Crisis comes and goes. You know how to adapt, they don't.:-)
I still get riled up about taxes, as you do. That one bugs me.
But in a society that wants to "consume" and let someone else take care of the consequences (law-makers), people who have their own interests at heart, not the interests of the people who want to be taken care of...
Things won't get any better until they get a lot worse.
Micromanaging cockmasters! I love it. A new phrase to use, if I may. Perfect!
Frankly though, don't let it sadden you if someone wants to chase after the brass ring. You've obviously worked out a way to be content with what you have, which is far more than half the battle for most people -- worrying about them not figuring it out, really isn't your problem.
They're chasing their "dream", only by chasing can they find out if they really wanted it when they arrive there.
Some people never figure it out. They're multi-millionaires and seemingly have everything they might ever want, in a material sense, but they're still driven to make more money. They're never satisfied.
They're involved in what they believe is their "Pursuit of Happiness". Let 'em. You're better off if you truly ARE happy, than they'll ever be PURSUING their bliss. They haven't found it yet, and you have... who's richer?
Hmm, if we all drove the speed limit would that be safe enough for you? You say the drivers driving at the limit are the dangerous ones, while they're following the law and convention -- and you're wanting to drive faster.
I don't think I'm the one who's deceived myself here.
The limits are set with a good safety margin for good drivers and bad, and unless weather is a factor, are generally excellent speeds at which to travel for a particular road. Your claim is that all other drivers, no matter their ability, should always drive a particular road right up to the top speed that road can be safely traveled. That's ludicrous. Not everyone can, or will, do that.
Let's take some real world numbers. I have a medium-sized commute at 27 miles door-to-door.
At 60 MPH, assuming no stop lights, etc... just basic 5th grader math here: I get there in 27 minutes.
You want to drive say, 75 MPH. You get there in 22 minutes (rounded up a fraction of a minute).
For 15 MPH of extra speed, assuming you could MAINTAIN that for the entire trip -- and you can't on crowded roads where people ARE driving the limit, making you a weaving maniac in and out of lanes trying to drive 15 MPH over...
Guess what? You saved 5 minutes.
Now calculate the physical forces involved in the absolute worst-case scenario -- a head-on collision at 60 MPH and at 75 MPH.
Is being "right" about traffic "naturally" wanting to go faster and the stress involved in weaving all over the place around slower traffic worth 5 minutes?
Again, I challenge you to apply that gray matter on top of your head. You want to drive faster, but your "issues" with it are all political, not truly safety related or even based in a need to get anywhere all that much faster.
You want to justify putting those operating at the legal speed limit at considerable risk (impact forces are multipled by the SQUARE of the increase in speed, if you recall from basic Physics knowledge -- if you have any) because you want to drive faster, and you get no measurable gain from doing so on a 27 mile commute. (I don't consider 5 minutes all that important in the grand scheme of commuting.)
On shorter distances, your speeding is even sillier. Do the math.
On VERY long drives, you start to benefit from the higher speed, but on drives of that distance you're also often leaving the congested areas of most major cities completely, and the limits adjust upward ACCORDINGLY as you do so. (Limits outside of the city around here are 75 MPH. Go figure.)
It's not a smug sense of any "superiority" you're seeing from this corner, just intelligent application of basic math.
Your desired extra 15 MPH of speed is:
1. Not really getting you there any faster, in the grand scheme of time. 5 minutes across town isn't significant even if you count going both directions. You lost 10 minutes of your day to drive the limit. You'll hit the stop lights wrong at the exit ramp more often than not, and I'll be pulling up next to you, or arrive at the final destination within 1-2 minutes of you doing so.
(Take a GPS along for a weeks worth of commutes and look at the AVERAGE speed indicator in real serious traffic -- even if you feel you're doing the top speeds you want to, and tell me what sitting at that 2-3 minute stop light at each end of the highway does to your average speed.)
2. Significantly putting you and others at higher risk of death in the worst-case scenario.
3. Cause you to have to come up with a whole bunch of political things to complain about... "revenue generation" comments, car color complaint, etc. None of which amount to a hill of beans if you're dead later today.
Wouldn't your life be a lot less cluttered with all those worries you're all riled up about if you just drove the speed limits?
Nah, he was complaining that there were no good personal finance apps. Just because there never was one direct from Apple, doesn't mean there aren't any... that's all I was saying.
Yeah, in the world of information compartmentalization they're going to put citations on everything in the wiki. Sure they are. What planet are you on?
I answer phones with the phrase, "This is Nate". I can't believe how many people this throws off who can't get their heads out of their asses when they don't hear the useless and unnecessary "Hello?".
Tell VxWorks, Microware, or Green Hills Software that their tools are dead.
