C'mon, she went that way because she wants to do medical research. Otherwise, there's no point to time spent on the PhD and the fellowship. Yeah, she's a MD, but she didn't spend 15 years in school specifically to be a MD.
Some unique medical school programs combine the BA and the Med school, so its only 6 years before they can start their internship. So yeah, 7 years for quick specialty, 8 years to cut people up. I've never heard of a 6 year residency program.
Technically, leprosy may be considered contagious, but the reality is that you will not contract it unless you have a genetic vulnerability towards it. I guess its been bred out of the gene pool. I also believe its "spread" by contact, not airborne. I'd worry more about tuberculosis...
I'll attribute the empty bravado and flawed logic to someone who needs a religion, much like what a Minnesota governor alluded to in a Playboy interview. If its a troll, kudos, its brilliantly executed.
Freebsd has had SoftUpdates for UFS (disk file system) for quite a while. this does a more or less journaling type feature, although as far as I understand it's not quite a full JFS. it works nicely though, and no more FSCK.
Eliminating fsck is not the primary reason to choose a journaling filesystem. When properly selected, it enhances the integrity of a filesystem after a crash. SoftUpdates does not accomplish this. More telling is someone who chooses his distribution knowing there is a distinct shortcoming, and yet implies its half-measure is comparably acceptable to the real thing.
and as far as hardware support, it's not really a matter of HOW much stuff is supported but how WELL it's supported.
FreeBSD device support comes from the same trough as Linux. In most cases, its the unpaid contributions of computer enthusiasts. A new FreeBSD driver is just as prone to bugs as a Linux one. FreeBSD maintainers and developers do not possess 31337 powers that the mere Linux contributors do not. They're merely a little pickier and cagier about the QA and release process. And in return, you have a lot more hardware that you cannot run on your PC. Some people live in the real world, where they don't have the luxury of increasing the expense of their PC to spend their time handpicking components (that work).
[...] who gives a crap whether you can do "good performance IDE software RAID" ? who does that? seriously. if you wanted good RAID performance, you'd build a box using a serious hardware raid controller, with good scsi disks... and if you're someone who wants to argue with me here, then you're really not someone who gets it, and should stick to your linux distro of choice. pretty IRC interfaces aren't all what it's about, you know.
THIS, from the guy who says my half-assed filesystem implementation is perfectly adequate? People go to software raid when they can't afford hardware raid and want more reliability than NO raid. You're the one who doesn't get it, Mr. Ivory Tower. Pretty IRC interfaces??? What the f*ck are you talking about? This is Linux (and I'm a Slackware user). Who the hell uses it because its "prettier"???
As far as compatibility with linux "software" goes, FreeBSD is a POSIX beast, and works just fine in that arena.
Again, when is a half-measure preferable to the real thing? Why screw around with seeing if this Linux package will work under the BSD Compatibility system, when you can pick a distribution that is matched to it and will run after executing a mere rpm/apt-get/installpkg command???
QED. no need to compromise my network with a exploit prone system (besides the windows servers, of course!)
1) Supposed Linux compatibility does not equate to a more secure system. No logical correlation there.
2) Security in a software distribution is merely the vigilant configuration of software and restriction of desirable features. If the NSA thought otherwise, they would have based their SecureLinux distribution on FreeBSD.
THINGS ARE ALWAYS IN THE SAME PLACE. this makes administration easy. installing applications is much simpler. cleaning things up is easier. restoring from backup is easier.
The only intelligent thing you said in this entire post. I am sincere in that statement and I agree completely with your statement. But then you go on to criticize weird-assed customizations, without realizing FreeBSD is just as vulnerable to it as Linux. Linux filesystem arrangements do not mutate any more than FreeBSD systems.
Ports and the source tree- these clinched it for me. [...] I can't begin to say how spoiled I am by using the ports tree.
And realize no one using Linux cares.
anyway, if you're a geek who needs to do server stuff and you'd like to cut down on the headaches, give freebsd a spin. we're not bad people and most of us work for a living. you get to avoid a lot of clueless brats and silly script kiddies.
The only thing your post has told me is if you want to be an elitist compusnob, you're little weak in the the reasoning department and wish to mask it by advocating an elitist OS, you have more time to twiddle with your OS (than just plug-in the working product), you have more money to spend for a component FreeBSD supports, and need to replace your religious faith with a OS distribution, give FreeBSD a spin.
Most script kiddies will be running apache cgi, ftp, sendmail, and lpr exploit scripts. Somehow they will be miraculously ineffective in FreeBSD, even though they use the same codebase. Its the Divine Providence, he'll tell you. The people that care about security will know they need to spend their time understanding the vulnerabilities and prevent them in any operating system they maintain, not erroneously adopt an OS as a security crutch.
