Like these? I swear I saw a production car that had this many buttons on the wheel. It was clearly the "car of the future" and the inside looked like a 747 cockpit.
Contact the police (the real police, not the TSA goons) that are located at the airport. Skip the TSA forms altogether and file a police report.
My wife had a laptop stolen from her bag (why did she pack a laptop in check baggage!?!?). We reported it to the local police who had jurisdiction over the airport and a detective was extremely interested and helpful. The information we provided helped to crack a little group of TSA agents at the airport who had been doing this for several weeks. They never found the laptop (it had been sold immediately), though.
Anyway, contact the local police. If this happens once at the airport, it probably happens several times and they'd love to close all of those cases.
Watches have always been fashionable and (IMHO) will continue to be for all generations for the rest of my life.
True. Watches and sunglasses are the only acceptable male jewelry equivalent (Is the word accessory?). Many (most?) digital watches are pretty tacky looking and look horrible if you're dressed up. I wear a digital watch when I'm running, but I wouldn't with a suit. I personally prefer the analog dial to tell time, but it doesn't hurt that it looks nice, too.
To be honest, most people are pretty decent looking. There are very few absolutely repulsive people out there. Given a little attention in terms of fitness or skin care or (maybe) makeup, most people can be described as "beautiful". The supermodel types are actually not particularly beautiful in person. They usually have some very strange facial features or body types that look exotic and stunning when captured on film, but a little bizarre face to face. Look around you and count the people who have disfigured faces or whatnot. Most people are actually pretty or handsome.
What pisses me off is that they charge $XX per month for their service and then add to that an itemized list of their normal business expenses, as if those don't count toward their monthly charges. When you go to a retail store, they don't advertise a $25 widget, then add $10 for their property taxes, business license renewal fees, fire district taxes, employee healthcare charges, etc. (Though in the US, it's normal to advertise prices without sales tax, which is bullshit.)
So why don't all of these fees and shit get folded into the advertised cost of service? These aren't taxes on me, the subscriber, they're taxes on the business providing the service. Why do they get to just hand wave all of that out if their operating costs?
If they put ads in it I and many other parents would not use it.
You know they will, though. No advertising is as lucrative as advertising to impressionable young minds. A team of trained professionals designing AV material that's sole purpose is the manipulation of children's thoughts and behavior for their own profit = A-OK!
Give back? You mean besides the huge piles of money that students pay for the privilege of studying?
Yes. Those pay for operating costs for the period that you're there taking classes. Giving more money after you leave helps ensure that your school/department remains a relevant player after you've left (and can set up new labs/whatever with bleeding edge tech and continue to attract good students). I think that your reply probably confirms my suspicions. You're looking at the school as an adversary who has cheated you by asking for tuition. Not everybody sees things this way and not everybody's department is getting cut.
I also wonder if CS graduates are less likely to give back to the school as alumni. This usually doesn't represent a huge source of income (especially for public schools), but it can help a department out in trying times (like now). Graduating students is nice, but graduating students that donate to the school is better.
Advertizing is not valuable to me. Therefore, I block it, just as I block any protocol that isn't valuable to me.
You block slashdot then? How about any of the other sites you use that use advertising?
Slashdot isn't advertising (besides the occasional Slashvertisement). He's blocking the ads but still visiting the sites. Am I right to assume your post was a passive aggressive attempt to claim that he's stealing from the poor websites or something?
You could easily hire people to keep your RHL 9 system patched and going until the end of time. If you truly needed to stay on RHL 9 for some reason, you could do so and still stay up to date wrt security and reliability. You have access to the code, so you can fix it as you need. This is not an option for XP. That's the difference. Buying access to the XP source (and the legal rights to modify it) will cost you much more than the salary of a dev to maintain your own personal fork of RHL 9.
Well that blows. Samsung drives were great for reliability while still running cool and quiet. Somehow I doubt Seagate will up their quality with the Samsung tech.
On a side note, I remember when Seagate drives were top notch. What happened to them? With Samsung out of the picture and the alternatives being WD and Hitachi, I guess they are at the top again...
I actually ran my own mail server from home for a little while. The problem with that was because of the IP my email was originating from, people I would send email to, would not receive the email. Their (company) email servers would block my email. I was receiving emails, and some of the free services (like a hotmail) would receive what I sent, but most people would never get the email.