They'll laugh you to the door, waving their massive government and aviation contracts as so many hand-fans, to keep you cool as you explode with envy.
RTOS systems and toolchains that are rock-solid are hard to create and to continually release STABLE software for.
Open-source's penchant for acting like a bunch of typewriting monkeys, doesn't bode well for its use in mission-critical (usually involving human life) systems that must be audited... and never will.
Great end-user software, but you don't want anything but a commercial RTOS moving the rudder, ailerons, elevator and controlling the FADEC that's got 100% control of the engines.
Wow, what an amazingly good example of twisting statistics.
He takes the numbers in the table showing Driver Deaths, Other Deaths, and Total Deaths and makes his argument completely based on the right-hand Total Deaths column.
He completely misses that in the "lowest" cars for deaths, that the ratio of you dying to the other guy dying is approximately 2:1 for all of them.
Then you look at the ratios for the so-called "big and bad" vehicles, and while they're in more accidents that relate to death, they're also almost all the exact opposite 1:2 that you'll die over the other guy.
So his table proves that the physics of collisions still apply -- mass wins. The big and bad drivers kill the other drivers. But what he was trying to say was that the mid-sized sedans are "safer". They're not.
The document has tons of other technical flaws in it, but it's a great example of pseudo-science written not as science, but twisting the numbers to prove a false "point".
Your "young drivers" will be four times less likely to be killed versus driving a Camry, according to the numbers in the table.
Or religiously believe what you want to believe. I don't drive an SUV because it's a status symbol, I use mine regularly off-road and in bad weather.
Sorry, I will not feel too badly if we're both out in conditions that require more vehicle than you like, you do something stupid in front of me and lose control of your ultra-safe minivan, come across the median and the fire department has to use the jaws of life to pry your head out of my bumper.
Once they get you out, they'll yank my truck out of your minivan, and I'll drive home.
The moral of the story -- everyone chooses their vehicles for different reasons, but lumping all SUV owners into the same "big and bad" mentality as the twit housewives taking Suburbans to the local mall, is as short-sighted and misguided as it gets.
Some of us know and understand the limitations of our larger vehicles and need them for real work, or other purposes (towing, off-road access to work sites in the mountains in WINTER, live in harsher climates, etc.) and we also teach those "poor little children" how to drive them properly.
Every time I see something that uses the heart-string puller phrase, "think of the children" I already know the argument being made is usually false and built off of stupid assumptions. You didn't disappoint.
Even better, the sooner you realize the utter shit that entertainment companies crank out is totally useless and stop buying it, and spend your time doing something more interesting or worthwhile... the sooner DRM doesn't matter, too.
Another new movie, another thing to watch once and forget, if even that... how many come out a month now? Who cares anymore? Wait for the three or four good ones in a year, perhaps... spend the $9 on the real theatre experience, grab a $10 coke and popcorn and enjoy.
Collecting them on DVD is utterly retarded. Spending time putting one on a hard disc? Come on.
You saw it didn't you? Haven't you got anything better to do?
I tend to read "asshole" into "ruthless businessman".
Some people put value on such behavior, many others find most things "businessmen" do as very dishonorable.
Many "ruthless businessmen" feel they can "make up for their behavior" by donating millions or billions to charity, even while screwing their own employees out of the majority of their company's profits that the employees worked for.
You forgot that a squadron of F-22A Raptors can take on multiple squadrons of F-15's and win. The F-35 "Joint Strike Fighter" will likely have similar results.
And let's not point out that armed drones are here already... and an unmanned aircraft can always pull more G's and a tighter turn than a manned aircraft, so they'll have some distinct advantages over the older generation technology.
Technology doesn't just last longer, it also gets better at what it does, usually.
Desktop computer software? Mmmm... not so much. The curve isn't "slowing" the innovation simply isn't there. How about some of the software "engineers" out there starting to act like real engineers and building to "building codes", subjecting themselves to licensure to work with financial and other critical systems as determined by law, and the resulting personal liability... just like other professions?
Maybe then the weekly patching of hundreds of bugs in OS's, applications, and server code would slow up enough that some real innovation could get done. A little discipline in the software industry would be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Crisis comes and goes. You know how to adapt, they don't. :-)
I still get riled up about taxes, as you do. That one bugs me.
But in a society that wants to "consume" and let someone else take care of the consequences (law-makers), people who have their own interests at heart, not the interests of the people who want to be taken care of...
Things won't get any better until they get a lot worse.
Micromanaging cockmasters! I love it. A new phrase to use, if I may. Perfect!
Frankly though, don't let it sadden you if someone wants to chase after the brass ring. You've obviously worked out a way to be content with what you have, which is far more than half the battle for most people -- worrying about them not figuring it out, really isn't your problem.
They're chasing their "dream", only by chasing can they find out if they really wanted it when they arrive there.