While its a potential problem to doctors, they are not quite as vulnerable to H1B as IT workers. Most states have grueling certification requirements (called state boards) that will weed out the less qualified. Also, I recall there are a few more hoops the H1B doctor has to hop through in order to practice in this country. You can thank the AMA for that; something which the IT industry desperately needs for its workers.
I don't miss the problem, I just don't think you understood what I meant by coming under a unified architecture. I was pretty much speaking that for Linux to really succeed on the desktop, it has to be as seemless as the Windows desktop, probably more so. Think Apple:)
And you're stating here that the only thing that keeps Linux from being widespread is that developers have to deal with two windowing architectures? Give me a break! If everyone dropped KDE tomorrow, the interface would suck for common users (in comparison to a more user-friendly interface like Apple or Windows). If everyone dropped Gnome tomorrow, the interface would suck for common users. Red Hat is implementing a uniform interface between Gnome and KDE, and trust me, it will not make the Linux interface competitive to Windoze or Apple. The problem is not unity. The problem is that the imperative goal of both GUI teams is not consumer focused. They wish to implement a GUI under their respective philosophies. You drop one or mishmash both, and you will still have really wizbang features that will not make it easier for the user or make it better to use for them than Windoze or Apple.
I think that in order for Linux to really get ready for the desktop we have to get rid of the whole Gnome/KDE battle and come under a unified architecture.
You really miss the problem. People don't give a damn about whether there is a Gnome, KDE, or unified desktop architecture. The problem is ease-of-use and consistent interface. There isn't a Linux distribution that accomplishes it. Unifying Gnome and KDE would only accomplish a less diverse failure of a user interface. You hand a unified gnome/KDE product to a user, and you get an interface which a user cannot setup and configure themselves without poring through cryptic, spotty documentation.
The only thing that I really wish Linux had was a prioritized disk scheduler. Linux can prioritize network traffic. It can prioritize processes. It just can't do the same with disk I/O.
First things first, one step at a time. Recently, it appears that the linux kernel development group is having problems upgrading the IDE driver.
Your observations were anticipatable. XFS was originally designed for real-time (high speed) data streaming, namely capturing and processing video (which require A LOT of disk space). That bias in design does not lend itself to concurrent disk access performance. Interestingly, your move back to reiserfs works well with reiserfs's strengths. I use XFS, and can't say I've experienced your problems, but I haven't tried compiling and watching video at the same time.
Having said that, I can't say whether your experiences are specifically due to XFS's design, or other factors; such as XFS's implementation under linux, or your tasks requiring a lot of RAM, or CPU (which applies to compiling, playing videos, and XFS). Your problems ith XFS could be resolved with a faster or 2 CPU's or a lot more RAM.
More like turn off the TV AND radio. Or pay for cable access and find a movie/comedy channel.
And just because you were in one of the towers doesn't mean you're the only one who has any right to grief. A lot of folks didn't make it out of the towers--or the Pentagon, for that matter. A lot of families will never be able to "move on."
He didn't say ONLY people in the tower had the right to grieve. And I don't think the problem is with the memorial ceremonies all over media today. The problem is that for the past year, I don't think there has been one f*cking day that there has NOT been a 9/11 story in the news. But I live in NYC, perhaps you people outside of the northeast were luckier.
We all knew there was going to be 9/11 memorials on this day. But why the f*ck did CBS and other major networks feel they needed to present 9/11 "specials" SIX months after the attack? Did they reveal to us anything new about the tragedy? No, but apparently there are enough f*cking ghouls in this country that find 9/11 some form of entertainment. You see, this is the problem. This is why so many Americans are sick of all this media coverage of 9/11.
Reflect on the fact that you were lucky a year ago so that you could have your hissyfit today. Then STFU and let people grieve for the folks who weren't so lucky.
I'm sure he did for a month after the attack. And then he moved on with his life, ghoul. Loved ones die every day. Are we expected to spend EVERY day of our lives mourning for them? Are parents obligated to remind their children EVERY day that Grandma is dead? Does the fact that these 3,000 people died in the terrorist attack make their lives more special, to deserve such treatment? At a certain point, we tell people to let go of the dead and move on with their lives.
Did YOU reflect on the fact that he has probably KNEW people that DIED in the tower? That he very badly wants stop feeling that emotional pain, but GHOULS like YOU won't let him? Well STFU, so the dead can rest in peace.