If you get a static IP address from your ISP, ask them to change the reverse DNS record so that it points to your chosen host and domain name. Unless you're in a block that has been specifically included in a blacklist (like some cable company blocks), then passing reverse-DNS will satisfy most other mail servers. I've never had my email not go through and I'm on DSL.
Why don't you do both? Buy the Blu-ray, then download the version you can actually use?
Paying for the movie won't release you from any liability should you be caught downloading it. The risk is the same either way. You'd only be paying for it to make yourself feel better about the whole process. (Note that I do pay and download if I want to feel like I'm "supporting" the group who made a product, even if I'm not happy with the delivery method.)
I really don't get the fascination with naming space projects after a failed attempt at flight. If there's one thing Icarus didn't do, it was "[build] on the knowledge of Daedalus!"
You're right on. This is what we teach in our family and at our church. Not that talking about Christianity is popular here on/.
There's a reason for that. While many good and interesting things have been discussed and practiced by religious people, the general public's exposure to religion isn't too full of examples like that. The way that good ideas seem to be advanced by religious groups in general and Christians in specific (or at least the extremely vocal subset that, whether fair or not, represent all other Christians) is by attempting to force those ideas (and some accompanying religious dogma) on everybody else through the use of laws or violence. Any discussion which involves religion always seems to involve using religious doctrine as a basis for the assumption in the argument and a fair amount of proselytism.
Your post is a great example of this, actually. "Church" isn't a specifically Christian term, but you made sure to mention that you were Christian. You admit that you don't think discussing Christianity is popular here, but you made sure to discuss it anyway, even though it was totally unnecessary in your post.
I've had great discussions about ethics and philosophy with very religious people (there's a Seminary near my school) who manage to convey their ideas without bringing their religious dogma into it. We both seem to enjoy the discussion and learn something from each other; I only wish more religious people could realize that the crutch of citing doctrine is only useful when talking to yourself. All everyone else hears is wharrgarbl.
But as the actual moment of passing approaches, I want to be as conscious as possible.
I read this as "I don't want to die"... Death is permanent unconsciousness. You can't have it both ways.
But what is the transition like? What does it feel like to have your consciousness shut down? I'm not eager to die, but I don't want miss that experience because I was unconscious to begin with. Yes, the entire thing is a bit silly because I won't have time to ponder it after it's experienced or be able to report it to anyone else, but it's no more silly in that regard than saying you want to die in your sleep.
Why die quietly in your sleep? You only get to die once (maybe). Aren't you curious how it will feel? Having said that, I'd still prefer a relatively quick death to the long drawn out agony of cancer or something. But as the actual moment of passing approaches, I want to be as conscious as possible.
That means war on priests/mullahs, politicians/dictators and managers. I could live with that.:)
It's a deal!
See, what I mean is not to forbid anyone his beer, reefer or even line of coke. What I mean is to repair the bad sides of society, so people will be less inclined to flee from their life that they experience as miserable. Usually people do not consume greater amounts of psychoactive substances without any reason. If we spent the money and manpower we waste on the "war on drugs" on making society and with that almost everyone's life better, the people would be much less interested in numbing themselves with substances, because they were too busy enjoying life.
Not all drugs have the effect of numbing, though. I agree that we have societal problems that outweigh any damage done by drugs, but sometimes drugs are just entertaining. Nobody takes LSD, for example, to escape from their miserable life. That's like jumping from the pot to the fire. Taking drugs as self-medication is arguably bad, but taking drugs for recreation isn't any worse than watching a movie or playing football. Please note that either of these would be bad if taken to an unhealthy extreme, just as with drugs.
Generally I choose respected scientists, but its still faith on my part because I haven't done the research myself.
I've seen this position quite a bit lately, and I've used it myself in the past. After more thought, though, it doesn't boil down to "faith" in one approach versus another.
You have faith in God, because it cannot be tested in any empirical way. You have trust in the respected scientists, that they conducted their science in a valid manner and they are interpreting their results correctly.
You could argue that you have faith in the fact that we are able to believe our senses and make empirical measurements at all, but that's much more philosophical than this needs to be. Nobody really thinks that they have faith that their next step won't pass through the floor.
...I'd be very concerned if I was a frequent flier...
Yes, but we should be less concerned about backscatter radiation when cosmic radiation is much more significant.
