cases, the line between the two is very fine since most people believe that what will benefit them will benefit society in general. It's what you do when you know they're in conflict that defines your character and your ability to recognize they're in conflict that defines your wisdom.
The point where you're too drunk to drive isn't the same as mine, so who decides what "drunk" is?
I've got a friend that drinks beer all day, and no matter how Shithoused he gets, he seems more sober than me (and I've never had a sip in my life). He's also a very safe driver.
Like I said, please try to restrict my liberty further. That'd be great.
I cannot believe this. You're actually arguing that people should be allowed to drive drunk. You're arguing that people be allowed to engage in reckless behavior that is proven to lead to the death of innocent bystanders because it's too hard to tell objectively what "drunk" is based on anecdotal evidence of a single friend.
Moral checkmate. You lose for lack of common sense and an inability to see the forest for a single tree. Even if your friend does have some miracle metabolism that's no justification for allowing the rest of us mortals to go out on the road plastered. The rest of us mere humans have measurably affected reflexes and attention when drunk no matter how composed we behave.
Honestly, if you think DUI should be permissable, then you don't have the common sense to deserve to be on the road yourself. Please tell me you don't have kids to pass this kind of stupid to.
[Devotees] just will NOT criticize [anything] they're emotionally involved with. It's the most ridiculous thing I've seen... these theoretically intelligent, rational [people] that become absolutely insane when you suggest [the object of their affection] is imperfect.
This more generalized statement applies not just to software, but to politics, religion, sports teams, brands of cars, etc., etc. Nationalists, religious zealots, OS zealots, hardcore fans, etc. are all the same kind of person -- someone who cannot handle objectivel criticism of something they love because they think that criticism and disdain are equal. They have a "mommy is never wrong" kind of love instead of a "my kid's not perfect, but I'm still proud of him" attitude.
These people drive me insane in every arena of life that I encounter them in.
No sooner do I post the question than I find the answer myself since I never stopped looking for answers elsewhere. So then I am faced with the question: Should I attempt to retract my posting or should I reply to my own question with the solution? Most of the time, I decide to do the later. Even though it makes me seem like an idiot answering my own question, I am always hopeful that someone else asks the same question but doesn't find the answer on their own.
From all of us using Google to solve our issues to people like you: "You rock."
Honestly, there's nothing more frustrating than finding a post from someone who's had the EXACT SAME PROBLEM as you that was never answered. People who actually go back and tell their answer help the rest of us out a lot.
After talking again to them, the only reason Student A was using Gentoo was because he had some crazy chipset he needed to compile everything for (a dual AMD setup which was rare back then) and he also revealed that he spent every Sunday night "emerging."
A lot of Gentoo users are the ricers of the Linux world -- a lot of pretense and futile effort for marginal performance gains. Unfortunately, tuning-weenies are really attracted to the distro, and these people are the worst kinds of OS snobs bar none.
However, there are a lot of other users of Gentoo for other reasons. Personally, I've started using the distribution because of the Hardened Gentoo project. While the distro's not as easy as Mandrake, I personally find portage more user friendly than dselect (as used by Debian, Ubuntu, etc.). Out of curiosity, what kind of snags did you run into, and what made you dislike it?
What with all these "getting older" stories? Is the gaming community having a mid-life crisis?
Basically, yes.
Those of us who grew up as the first generation of video gamers are growing older. Sure, there's all sorts of new gamers, but we're starting to see gamers in their thirties who started on video games in elementary school. As a result, there's a lot of navel-gazing about people who still love games but can't play all the games they used to as a kid.
I'm a big console RPG gamer. When I was a kid, I used to regularly rack up over 50 hours on a run through FF4, and I probably played the game from start to finish over 8 times. I'd disdain strategy guides on the first run or two while trying to find everything myself.
Now, as a gainfully employed adult, I'm lucky to have enough time to play through one of my RPGs once. I don't have time to get everything I missed on a second run, so at this point, I'm hitting FAQs from before I start the game and using cheat codes at the end to bypass some of the tedium of finishing side quests. I have a lot of games that I've bought thinking that they'd be great that are sitting on my shelf unopened because I just don't have time anymore.
I also haven't played a good 4X TBS game in ages because I just can't see myself spending a week to finish one play-through.
That's a demographic shift for gamers that does actually mean something in terms of what kinds of products we buy, and since we're the money makers now, the industry is catering to us. That's why you're seeing so much about this.
I see no reason to not allow built in hands-free kits when many drivers can use them safely. I really wonder about the accuracy of the ONE study that claims talking while driving is as bad as driving drunk.