And lets face it. Its no coincidence that every f*cking day in the media has been spent on 9/11. I knew something was wrong when I saw EVERY major paper plaster 9/11 stories on the front page ON 9/10! GWB & Co. want to keep you angry and grief-stricken, and then tell you the solution is invading Iraq. Then you'll see more Americans in body bags, so we can have cheaper oil and kill Arabs all in the name of the victims of 9/11. But I guess its more important to die well than live well.
* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
Seems like you don't understand the meaning of the words "Freedom of Association". You are still allowed to associate with whoever you want. There's nothing wrong with the government monitoring you while you're doing so - your freedom is not threatened.
You're absolutely right that the FBI being able to "spy" on any organization without suspected criminal activity does not abridge the right to assembly. But it does threaten our freedom. This is the same organization that monitored what anti-war and civil-rights organizations were doing during the '60s. These organizations did not commit any crimes, but the FBI did use the information they gathered to blackmail individuals and disrupt their non-violent, non-criminal goals.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
$500 for a dual mobo? Damn, I thought you were full of shit. I remember window shopping on pricewatch.com maybe 3-4 months ago. +$700 for underpowered MPs, while the single CPU Athlons blew them away at 1/2 the price. Check it a couple minutes ago. I'll be damned, they are $500 for a mobo with two 2Ghz MPs. Thanks for the heads up!
(But how the hell am I going to figure out the right times to buy hardware, or when that time is passing by me...)
The point I wanted to make was that quite a few shows were being cancelled even though in most cases they were getting acceptably good ratings. I suspect there is a driving force for this trend. If this force is demographically driven, its likely most of the *kind* of shows we like will soon be gone and more important, these shows will not be debuted in the future.
Smallville can very well be up on the chopping block. It has good rating, but hell, so did some of the shows I mentioned that have been canned. Smallville does not get MONSTER rating, but is popular to the 18-25 viewer category, which a lot of us do not belong to anymore. If you assume that category raised on videogames and computers are less loyalty driven to a particular show, ratings can drop precipitously, and in 3 months the trigger can be pulled. *Poof*, no more Smallville. It can happen as simple as that.
I was hoping that someone out there may have a better insight to this trend, but I guess I'll have to wait a couple of years and see this trend play out.
If I understand the idea behind television series correctly, The producers of the programming make a bit of money off of the original run (more if the ratings are really good and the show really brings in the advertising) which is all well and good. But don't they end up making more money *long term* if their shows end up in syndication after the series has been around for a few (3 or 4?) seasons.
You are correct. That is why Network TV production companies are producing them, not independent production companies. Network TV does not care that there is no "resale" value to reality TV. And reality TV does not carry over debt into future seasons like a regularly produced program. The payoff is instant good ratings AND they are sort of counting on the FORMAT of the reality show to continue, even though the contestants don't. And when the ratings tank, chuck the format. Finally, "reality" TV takes maybe 1/10 of the cost of a regular drama/comedy. Thus those programs produce more money for the network. Who cares if they are getting less audience and lower advertiser dollars, if its more profitable than a drama/comedy?
What concerns me is the network deliberately choosing shows that do not get great market share, but generate desirable net profit. That means more crappy shows, less people watching TV, but networks keeping them because they make more money than a drama/comedy.
Another boring lawyer show from David E. Kelley New soon-2-be-DOA show from the other lucky producer...
And the rest being f**king lame-assed "reality" shows I don't watch. How the f**k do loser shows like Big Brother2, Amazing Race2, and The Mole2 manage to get timeslots??? Yeah, they're cheap to produce, but they get sh*tty ratings.
I just don't get it. There a quite a few new shows coming out this fall, and most of them have LOSER stamped on them. Why kick out a promising show to stick in a sure loser?
The only thing new that looks like it has promise is Firefly. But I would have killed something other than Dark Angel... (Birds Of Prey looks promising too.)
Is it that our demographic (and thus, entertainment preferences) is too old and not desirable anymore? Do good shows cost too much? Do networks make more money on sh*t reality shows? Am I missing a possible trend? (Economic recession putting content companies out of business? 9/11 makes people want mindless, "wholesome", patriotic, hero themed shows?)
Its a conspiracy, I tell you! And the handwriting is on the wall. Get ready to say goodbye to Buffy, Stargate SG1 (a Sci-Fi channel property), Angel, Smallville, Enterprise(?), South Park, Son of the Beach,
I can't say its all bad. I watch way too much TV. I'd like to feel confident that there will be something watchable in a couple of years, but it doesn't look good (for me, for us?)...
This article argues that the public sector should be expanded.
The article does not say the public sector should be expanded. The article says government should not move safety related agencies into the private sector.
Its also an odd choice for an article, because it does not make a case for going into a public sector career. Its a union resolution attacking privatization of government agencies.