The dose is cumulative. The cosmic ray dose is unavoidable if you choose to fly, so it's a calculated risk that you trade for the ability to fly. Why add a dose with BS security theater that has no positive benefit to you?
No level of x-ray exposure is safe. Nothing above zero. Each exposure carries a certain risk, and the risk accumulates.
I'm sure the study you designed to prove this was fascinating. I'd surely like to meet the control group that was exposed to no x-ray radiation whatsoever for their entire lives. A more likely scenario is that the body is perfectly able to cope with reasonable levels of radiation, or at least that there are amounts of radiation that decrease your expected lifespan by less than the variation due to other random factors (molecular DNA copy errors, etc.).
Just because some exposure to ionizing radiation is unavoidable doesn't mean that it is safe. Damage done to you from radiation exposure is cumulative. While many people live their entire lives without developing problems from this exposure, some don't, and everyone should keep their exposure to a minimum. Even background radiation can create the tumor that kills you, but you still need a damn good reason to add to that exposure. The DHS dosing you for walking down the street sure isn't that reason.
Go-oo joins forces with LibreOffice Go-oo shares much of its goals and philosophy with The Document Foundation's LibreOffice project, we're therefore supporting LibreOffice since it's inception, and are in the process of merging most of our patches over, as well as migrating to Document Foundation infrastructure. Going forward, the Go-oo project will be discontinued in favor of LibreOffice.
Finally, before this turns into another thread of endless "I don't use Lamebook" etc posts. No one gives a shit. No one. Bothering to post to say you don't use the tools makes people assume you're a social pariah. The people who don't use facebook, and aren't, don't need to shout about the decision whenever there is an opportunity.
I think there actually is a place for people saying that they do or don't use a certain social network. As we all get our cues on what the societal mores are from other people, it's important to know what social activities others choose to participate in. When Facebook goes the way of all the other networks before it, the transition will be reflected by the number of people claiming that they don't use it. People saying that they don't participate in an activity are just as important to that activity as the people who say that they participate.
Slashdot Mirror
Like these? I swear I saw a production car that had this many buttons on the wheel. It was clearly the "car of the future" and the inside looked like a 747 cockpit.
http://www.carstyling.ru/resources/concept/1986_Pontiac_Trans_Sport_Concept_Detroit_02.jpg
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1988-pontiac-banshee-concept-car-6.jpg
Contact the police (the real police, not the TSA goons) that are located at the airport. Skip the TSA forms altogether and file a police report.
My wife had a laptop stolen from her bag (why did she pack a laptop in check baggage!?!?). We reported it to the local police who had jurisdiction over the airport and a detective was extremely interested and helpful. The information we provided helped to crack a little group of TSA agents at the airport who had been doing this for several weeks. They never found the laptop (it had been sold immediately), though.
Anyway, contact the local police. If this happens once at the airport, it probably happens several times and they'd love to close all of those cases.
Watches have always been fashionable and (IMHO) will continue to be for all generations for the rest of my life.
True. Watches and sunglasses are the only acceptable male jewelry equivalent (Is the word accessory?). Many (most?) digital watches are pretty tacky looking and look horrible if you're dressed up. I wear a digital watch when I'm running, but I wouldn't with a suit. I personally prefer the analog dial to tell time, but it doesn't hurt that it looks nice, too.
To be honest, most people are pretty decent looking. There are very few absolutely repulsive people out there. Given a little attention in terms of fitness or skin care or (maybe) makeup, most people can be described as "beautiful". The supermodel types are actually not particularly beautiful in person. They usually have some very strange facial features or body types that look exotic and stunning when captured on film, but a little bizarre face to face. Look around you and count the people who have disfigured faces or whatnot. Most people are actually pretty or handsome.
What pisses me off is that they charge $XX per month for their service and then add to that an itemized list of their normal business expenses, as if those don't count toward their monthly charges. When you go to a retail store, they don't advertise a $25 widget, then add $10 for their property taxes, business license renewal fees, fire district taxes, employee healthcare charges, etc. (Though in the US, it's normal to advertise prices without sales tax, which is bullshit.)
So why don't all of these fees and shit get folded into the advertised cost of service? These aren't taxes on me, the subscriber, they're taxes on the business providing the service. Why do they get to just hand wave all of that out if their operating costs?
If they put ads in it I and many other parents would not use it.
