That's a bit drastic don't you think? In California if my car is in front of yours and a car stops in front of both of us and you can't see it, but I swerve aside at the last minute and you crash and die, I haven't done anything illegal either. But it's still morally reprehensible. Just like shooting somebody without a reasonable cause even when it is legal.
Sometimes people really are just trying to do their jobs. If I knew he was going to mess with my phone line I would have escorted him to his truck (I'm blessed/cursed with being a fairly large man) and explained how it was in his best physical interests to leave; however, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Sort of a three strikes thing. I don't care if you mess up once, I'll explain happily to you how to do better, twice and I presume that I did not explain properly the first time, third time I get upset.
Mostly because I tend not to over react so I, potentially, under react and because I've never had something like this happen before. I wrote down his license plate, and the information on the magnetic advertisement on the side of his truck, and a description of him; however, I only did this in case he was just 'casing' houses in the area.
...where an engineering contrator of some sort was walking around my property looking for something and my wife asked him what he was doing. He claimed that we had placed a work order with the cable company to do some digging in our yard and he was marking out the cables by spray painting on the grass. My wife informed him that this was not correct and we had done no such thing and asked him to leave. He walked back to his truck and my wife thought the incident was over. A minute or so later he was walking around our backyard again and my wife informed me of what had transpired and I walked out to talk to the guy. He told me basically the same thing and I again, in no uncertain terms, explained to him that we had done no such thing and that I wanted to see a copy of his work order. Suddenly he became terse and slightly agitated and started complaining that he was just marking the ground where the cables lay. I explained to him that if I wanted my grass painted day-glo orange, I would do it myself and re-iterated that I wanted him to leave and that I expected him to respect my request. He said he would do so and sort of apologized for the 'confusion' and started to leave. I walked back into my house and was going into the kitchen and along the way checking that he was leaving. I didn't see him at his truck so I (starting to get a little pissed off now) quickly exited the house by the back door to see what he was doing and found him standing next to my DSL line (BellSouth has it going up the side of the house to a hole in the roof where the DSL line enters and is terminated with an RJ-45.) I asked him what the hell he was doing but he was walking quickly back to his truck. I didn't see any obvious signs of him doing anything; however, when I went back in the house my wife reported that the phones no longer worked. I went back out and found that this guy had pulled the base phone line connection down enough from the small housing next to my other meters to interrupt the phone connections.
I didn't know if he was just screwing with me for telling him to beat it or not, so I called the cable company and asked them about this and they professed total ignorance. I had the company info off the side of the guys truck and called another day (in order to speak to someone else because I actually have the local cable office number [a nightmare to obtain in and of itself]) to see if they used this company and it turns out they do.
The guy had confirmed the address and name on the address so he didn't have a typo on his work order (which I never got to see), but it was a weird experience...
...without instantly changing the quantum state of the delayed photon? Am I missing something?
As soon as you measure an entangled photon, the other entangled photon of the pair has its quantum state immediately changed.
If photon one hits the detector 50 ms before the other 'delayed' photon in the optic cable, isn't it 'being measured'? If it is being measured, then it changes the second photon. Ergo, when the second one hits the moveable detector its state is predetermined by the first photon's measurement.
I keep trying to think of ways in which you could avoid this, for example, measuring the first one in a somewhat random fashion so that by constantly measuring #2 in a manner that produces a non-random result you could see retrocausality through #1's measurement not being random when it should be; however, I keep running into the 'as soon as #1 is measured, #2 is set' issue.
...to the North Koreans. Seriously, pattern recognition software is crap at discerning humans who are attempting to not look like humans. This isn't a security apparatus (current video analytics software is an augmentor not a replacement for traditional security), it is an anti-invasion tool. If you install a few hundred of these along the DMZ and the north invades, turn the key to 'Pasteurize' and they'll kill anything remotely human.