Why do I smell editorial engineering, or the desire to propagate a point of view?
I can see it now; more fodder for alt.sex.stories.moderated...
"Dear Ms. Teal, it wasn't right of you to tell my parents what I do or don't do online in my spare time. It was only fair for me to break into your AIM account and see what you've been doing in your spare time on your computer. You've been a naughty girl, Ms. Teal. I've read every naughty letter you've written to the phys. ed. teacher. Don't bother deleting your notebook contents. I've already made copies from your hotmail account and copied your hard drive. It would only be fair if I told the principal what you were doing in your off-hours, wouldn't it? If you don't think so, we can talk about it afterschool; meet me on the playground. Your student, Dick Hardt"
Assigning aim/icq/yahoo accounts to students and "study buddies" is such a brilliant use of the technology. But what I don't get is:
1) How to encourage the buddies to help each other out? (Threat of "Your kid doesn't use his online time productively"? It doesn't always work.)
2) Leaving yourself available to be asked homework questions is a pretty miserable way of eliminaating your life outside of work. Even system administrators only get paged when there is a problem.
3) I can just imagine the spamming that must go on with those messaging clients.
Apparently you're too clueless to be aware of the crime pulled off by Katherine Harris (Florida Secretary of State, overseer of the state board of elections). Her office directed the company doing voter roll processing to bar ~30,000 eligible voters from exercising their constitutional right to elect their government officials (probably because they would mostly vote Democrat).
There is no direct linkage to this act in the conspiracy to elect Bush. But its obviously an illegal manipulation of the the electoral process in order to elect Republicans, and it probably made the difference in the presidential election.
Finally, the only agency that can pursue a criminal case against Harris is the US Attorney General's office. It's head, John Ashcroft was appointed by the current US President. The federal gov't has chosen to pursue legal action against local election officials, but not Harris.
The issue about GE corn is not about risk to the soil. The issue is
1) If planted, its GE genes will contaminate the native corn, making it unsellable in places where GE crops are banned. (Europe)
2) GE crops are patent protected. Already, one farmer in Canada has been sued for growing crops that contain the GE gene, who didn't purchase the seed from Monsanto. 10 years down the line, it could mean Zimbabwe could not have an agrocultural industry. Its a choice between starve now, or starve later.
What was the horrible prank that H2K2 decided to unleash upon the US telecommunications networks? Did you see the major news networks talking about how nationwide long distance was shutdown from the Hotel Pennsylvania?
No. H2K2ers did not "attack" phone companies anymore than Kevin Mitnick broke into Norad. But KM did rot in jail for four years for minor offenses. On the other hand, Oliver North, a known drug trafficker, hasn't served a day in jail. Why? Because the American public (including the American/. readers) are suckers who only parrot what the major news media tells them. They are incapable of discerning fact from fiction, or making critical analysis based on the facts presented.
People who try to do independent research of systems or try to find vulnerabilities in our national infrastructures are being branded as criminals, by the "powers-that-be", the centrally controlled US media. Well, it won't be too long before/. readers will lumped in with those H2K2 conventioneers.
BTW, you guys missed an awesome demonstration of the limitations of caller id. The feared "attack" was a live demonstration of them returning a false phone number identification. I could repeat the technical details here, but that would be aiding you/. terrorists.
I doubt OSS groups would go for it on ideological grounds. But a potential implementer could be the commercial UnitedLinux vendors. Hell, we already know they're whores. If they just took the ad money and pocketed the profit, they'd just go down the drain. It would diminish what little marketability their product possess. BUT, if they used the ad revenue to coordinate distribution of funds to software efforts they depend on, it would be free r&d to improve their product, and perhaps they could entice users with a better running distribution.
Alternately, Transgaming should look into it as a way of accelerating their development resources.
In terms of your analysis, you missed Salon, Wired, and The Register. They aren't newspapers, but they are good info content sites, and they indirectly reinforce your point that it appears that good content and accessibility influence the choice of website link selection. I personally like Newsday (LI/NYC) as a paper, but I think their website detracts from the quality of its reporting.
The interview posed the question hypothetically. First he mentioned Opera as an obscure example (rather than Mozilla), and then he wanted to context Open Source as a selling feature vs the market champ, IE. You will notice the parens around certain words in Andressen's responses; it means the editor inserted words that Andressen never actually said, supposedly to give the response a clearer context.
Its possible that you are dead-on in your interpretation. But based on the presentation, you can't in fairness conclusively determine the interviewer was a dolt.
Slashdot Mirror
C'mon, she went that way because she wants to do medical research. Otherwise, there's no point to time spent on the PhD and the fellowship. Yeah, she's a MD, but she didn't spend 15 years in school specifically to be a MD.