You know they will, though. No advertising is as lucrative as advertising to impressionable young minds. A team of trained professionals designing AV material that's sole purpose is the manipulation of children's thoughts and behavior for their own profit = A-OK!
Give back? You mean besides the huge piles of money that students pay for the privilege of studying?
Yes. Those pay for operating costs for the period that you're there taking classes. Giving more money after you leave helps ensure that your school/department remains a relevant player after you've left (and can set up new labs/whatever with bleeding edge tech and continue to attract good students). I think that your reply probably confirms my suspicions. You're looking at the school as an adversary who has cheated you by asking for tuition. Not everybody sees things this way and not everybody's department is getting cut.
I also wonder if CS graduates are less likely to give back to the school as alumni. This usually doesn't represent a huge source of income (especially for public schools), but it can help a department out in trying times (like now). Graduating students is nice, but graduating students that donate to the school is better.
Advertizing is not valuable to me. Therefore, I block it, just as I block any protocol that isn't valuable to me.
You block slashdot then? How about any of the other sites you use that use advertising?
Slashdot isn't advertising (besides the occasional Slashvertisement). He's blocking the ads but still visiting the sites. Am I right to assume your post was a passive aggressive attempt to claim that he's stealing from the poor websites or something?
I guess that Apple would never accept a similar App for the iPhone - it might disturb the user experience.
That's true, but there's one available in Cydia for jailbroken phones. Called Firewall IP, it works pretty well.
You could easily hire people to keep your RHL 9 system patched and going until the end of time. If you truly needed to stay on RHL 9 for some reason, you could do so and still stay up to date wrt security and reliability. You have access to the code, so you can fix it as you need. This is not an option for XP. That's the difference. Buying access to the XP source (and the legal rights to modify it) will cost you much more than the salary of a dev to maintain your own personal fork of RHL 9.
Well that blows. Samsung drives were great for reliability while still running cool and quiet. Somehow I doubt Seagate will up their quality with the Samsung tech.
On a side note, I remember when Seagate drives were top notch. What happened to them? With Samsung out of the picture and the alternatives being WD and Hitachi, I guess they are at the top again...
I actually ran my own mail server from home for a little while. The problem with that was because of the IP my email was originating from, people I would send email to, would not receive the email. Their (company) email servers would block my email. I was receiving emails, and some of the free services (like a hotmail) would receive what I sent, but most people would never get the email.
If you get a static IP address from your ISP, ask them to change the reverse DNS record so that it points to your chosen host and domain name. Unless you're in a block that has been specifically included in a blacklist (like some cable company blocks), then passing reverse-DNS will satisfy most other mail servers. I've never had my email not go through and I'm on DSL.
Why don't you do both? Buy the Blu-ray, then download the version you can actually use?
Paying for the movie won't release you from any liability should you be caught downloading it. The risk is the same either way. You'd only be paying for it to make yourself feel better about the whole process. (Note that I do pay and download if I want to feel like I'm "supporting" the group who made a product, even if I'm not happy with the delivery method.)
I really don't get the fascination with naming space projects after a failed attempt at flight. If there's one thing Icarus didn't do, it was "[build] on the knowledge of Daedalus!"
You're right on. This is what we teach in our family and at our church. Not that talking about Christianity is popular here on /.
There's a reason for that. While many good and interesting things have been discussed and practiced by religious people, the general public's exposure to religion isn't too full of examples like that. The way that good ideas seem to be advanced by religious groups in general and Christians in specific (or at least the extremely vocal subset that, whether fair or not, represent all other Christians) is by attempting to force those ideas (and some accompanying religious dogma) on everybody else through the use of laws or violence. Any discussion which involves religion always seems to involve using religious doctrine as a basis for the assumption in the argument and a fair amount of proselytism.
Your post is a great example of this, actually. "Church" isn't a specifically Christian term, but you made sure to mention that you were Christian. You admit that you don't think discussing Christianity is popular here, but you made sure to discuss it anyway, even though it was totally unnecessary in your post.
I've had great discussions about ethics and philosophy with very religious people (there's a Seminary near my school) who manage to convey their ideas without bringing their religious dogma into it. We both seem to enjoy the discussion and learn something from each other; I only wish more religious people could realize that the crutch of citing doctrine is only useful when talking to yourself. All everyone else hears is wharrgarbl.
But as the actual moment of passing approaches, I want to be as conscious as possible.