Re:About the 'Digg fraud' campaign...
on
The Zune Cometh
·
· Score: 1
I agree, but the hold-off wouldn't seem likely to benefit the Zune since people would be specifically holding off in order to get an iPod. Perhaps if iPods were far between it could lead to some people waiting, waiting, waiting, getting frustrated and then getting a Zune, but that means that (a)Apple would have to be slow in releasing another iPod and that (b)Zune wouldn't benefit from the FUD for a significant period of time.
All in all, it doesn't strike me as useful to Zune, but as you pointed out, Micro$oft would not be breaking new ground in the idiocy department for itself...;)
Re:About the 'Digg fraud' campaign...
on
The Zune Cometh
·
· Score: 1
True, I apologize for not being more specific;), nobody is beating the iPod in the near future.
About the 'Digg fraud' campaign...
on
The Zune Cometh
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...the entire article is supposition and not even logically thought out supposition.
See the paragraph below:
"For example, Murphey has been working to create rumors of an imminently available new "video iPod," apparently in an effort to try to get iPod buyers to hold off on their purchases and perhaps consider the Zune."
That doesn't make any sense at all. If Murphey is trying to get people more interested in Zune and wanting to buy a Zune, why would he suggest that a new iPod is coming out. This would actually make people considering a Zune potentially abort that purchase waiting for Apple to produce an iPod with WiFi or something similar.
Much of the accusation in that 'article' is logically weak like this one and actually supplies nothing but pure speculation.
That crap aside, nobody is going to kill the iPod, it's a behemoth now.
...we can't espouse Linux as a viable alternative in both the server and desktop markets and simultaneously complain that Micro$oft should be punished as an anti-trust violator because they're charging more for Vista and OEMs have no choice but to ship some form of Vista.
They don't *have* to ship Vista. Hell, people should be yelling at Apple to make a go of it with OSX. Then you'd have OEMs who could ship Windows, OSX, various flavours of Linux.
It sounds to me like the OEMs are complaining that there aren't more companies who make 'Windows' in order for them to have competitive pricing on 'Windows.'
...been using it at work to find images on occasion for a looooong time now and never had this happen.
Probably related to multiple phishing links being promulgated by links from Google. Something they'll surely look to fix as this will happen with MSN and other sites as they get more usage (Google's always the big one.)
...sent and not the actual atoms (or constituent particles) that are sent by 'entangling' the local object's atoms with particles being sent to the remote location? In other words it is duplication as opposed to actual moving something (other than the information), right? Or am I missing something? Like 'faxing'?
...in their commercials against DSL. They put in *very* fine print at the bottom that they are comparing their absolute top speed product against the slowest possible DSL product. We all know that a top versus top comparison would certainly be fairer. The never seem to mention the slowdowns you get when everyone else gets on with you in your local area;).
The typical software architect. Tell what your needs are, platforms are, customers are, ancillary goals are, future needs may be, yadda^3.
I left it because the startup that had decided to employ it did a 'Titanic';). We didn't need to use it on the project, but it didn't really hurt us as the primary engineers (myself and a couple of other guys) were pretty decent developers who were excited about EJB, so we found a myriad of ways to get around the problems inherent in early *implementations* of EJB containers (not problems with EJB itself.) The problem was that EJB is a very solid, imho, interesting framework which unfortunately rarely (relatively) gets used in the proper context. We certainly didn't need to use EJB for our solution, it was like killing a mosquito with a shotgun. LOL.
I personally feel that EJB is most useful in a distributed enterprise development context. Not as in a company with 3 different development locations but as in several companies trying to band together to 'out service' another conglomerate of companies.
The only thing I think I'd suggest regarding EJB is this: If you have the caliber of developers who are really going to understand and properly implement an EJB based solution then chances are your developers could solve these framework problems without using EJB. Encrypted XML over TCP/IP for example, marshaling things themselves. Lifetime and memory management. These problems are simpler than they appear and any project which doesn't provide you with the bandwidth to accomplish these types of goals probably isn't giving you the bandwidth you need to use an EJB based solution either. (This is, of course, discounting projects wherein you're simply adding to an existing or integrating to an existing EJB infrastructure.)