Some unique medical school programs combine the BA and the Med school, so its only 6 years before they can start their internship. So yeah, 7 years for quick specialty, 8 years to cut people up. I've never heard of a 6 year residency program.
or, worse, something contagious like leprosy
Technically, leprosy may be considered contagious, but the reality is that you will not contract it unless you have a genetic vulnerability towards it. I guess its been bred out of the gene pool. I also believe its "spread" by contact, not airborne. I'd worry more about tuberculosis...
I'll attribute the empty bravado and flawed logic to someone who needs a religion, much like what a Minnesota governor alluded to in a Playboy interview. If its a troll, kudos, its brilliantly executed.
Freebsd has had SoftUpdates for UFS (disk file system) for quite a while. this does a more or less journaling type feature, although as far as I understand it's not quite a full JFS. it works nicely though, and no more FSCK.
Eliminating fsck is not the primary reason to choose a journaling filesystem. When properly selected, it enhances the integrity of a filesystem after a crash. SoftUpdates does not accomplish this. More telling is someone who chooses his distribution knowing there is a distinct shortcoming, and yet implies its half-measure is comparably acceptable to the real thing.
and as far as hardware support, it's not really a matter of HOW much stuff is supported but how WELL it's supported.FreeBSD device support comes from the same trough as Linux. In most cases, its the unpaid contributions of computer enthusiasts. A new FreeBSD driver is just as prone to bugs as a Linux one. FreeBSD maintainers and developers do not possess 31337 powers that the mere Linux contributors do not. They're merely a little pickier and cagier about the QA and release process. And in return, you have a lot more hardware that you cannot run on your PC. Some people live in the real world, where they don't have the luxury of increasing the expense of their PC to spend their time handpicking components (that work).
[...] who gives a crap whether you can do "good performance IDE software RAID" ? who does that? seriously. if you wanted good RAID performance, you'd build a box using a serious hardware raid controller, with good scsi disks... and if you're someone who wants to argue with me here, then you're really not someone who gets it, and should stick to your linux distro of choice. pretty IRC interfaces aren't all what it's about, you know.
THIS, from the guy who says my half-assed filesystem implementation is perfectly adequate? People go to software raid when they can't afford hardware raid and want more reliability than NO raid. You're the one who doesn't get it, Mr. Ivory Tower. Pretty IRC interfaces??? What the f*ck are you talking about? This is Linux (and I'm a Slackware user). Who the hell uses it because its "prettier"???
As far as compatibility with linux "software" goes, FreeBSD is a POSIX beast, and works just fine in that arena.
Again, when is a half-measure preferable to the real thing? Why screw around with seeing if this Linux package will work under the BSD Compatibility system, when you can pick a distribution that is matched to it and will run after executing a mere rpm/apt-get/installpkg command???
QED. no need to compromise my network with a exploit prone system (besides the windows servers, of course!)
1) Supposed Linux compatibility does not equate to a more secure system. No logical correlation there.
2) Security in a software distribution is merely the vigilant configuration of software and restriction of desirable features. If the NSA thought otherwise, they would have based their SecureLinux distribution on FreeBSD.
THINGS ARE ALWAYS IN THE SAME PLACE. this makes administration easy. installing applications is much simpler. cleaning things up is easier. restoring from backup is easier.
The only intelligent thing you said in this entire post. I am sincere in that statement and I agree completely with your statement. But then you go on to criticize weird-assed customizations, without realizing FreeBSD is just as vulnerable to it as Linux. Linux filesystem arrangements do not mutate any more than FreeBSD systems.
Ports and the source tree- these clinched it for me. [...] I can't begin to say how spoiled I am by using the ports tree.
And realize no one using Linux cares.
anyway, if you're a geek who needs to do server stuff and you'd like to cut down on the headaches, give freebsd a spin. we're not bad people and most of us work for a living. you get to avoid a lot of clueless brats and silly script kiddies.
The only thing your post has told me is if you want to be an elitist compusnob, you're little weak in the the reasoning department and wish to mask it by advocating an elitist OS, you have more time to twiddle with your OS (than just plug-in the working product), you have more money to spend for a component FreeBSD supports, and need to replace your religious faith with a OS distribution, give FreeBSD a spin.
Most script kiddies will be running apache cgi, ftp, sendmail, and lpr exploit scripts. Somehow they will be miraculously ineffective in FreeBSD, even though they use the same codebase. Its the Divine Providence, he'll tell you. The people that care about security will know they need to spend their time understanding the vulnerabilities and prevent them in any operating system they maintain, not erroneously adopt an OS as a security crutch.