I read this as "I don't want to die" ... Death is permanent unconsciousness. You can't have it both ways.
But what is the transition like? What does it feel like to have your consciousness shut down? I'm not eager to die, but I don't want miss that experience because I was unconscious to begin with. Yes, the entire thing is a bit silly because I won't have time to ponder it after it's experienced or be able to report it to anyone else, but it's no more silly in that regard than saying you want to die in your sleep.
Why die quietly in your sleep? You only get to die once (maybe). Aren't you curious how it will feel? Having said that, I'd still prefer a relatively quick death to the long drawn out agony of cancer or something. But as the actual moment of passing approaches, I want to be as conscious as possible.
That means war on priests/mullahs, politicians/dictators and managers. I could live with that. :)
It's a deal!
See, what I mean is not to forbid anyone his beer, reefer or even line of coke. What I mean is to repair the bad sides of society, so people will be less inclined to flee from their life that they experience as miserable. Usually people do not consume greater amounts of psychoactive substances without any reason. If we spent the money and manpower we waste on the "war on drugs" on making society and with that almost everyone's life better, the people would be much less interested in numbing themselves with substances, because they were too busy enjoying life.
Not all drugs have the effect of numbing, though. I agree that we have societal problems that outweigh any damage done by drugs, but sometimes drugs are just entertaining. Nobody takes LSD, for example, to escape from their miserable life. That's like jumping from the pot to the fire. Taking drugs as self-medication is arguably bad, but taking drugs for recreation isn't any worse than watching a movie or playing football. Please note that either of these would be bad if taken to an unhealthy extreme, just as with drugs.
Generally I choose respected scientists, but its still faith on my part because I haven't done the research myself.
I've seen this position quite a bit lately, and I've used it myself in the past. After more thought, though, it doesn't boil down to "faith" in one approach versus another.
You have faith in God, because it cannot be tested in any empirical way. You have trust in the respected scientists, that they conducted their science in a valid manner and they are interpreting their results correctly.
You could argue that you have faith in the fact that we are able to believe our senses and make empirical measurements at all, but that's much more philosophical than this needs to be. Nobody really thinks that they have faith that their next step won't pass through the floor.
War on people deciding that they need to make personal decisions for everyone else.
...I'd be very concerned if I was a frequent flier...
Yes, but we should be less concerned about backscatter radiation when cosmic radiation is much more significant.
The dose is cumulative. The cosmic ray dose is unavoidable if you choose to fly, so it's a calculated risk that you trade for the ability to fly. Why add a dose with BS security theater that has no positive benefit to you?
No level of x-ray exposure is safe. Nothing above zero. Each exposure carries a certain risk, and the risk accumulates.
I'm sure the study you designed to prove this was fascinating. I'd surely like to meet the control group that was exposed to no x-ray radiation whatsoever for their entire lives. A more likely scenario is that the body is perfectly able to cope with reasonable levels of radiation, or at least that there are amounts of radiation that decrease your expected lifespan by less than the variation due to other random factors (molecular DNA copy errors, etc.).
Just because some exposure to ionizing radiation is unavoidable doesn't mean that it is safe. Damage done to you from radiation exposure is cumulative. While many people live their entire lives without developing problems from this exposure, some don't, and everyone should keep their exposure to a minimum. Even background radiation can create the tumor that kills you, but you still need a damn good reason to add to that exposure. The DHS dosing you for walking down the street sure isn't that reason.
From their site:
Go-oo joins forces with LibreOffice
Go-oo shares much of its goals and philosophy with The Document Foundation's LibreOffice project, we're therefore supporting LibreOffice since it's inception, and are in the process of merging most of our patches over, as well as migrating to Document Foundation infrastructure. Going forward, the Go-oo project will be discontinued in favor of LibreOffice.
Finally, before this turns into another thread of endless "I don't use Lamebook" etc posts. No one gives a shit. No one. Bothering to post to say you don't use the tools makes people assume you're a social pariah. The people who don't use facebook, and aren't, don't need to shout about the decision whenever there is an opportunity.
I think there actually is a place for people saying that they do or don't use a certain social network. As we all get our cues on what the societal mores are from other people, it's important to know what social activities others choose to participate in. When Facebook goes the way of all the other networks before it, the transition will be reflected by the number of people claiming that they don't use it. People saying that they don't participate in an activity are just as important to that activity as the people who say that they participate.