People would be shocked at how much cool enterprise stuff you can do on your own in Java/C# (pick your poison.) I've spent quite a bit of time architecting an enterprise distributed system lately and found that most of our client systems (streaming video, geospatial display for example) integrate nicely into our middleware layer with Java as the implementation platform, and that the middleware layer works well in C# (some aspects in C++ since we're still looking at C# on *nix.)
...many ex-Java EJB devs think that all the current iterations of EJB are difficult to develop in (relatively), difficult to maintain, and fragile and difficult to support on multiple EJB servers... These are the main reason we're ex-Java EJB devs.
What on earth indicated to you that I approve of their actions in any way?
Ironically, I do NOT approve of their actions you stupid prat. I just wanted to point out that Wales has no financial responsibilities so it is quite easy for him to purport horror at the thought of censorship and take potshots at publically traded companies.
"You should be so terribly ashame [sic] of your moral principles" which apparently include attacking others without thought or contemplation. You're just another usenet/internet idiot.
Taking apart the rest of your argument would be both trivial and useless as you're obviously a zealot of some sort.
...and Google is a public company and responsible first and foremost to its stockholders. Unhappy with that, blame the Google execs for selling out and going public.
"What he wrote was similar to saying 'all criminals are black'" - Please don't take this the wrong way but I believe that *you wanted* to see it this way. In my opinion (and that's all it is) someone less eager to jump on posters for lapses in thought would have asked them to clarify this.
How is "so far, all the terrorists have been Muslim" encouraging bigotry if the poster meant those involved 9/11?
You're missing the point. You need to find out what they actually meant before going ballistic on them for what you *interpreted* their meaning to be.
Uh, why could you call me a racist? Are you confusing racism with ethnocentrism? I'm not ethnocentric in any case, but the US is not a 'race' by any stretch of the imagination.
You could call me stupid because I have an 'obvious assumption that the US is all that matters'? Uh, the original poster was referring to attackers of the United States in regards to the greater restrictions on commercial airline travel specifically in the case of the United States...?
As for Timothy McVeigh, if you think the airline restrictions are in any way tied to that idiot's actions, then they sure waited a long time to enact them...
As for calling me "nigger/whitey/chink/fuckwit/idiot/imbecile/raghea d/... that's okay then?" the poster that was first called racist appeared to say that all of the terrists had been muslims. Quite obviously he/she was referring to the airline disasters unless you somehow think the poster was claiming that every terrorist through recorded history was muslim (in which case anyone reading this would think that you were the one lacking sense...)?
They didn't say all muslims were terrorists, they said all of the terrorists [so far] had been muslims.
I certainly think they should have made their post clearer because their statement obviously led to a bunch of people over-reacting like yourself.
The problem is that the person wrote "but so far all the terrorists have been Muslim" and they quite clearly did not intend that condemnation to apply to every terrorist act in the recorded history of civilization.
It was quite obvious what the poster intended despite the lazy rhetorical action.
You are being very much a literalist, so, in turn if I apply this to what you wrote "Those who spout statements like 'all terrorists are Muslim' deserve to be ridiculoed" then I would have to accuse you of being either incorrect or intentionally falsifying what the other poster wrote (which is, of course ridiculous, you're only being a TINY bit careless about what the other person actually wrote.) I know this, and I understand exactly what you're saying, I just wanted to point out that jumping to calling people racist idiots when they've likely just been a little lazy in qualifying their statement is a rash.
BTW, I hope Ann Coulter gets a botched botox job and acquires gout.;)
Slashdot Mirror
That's a bit drastic don't you think? In California if my car is in front of yours and a car stops in front of both of us and you can't see it, but I swerve aside at the last minute and you crash and die, I haven't done anything illegal either. But it's still morally reprehensible. Just like shooting somebody without a reasonable cause even when it is legal.