While its a potential problem to doctors, they are not quite as vulnerable to H1B as IT workers. Most states have grueling certification requirements (called state boards) that will weed out the less qualified. Also, I recall there are a few more hoops the H1B doctor has to hop through in order to practice in this country. You can thank the AMA for that; something which the IT industry desperately needs for its workers.
I don't miss the problem, I just don't think you understood what I meant by coming under a unified architecture. I was pretty much speaking that for Linux to really succeed on the desktop, it has to be as seemless as the Windows desktop, probably more so. Think Apple :)
And you're stating here that the only thing that keeps Linux from being widespread is that developers have to deal with two windowing architectures? Give me a break! If everyone dropped KDE tomorrow, the interface would suck for common users (in comparison to a more user-friendly interface like Apple or Windows). If everyone dropped Gnome tomorrow, the interface would suck for common users. Red Hat is implementing a uniform interface between Gnome and KDE, and trust me, it will not make the Linux interface competitive to Windoze or Apple. The problem is not unity. The problem is that the imperative goal of both GUI teams is not consumer focused. They wish to implement a GUI under their respective philosophies. You drop one or mishmash both, and you will still have really wizbang features that will not make it easier for the user or make it better to use for them than Windoze or Apple.
I think that in order for Linux to really get ready for the desktop we have to get rid of the whole Gnome/KDE battle and come under a unified architecture.
You really miss the problem. People don't give a damn about whether there is a Gnome, KDE, or unified desktop architecture. The problem is ease-of-use and consistent interface. There isn't a Linux distribution that accomplishes it. Unifying Gnome and KDE would only accomplish a less diverse failure of a user interface. You hand a unified gnome/KDE product to a user, and you get an interface which a user cannot setup and configure themselves without poring through cryptic, spotty documentation.
Your observations were anticipatable. XFS was originally designed for real-time (high speed) data streaming, namely capturing and processing video (which require A LOT of disk space). That bias in design does not lend itself to concurrent disk access performance. Interestingly, your move back to reiserfs works well with reiserfs's strengths. I use XFS, and can't say I've experienced your problems, but I haven't tried compiling and watching video at the same time.
Having said that, I can't say whether your experiences are specifically due to XFS's design, or other factors; such as XFS's implementation under linux, or your tasks requiring a lot of RAM, or CPU (which applies to compiling, playing videos, and XFS). Your problems ith XFS could be resolved with a faster or 2 CPU's or a lot more RAM.
Dude, if you're sick of hearing it, turn off CNN.
More like turn off the TV AND radio. Or pay for cable access and find a movie/comedy channel.
And just because you were in one of the towers doesn't mean you're the only one who has any right to grief. A lot of folks didn't make it out of the towers--or the Pentagon, for that matter. A lot of families will never be able to "move on."
He didn't say ONLY people in the tower had the right to grieve. And I don't think the problem is with the memorial ceremonies all over media today. The problem is that for the past year, I don't think there has been one f*cking day that there has NOT been a 9/11 story in the news. But I live in NYC, perhaps you people outside of the northeast were luckier.
We all knew there was going to be 9/11 memorials on this day. But why the f*ck did CBS and other major networks feel they needed to present 9/11 "specials" SIX months after the attack? Did they reveal to us anything new about the tragedy? No, but apparently there are enough f*cking ghouls in this country that find 9/11 some form of entertainment. You see, this is the problem. This is why so many Americans are sick of all this media coverage of 9/11.
Reflect on the fact that you were lucky a year ago so that you could have your hissyfit today. Then STFU and let people grieve for the folks who weren't so lucky.
I'm sure he did for a month after the attack. And then he moved on with his life, ghoul. Loved ones die every day. Are we expected to spend EVERY day of our lives mourning for them? Are parents obligated to remind their children EVERY day that Grandma is dead? Does the fact that these 3,000 people died in the terrorist attack make their lives more special, to deserve such treatment? At a certain point, we tell people to let go of the dead and move on with their lives.
Did YOU reflect on the fact that he has probably KNEW people that DIED in the tower? That he very badly wants stop feeling that emotional pain, but GHOULS like YOU won't let him? Well STFU, so the dead can rest in peace.
And lets face it. Its no coincidence that every f*cking day in the media has been spent on 9/11. I knew something was wrong when I saw EVERY major paper plaster 9/11 stories on the front page ON 9/10! GWB & Co. want to keep you angry and grief-stricken, and then tell you the solution is invading Iraq. Then you'll see more Americans in body bags, so we can have cheaper oil and kill Arabs all in the name of the victims of 9/11. But I guess its more important to die well than live well.