I've actually more thoroughly addressed this in another post. It's not just ONE study. That post is just about the body work of a single researcher, but he's one of the few researchers to actually put people in simulators and measure reaction times instead of doing after-the-fact statistical analysis of accidents.
Hands free vs. handset is mostly irrelevant for reaction time, so it's not possible to use a hands-free set "safely." It's the problem of dual-task separation that causes slower reaction times when using a cellphone. You can't concentrate as well on the road when concentrating on a conversation. We aren't as capable of multitasking as we think we are, and controlled experiments have measured the difference.
From the 7th study on Strayer's site:
Incidentally, in the 8th study where he compares people with a BAC of 0.08 vs cellphone drivers, the drunk drivers manage to get away without an accident while the cellphone drivers had 3. I found that funny.
Of course there are other authors to consider:This study looks at 699 accidents and checks the phone records of the drivers to arrive at the conclusion that you are 4X more likely to be in an accident while on a cell phone.
This study notes that people who use cell phones while driving are 1.77X more likely to not use a seat belt than people who did not, indicating an overall lack of safety concern while driving.
I have a good researcher to follow for you, then. His work compares hands-free use, handset use, passive listening to radio and books on tape, and talking with passengers. He also compared younger & older drivers and the cellphones vs. alcohol. Check out David Strayer's work from the University of Utah.
The first paper linked there, Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular phone, covers handset use vs. hands-free use vs. listening to the radio vs. listening to books on tape. It also includes a test to weed out whether holding a phone had a seperate effect from not holding one (for purposes of attention). The results were that talking on a cell phone itself caused attention problems and reduced reaction time due to "dual-task interference." Remeber that term -- it's very important to why cell phones are distracting.
Now to go down the list of studies linked from that page:
2 - Finds change blindness when having a conversation
3 - People using CPs are twice as likely to miss traffic signals right in front of them as people listening to radio or without distractions.
5 - Showed people on CPs have worse braking time, miss info on billboards, and track less objects with their eyes while driving.
7 - Shows that old and young people are affected in equal proportion by CP usage and that young people become equivalent to old people in reaction times.
8 - Shows CP drivers are more impaired than legally drunk drivers but that drunk drivers are more aggressive while CP drivers give themselves more space to react than normal.
9 - Shows CP drivers don't strongly form memories about things they see while driving due to paying less attention.
10 - Compares CP use and talking to passengers. Both impair drivers compared to having no distractions, but CP users were more impaired. Passengers tended to talk more about traffic and yield conversation more often than CP conversants.
How do you enforce this? My cell has a speakerphone which I can use with the phone sitting down in the console. Nobody outside even knows its there. I suppose they could see my lips moving, but do we really want people being pulled over just for singing in their car?
Well, it would be a multi-pronged effort, but there would be people that slip through. Think of it as an analogy to drunk driving.
1) Pull over obvious offenders. Just as you pull over people weaving in their lane, you pull over people using a handset or wearing an earpiece. You then ticket them and have the station pull phone records before the court date.
2) Punish harshly those in an accident. Just as you do breathalizer tests on people you suspect being drunk in an accident, you pull cell phone records on people who get in accidents likely caused by inattention (rear endings, swideswiping during lane changes, etc.).
3) Some will get away. There are people who can act completely sober while legally intoxicated and there will be people with invisible hands-free kits.
The last thing you can do that doesn't have a good comparison to DUI is to simply ban the selling of hands-free kits built into the car in the US market. There will of course be grandfathered-in vehicles, but if driving while talking is illegal, then there's no legitimate reason to let them be sold after a certain date since they enable illegal behavior. This is why radar-detectors are illegal in many states, for example.
How about, if you are in an accident while using your cell phone, you accept the responsibility for your actions? Would that be such an unthinkable thing?
How about you not do something stupid that gets someone else injured in the first place?
By your logic, why do we pull over drunk drivers before they get in an accident anyway?
I think this is probably an example of prosecutors trying to throw every single law they think could stick on a guy to make sure he goes to prison for as long as possible.
Why else would you find multiple of the same kind of animal at various stages of growth dead in the same place if they weren't social animals?
Ever since Linnaeus came up with the modern taxonomical system, it's been one of the rewards of research to get to name a new species anything you want. That motivation drove a good many gentlemen science hobbyists in the 19th century to seek out and classify new animals at home and across the world for the pleasure of getting to name it whatever they felt like. The only frowned upon thing is to name if after yourself.
If the researcher who did this felt enough gratitude to his sponsor to name it after her, then good for him. It's not like anyone's making him do it. It's a sincere way of saying thanks.