Sometimes people really are just trying to do their jobs. If I knew he was going to mess with my phone line I would have escorted him to his truck (I'm blessed/cursed with being a fairly large man) and explained how it was in his best physical interests to leave; however, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Sort of a three strikes thing. I don't care if you mess up once, I'll explain happily to you how to do better, twice and I presume that I did not explain properly the first time, third time I get upset.
Mostly because I tend not to over react so I, potentially, under react and because I've never had something like this happen before. I wrote down his license plate, and the information on the magnetic advertisement on the side of his truck, and a description of him; however, I only did this in case he was just 'casing' houses in the area.
...where an engineering contrator of some sort was walking around my property looking for something and my wife asked him what he was doing. He claimed that we had placed a work order with the cable company to do some digging in our yard and he was marking out the cables by spray painting on the grass. My wife informed him that this was not correct and we had done no such thing and asked him to leave. He walked back to his truck and my wife thought the incident was over. A minute or so later he was walking around our backyard again and my wife informed me of what had transpired and I walked out to talk to the guy. He told me basically the same thing and I again, in no uncertain terms, explained to him that we had done no such thing and that I wanted to see a copy of his work order. Suddenly he became terse and slightly agitated and started complaining that he was just marking the ground where the cables lay. I explained to him that if I wanted my grass painted day-glo orange, I would do it myself and re-iterated that I wanted him to leave and that I expected him to respect my request. He said he would do so and sort of apologized for the 'confusion' and started to leave. I walked back into my house and was going into the kitchen and along the way checking that he was leaving. I didn't see him at his truck so I (starting to get a little pissed off now) quickly exited the house by the back door to see what he was doing and found him standing next to my DSL line (BellSouth has it going up the side of the house to a hole in the roof where the DSL line enters and is terminated with an RJ-45.) I asked him what the hell he was doing but he was walking quickly back to his truck. I didn't see any obvious signs of him doing anything; however, when I went back in the house my wife reported that the phones no longer worked. I went back out and found that this guy had pulled the base phone line connection down enough from the small housing next to my other meters to interrupt the phone connections.
I didn't know if he was just screwing with me for telling him to beat it or not, so I called the cable company and asked them about this and they professed total ignorance. I had the company info off the side of the guys truck and called another day (in order to speak to someone else because I actually have the local cable office number [a nightmare to obtain in and of itself]) to see if they used this company and it turns out they do.
The guy had confirmed the address and name on the address so he didn't have a typo on his work order (which I never got to see), but it was a weird experience...
...without instantly changing the quantum state of the delayed photon? Am I missing something?
As soon as you measure an entangled photon, the other entangled photon of the pair has its quantum state immediately changed.
If photon one hits the detector 50 ms before the other 'delayed' photon in the optic cable, isn't it 'being measured'? If it is being measured, then it changes the second photon. Ergo, when the second one hits the moveable detector its state is predetermined by the first photon's measurement.
I keep trying to think of ways in which you could avoid this, for example, measuring the first one in a somewhat random fashion so that by constantly measuring #2 in a manner that produces a non-random result you could see retrocausality through #1's measurement not being random when it should be; however, I keep running into the 'as soon as #1 is measured, #2 is set' issue.
Lil' help?
...to the North Koreans. Seriously, pattern recognition software is crap at discerning humans who are attempting to not look like humans. This isn't a security apparatus (current video analytics software is an augmentor not a replacement for traditional security), it is an anti-invasion tool. If you install a few hundred of these along the DMZ and the north invades, turn the key to 'Pasteurize' and they'll kill anything remotely human.
I agree, but the hold-off wouldn't seem likely to benefit the Zune since people would be specifically holding off in order to get an iPod. Perhaps if iPods were far between it could lead to some people waiting, waiting, waiting, getting frustrated and then getting a Zune, but that means that (a)Apple would have to be slow in releasing another iPod and that (b)Zune wouldn't benefit from the FUD for a significant period of time.