There is a price to pay for living with the dead.
* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
You're absolutely right that the FBI being able to "spy" on any organization without suspected criminal activity does not abridge the right to assembly. But it does threaten our freedom. This is the same organization that monitored what anti-war and civil-rights organizations were doing during the '60s. These organizations did not commit any crimes, but the FBI did use the information they gathered to blackmail individuals and disrupt their non-violent, non-criminal goals.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
$500 for a dual mobo? Damn, I thought you were full of shit. I remember window shopping on pricewatch.com maybe 3-4 months ago. +$700 for underpowered MPs, while the single CPU Athlons blew them away at 1/2 the price. Check it a couple minutes ago. I'll be damned, they are $500 for a mobo with two 2Ghz MPs. Thanks for the heads up!
(But how the hell am I going to figure out the right times to buy hardware, or when that time is passing by me...)
The point I wanted to make was that quite a few shows were being cancelled even though in most cases they were getting acceptably good ratings. I suspect there is a driving force for this trend. If this force is demographically driven, its likely most of the *kind* of shows we like will soon be gone and more important, these shows will not be debuted in the future.
Smallville can very well be up on the chopping block. It has good rating, but hell, so did some of the shows I mentioned that have been canned. Smallville does not get MONSTER rating, but is popular to the 18-25 viewer category, which a lot of us do not belong to anymore. If you assume that category raised on videogames and computers are less loyalty driven to a particular show, ratings can drop precipitously, and in 3 months the trigger can be pulled. *Poof*, no more Smallville. It can happen as simple as that.
I was hoping that someone out there may have a better insight to this trend, but I guess I'll have to wait a couple of years and see this trend play out.
If I understand the idea behind television series correctly, The producers of the programming make a bit of money off of the original run (more if the ratings are really good and the show really brings in the advertising) which is all well and good. But don't they end up making more money *long term* if their shows end up in syndication after the series has been around for a few (3 or 4?) seasons.
You are correct. That is why Network TV production companies are producing them, not independent production companies. Network TV does not care that there is no "resale" value to reality TV. And reality TV does not carry over debt into future seasons like a regularly produced program. The payoff is instant good ratings AND they are sort of counting on the FORMAT of the reality show to continue, even though the contestants don't. And when the ratings tank, chuck the format. Finally, "reality" TV takes maybe 1/10 of the cost of a regular drama/comedy. Thus those programs produce more money for the network. Who cares if they are getting less audience and lower advertiser dollars, if its more profitable than a drama/comedy?
What concerns me is the network deliberately choosing shows that do not get great market share, but generate desirable net profit. That means more crappy shows, less people watching TV, but networks keeping them because they make more money than a drama/comedy.
Look at what the networks have killed in the past 6 months (of note):
Dark Angel (FOX: news to me, but axed in May, had ok ratings!)
Futurama (FOX: weak ratings)
A couple days ago:
Witchblade (TNT: had strong ratings!)
Farscape (Sci-Fi: good ratings?)
(I'm sure I'm missing a biggie in all this. X-Files, Ally McBeal, Family Guy, etc. don't count...)
I'd understand the cancellations if the ratings were weak, and new programming was so much more promising but:
Derivative spinoffs: CSI:Miami, Law & Order:
Cop shows, cop shows, cops shows
doc shows, doc shows, doc shows
Another boring lawyer show from David E. Kelley
New soon-2-be-DOA show from the other lucky producer...
And the rest being f**king lame-assed "reality" shows I don't watch. How the f**k do loser shows like Big Brother2, Amazing Race2, and The Mole2 manage to get timeslots??? Yeah, they're cheap to produce, but they get sh*tty ratings.
I just don't get it. There a quite a few new shows coming out this fall, and most of them have LOSER stamped on them. Why kick out a promising show to stick in a sure loser?
The only thing new that looks like it has promise is Firefly. But I would have killed something other than Dark Angel... (Birds Of Prey looks promising too.)
Is it that our demographic (and thus, entertainment preferences) is too old and not desirable anymore? Do good shows cost too much? Do networks make more money on sh*t reality shows?
Am I missing a possible trend? (Economic recession putting content companies out of business? 9/11 makes people want mindless, "wholesome", patriotic, hero themed shows?)
Its a conspiracy, I tell you! And the handwriting is on the wall. Get ready to say goodbye to Buffy, Stargate SG1 (a Sci-Fi channel property), Angel, Smallville, Enterprise(?), South Park, Son of the Beach,
I can't say its all bad. I watch way too much TV. I'd like to feel confident that there will be something watchable in a couple of years, but it doesn't look good (for me, for us?)...
This article may shed some light on the matter.