;)
All in all, it doesn't strike me as useful to Zune, but as you pointed out, Micro$oft would not be breaking new ground in the idiocy department for itself...
True, I apologize for not being more specific ;), nobody is beating the iPod in the near future.
...the entire article is supposition and not even logically thought out supposition.
See the paragraph below:
"For example, Murphey has been working to create rumors of an imminently available new "video iPod," apparently in an effort to try to get iPod buyers to hold off on their purchases and perhaps consider the Zune."
That doesn't make any sense at all. If Murphey is trying to get people more interested in Zune and wanting to buy a Zune, why would he suggest that a new iPod is coming out. This would actually make people considering a Zune potentially abort that purchase waiting for Apple to produce an iPod with WiFi or something similar.
Much of the accusation in that 'article' is logically weak like this one and actually supplies nothing but pure speculation.
That crap aside, nobody is going to kill the iPod, it's a behemoth now.
...we can't espouse Linux as a viable alternative in both the server and desktop markets and simultaneously complain that Micro$oft should be punished as an anti-trust violator because they're charging more for Vista and OEMs have no choice but to ship some form of Vista.
They don't *have* to ship Vista. Hell, people should be yelling at Apple to make a go of it with OSX. Then you'd have OEMs who could ship Windows, OSX, various flavours of Linux.
It sounds to me like the OEMs are complaining that there aren't more companies who make 'Windows' in order for them to have competitive pricing on 'Windows.'
How many PhDs are there involved in the Shuttle program? ;)
...many people have the release candidate version on their machines and very little reason to 'race FireFox' by pulling down the latest release?
How about the people who have removed FF 2.0 in order to go back to 1.5x (as I did) because 2.0 has serious issues?
What is it with people and 'picking sides'? Both browsers offer a great experience. I use both every day.
...been using it at work to find images on occasion for a looooong time now and never had this happen.
Probably related to multiple phishing links being promulgated by links from Google. Something they'll surely look to fix as this will happen with MSN and other sites as they get more usage (Google's always the big one.)
Actually, the current method for entangling the atoms of the matter does destroy it.
...sent and not the actual atoms (or constituent particles) that are sent by 'entangling' the local object's atoms with particles being sent to the remote location? In other words it is duplication as opposed to actual moving something (other than the information), right? Or am I missing something? Like 'faxing'?
...in their commercials against DSL. They put in *very* fine print at the bottom that they are comparing their absolute top speed product against the slowest possible DSL product. We all know that a top versus top comparison would certainly be fairer. The never seem to mention the slowdowns you get when everyone else gets on with you in your local area ;).
The typical software architect. Tell what your needs are, platforms are, customers are, ancillary goals are, future needs may be, yadda^3.
;). We didn't need to use it on the project, but it didn't really hurt us as the primary engineers (myself and a couple of other guys) were pretty decent developers who were excited about EJB, so we found a myriad of ways to get around the problems inherent in early *implementations* of EJB containers (not problems with EJB itself.) The problem was that EJB is a very solid, imho, interesting framework which unfortunately rarely (relatively) gets used in the proper context. We certainly didn't need to use EJB for our solution, it was like killing a mosquito with a shotgun. LOL.
I left it because the startup that had decided to employ it did a 'Titanic'
I personally feel that EJB is most useful in a distributed enterprise development context. Not as in a company with 3 different development locations but as in several companies trying to band together to 'out service' another conglomerate of companies.
The only thing I think I'd suggest regarding EJB is this: If you have the caliber of developers who are really going to understand and properly implement an EJB based solution then chances are your developers could solve these framework problems without using EJB. Encrypted XML over TCP/IP for example, marshaling things themselves. Lifetime and memory management. These problems are simpler than they appear and any project which doesn't provide you with the bandwidth to accomplish these types of goals probably isn't giving you the bandwidth you need to use an EJB based solution either. (This is, of course, discounting projects wherein you're simply adding to an existing or integrating to an existing EJB infrastructure.)