Basically, the article implies that United Linux is a marketing scam for one of the distribution midgets. Its an opinion, but it makes sense.
The article does not say the public sector should be expanded. The article says government should not move safety related agencies into the private sector.
Its also an odd choice for an article, because it does not make a case for going into a public sector career. Its a union resolution attacking privatization of government agencies.
Why do I smell editorial engineering, or the desire to propagate a point of view?
I can see it now; more fodder for alt.sex.stories.moderated...
"Dear Ms. Teal, it wasn't right of you to tell my parents what I do or don't do online in my spare time. It was only fair for me to break into your AIM account and see what you've been doing in your spare time on your computer. You've been a naughty girl, Ms. Teal. I've read every naughty letter you've written to the phys. ed. teacher. Don't bother deleting your notebook contents. I've already made copies from your hotmail account and copied your hard drive. It would only be fair if I told the principal what you were doing in your off-hours, wouldn't it? If you don't think so, we can talk about it afterschool; meet me on the playground. Your student, Dick Hardt"
Assigning aim/icq/yahoo accounts to students and "study buddies" is such a brilliant use of the technology. But what I don't get is:
1) How to encourage the buddies to help each other out? (Threat of "Your kid doesn't use his online time productively"? It doesn't always work.)
2) Leaving yourself available to be asked homework questions is a pretty miserable way of eliminaating your life outside of work. Even system administrators only get paged when there is a problem.
3) I can just imagine the spamming that must go on with those messaging clients.
Apparently you're too clueless to be aware of the crime pulled off by Katherine Harris (Florida Secretary of State, overseer of the state board of elections). Her office directed the company doing voter roll processing to bar ~30,000 eligible voters from exercising their constitutional right to elect their government officials (probably because they would mostly vote Democrat).
There is no direct linkage to this act in the conspiracy to elect Bush. But its obviously an illegal manipulation of the the electoral process in order to elect Republicans, and it probably made the difference in the presidential election.
Finally, the only agency that can pursue a criminal case against Harris is the US Attorney General's office. It's head, John Ashcroft was appointed by the current US President. The federal gov't has chosen to pursue legal action against local election officials, but not Harris.
Still need a clue?
The issue about GE corn is not about risk to the soil. The issue is
1) If planted, its GE genes will contaminate the native corn, making it unsellable in places where GE crops are banned. (Europe)
2) GE crops are patent protected. Already, one farmer in Canada has been sued for growing crops that contain the GE gene, who didn't purchase the seed from Monsanto. 10 years down the line, it could mean Zimbabwe could not have an agrocultural industry. Its a choice between starve now, or starve later.
What was the horrible prank that H2K2 decided to unleash upon the US telecommunications networks? Did you see the major news networks talking about how nationwide long distance was shutdown from the Hotel Pennsylvania?
No. H2K2ers did not "attack" phone companies anymore than Kevin Mitnick broke into Norad. But KM did rot in jail for four years for minor offenses. On the other hand, Oliver North, a known drug trafficker, hasn't served a day in jail. Why? Because the American public (including the American
People who try to do independent research of systems or try to find vulnerabilities in our national infrastructures are being branded as criminals, by the "powers-that-be", the centrally controlled US media. Well, it won't be too long before
BTW, you guys missed an awesome demonstration of the limitations of caller id. The feared "attack" was a live demonstration of them returning a false phone number identification. I could repeat the technical details here, but that would be aiding you
Think about it.
I doubt OSS groups would go for it on ideological grounds. But a potential implementer could be the commercial UnitedLinux vendors. Hell, we already know they're whores. If they just took the ad money and pocketed the profit, they'd just go down the drain. It would diminish what little marketability their product possess. BUT, if they used the ad revenue to coordinate distribution of funds to software efforts they depend on, it would be free r&d to improve their product, and perhaps they could entice users with a better running distribution.
Alternately, Transgaming should look into it as a way of accelerating their development resources.
In terms of your analysis, you missed Salon, Wired, and The Register. They aren't newspapers, but they are good info content sites, and they indirectly reinforce your point that it appears that good content and accessibility influence the choice of website link selection. I personally like Newsday (LI/NYC) as a paper, but I think their website detracts from the quality of its reporting.
The interview posed the question hypothetically. First he mentioned Opera as an obscure example (rather than Mozilla), and then he wanted to context Open Source as a selling feature vs the market champ, IE. You will notice the parens around certain words in Andressen's responses; it means the editor inserted words that Andressen never actually said, supposedly to give the response a clearer context.
Its possible that you are dead-on in your interpretation. But based on the presentation, you can't in fairness conclusively determine the interviewer was a dolt.