People would be shocked at how much cool enterprise stuff you can do on your own in Java/C# (pick your poison.) I've spent quite a bit of time architecting an enterprise distributed system lately and found that most of our client systems (streaming video, geospatial display for example) integrate nicely into our middleware layer with Java as the implementation platform, and that the middleware layer works well in C# (some aspects in C++ since we're still looking at C# on *nix.)
...many ex-Java EJB devs think that all the current iterations of EJB are difficult to develop in (relatively), difficult to maintain, and fragile and difficult to support on multiple EJB servers... These are the main reason we're ex-Java EJB devs.
What on earth indicated to you that I approve of their actions in any way?
Ironically, I do NOT approve of their actions you stupid prat. I just wanted to point out that Wales has no financial responsibilities so it is quite easy for him to purport horror at the thought of censorship and take potshots at publically traded companies.
"You should be so terribly ashame [sic] of your moral principles" which apparently include attacking others without thought or contemplation. You're just another usenet/internet idiot.
Taking apart the rest of your argument would be both trivial and useless as you're obviously a zealot of some sort.
...and Google is a public company and responsible first and foremost to its stockholders. Unhappy with that, blame the Google execs for selling out and going public.
...publically traded company? ;)
It's easy to take the moral high road when you're not responsible for anything or anyone.
"What he wrote was similar to saying 'all criminals are black'" - Please don't take this the wrong way but I believe that *you wanted* to see it this way. In my opinion (and that's all it is) someone less eager to jump on posters for lapses in thought would have asked them to clarify this.
How is "so far, all the terrorists have been Muslim" encouraging bigotry if the poster meant those involved 9/11?
You're missing the point. You need to find out what they actually meant before going ballistic on them for what you *interpreted* their meaning to be.
Uh, why could you call me a racist? Are you confusing racism with ethnocentrism? I'm not ethnocentric in any case, but the US is not a 'race' by any stretch of the imagination.
a d /... that's okay then?" the poster that was first called racist appeared to say that all of the terrists had been muslims. Quite obviously he/she was referring to the airline disasters unless you somehow think the poster was claiming that every terrorist through recorded history was muslim (in which case anyone reading this would think that you were the one lacking sense...)?
You could call me stupid because I have an 'obvious assumption that the US is all that matters'? Uh, the original poster was referring to attackers of the United States in regards to the greater restrictions on commercial airline travel specifically in the case of the United States...?
As for Timothy McVeigh, if you think the airline restrictions are in any way tied to that idiot's actions, then they sure waited a long time to enact them...
As for calling me "nigger/whitey/chink/fuckwit/idiot/imbecile/raghe
They didn't say all muslims were terrorists, they said all of the terrorists [so far] had been muslims.
I certainly think they should have made their post clearer because their statement obviously led to a bunch of people over-reacting like yourself.
The problem is that the person wrote "but so far all the terrorists have been Muslim" and they quite clearly did not intend that condemnation to apply to every terrorist act in the recorded history of civilization.
;)
It was quite obvious what the poster intended despite the lazy rhetorical action.
You are being very much a literalist, so, in turn if I apply this to what you wrote "Those who spout statements like 'all terrorists are Muslim' deserve to be ridiculoed" then I would have to accuse you of being either incorrect or intentionally falsifying what the other poster wrote (which is, of course ridiculous, you're only being a TINY bit careless about what the other person actually wrote.) I know this, and I understand exactly what you're saying, I just wanted to point out that jumping to calling people racist idiots when they've likely just been a little lazy in qualifying their statement is a rash.
BTW, I hope Ann Coulter gets a botched botox job and acquires gout.
*probably (sorry, looooong weekend.)