Some people never figure it out. They're multi-millionaires and seemingly have everything they might ever want, in a material sense, but they're still driven to make more money. They're never satisfied.
They're involved in what they believe is their "Pursuit of Happiness". Let 'em. You're better off if you truly ARE happy, than they'll ever be PURSUING their bliss. They haven't found it yet, and you have... who's richer?
Hmm, if we all drove the speed limit would that be safe enough for you? You say the drivers driving at the limit are the dangerous ones, while they're following the law and convention -- and you're wanting to drive faster.
I don't think I'm the one who's deceived myself here.
The limits are set with a good safety margin for good drivers and bad, and unless weather is a factor, are generally excellent speeds at which to travel for a particular road. Your claim is that all other drivers, no matter their ability, should always drive a particular road right up to the top speed that road can be safely traveled. That's ludicrous. Not everyone can, or will, do that.
Let's take some real world numbers. I have a medium-sized commute at 27 miles door-to-door.
At 60 MPH, assuming no stop lights, etc... just basic 5th grader math here: I get there in 27 minutes.
You want to drive say, 75 MPH. You get there in 22 minutes (rounded up a fraction of a minute).
For 15 MPH of extra speed, assuming you could MAINTAIN that for the entire trip -- and you can't on crowded roads where people ARE driving the limit, making you a weaving maniac in and out of lanes trying to drive 15 MPH over...
Guess what? You saved 5 minutes.
Now calculate the physical forces involved in the absolute worst-case scenario -- a head-on collision at 60 MPH and at 75 MPH.
Is being "right" about traffic "naturally" wanting to go faster and the stress involved in weaving all over the place around slower traffic worth 5 minutes?
Again, I challenge you to apply that gray matter on top of your head. You want to drive faster, but your "issues" with it are all political, not truly safety related or even based in a need to get anywhere all that much faster.
You want to justify putting those operating at the legal speed limit at considerable risk (impact forces are multipled by the SQUARE of the increase in speed, if you recall from basic Physics knowledge -- if you have any) because you want to drive faster, and you get no measurable gain from doing so on a 27 mile commute. (I don't consider 5 minutes all that important in the grand scheme of commuting.)
On shorter distances, your speeding is even sillier. Do the math.
On VERY long drives, you start to benefit from the higher speed, but on drives of that distance you're also often leaving the congested areas of most major cities completely, and the limits adjust upward ACCORDINGLY as you do so. (Limits outside of the city around here are 75 MPH. Go figure.)
It's not a smug sense of any "superiority" you're seeing from this corner, just intelligent application of basic math.
Your desired extra 15 MPH of speed is:
1. Not really getting you there any faster, in the grand scheme of time. 5 minutes across town isn't significant even if you count going both directions. You lost 10 minutes of your day to drive the limit. You'll hit the stop lights wrong at the exit ramp more often than not, and I'll be pulling up next to you, or arrive at the final destination within 1-2 minutes of you doing so.
(Take a GPS along for a weeks worth of commutes and look at the AVERAGE speed indicator in real serious traffic -- even if you feel you're doing the top speeds you want to, and tell me what sitting at that 2-3 minute stop light at each end of the highway does to your average speed.)
2. Significantly putting you and others at higher risk of death in the worst-case scenario.
3. Cause you to have to come up with a whole bunch of political things to complain about... "revenue generation" comments, car color complaint, etc. None of which amount to a hill of beans if you're dead later today.
Wouldn't your life be a lot less cluttered with all those worries you're all riled up about if you just drove the speed limits?
When the opposing team has a grudge and their pitcher throws a 90 MPH fastball at your head, it's aggressive.
When a collision at home plate sends a catcher to the hospital for head and neck injuries, it's aggressive.
When a team is down by one in the bottom of the 9th and they pull a double steal to get the tying run to 3rd base, it's aggressive.
What are you smoking?
Yes. I do. It's fun to be relaxed and watch people losing it in their cars and NOT care.
It takes a while until you're not self-conscious about it, then you realize you're the safe one and they're the assholes.
Dumb ass. Slow down.
Gee, I thought it was the 20-30 strobes all over the bastard that helped me see it so well.
It must have been the colors after all. Thanks for enlightening us.
I can't find it right now, but Dark Green cars are the most hit at both night and daytime.
I know personally - my wife was hit six times in seven years in her Honda Civic, and the last time it was totaled.
She came away without a scratch every time, but I vowed to never get her a dark-colored car ever again.
So far so good, well... if you count that she hit someone else in her silver car instead of getting hit. (Rolls eyes at wifey...)
Nah, he was complaining that there were no good personal finance apps. Just because there never was one direct from Apple, doesn't mean there aren't any... that's all I was saying.
What's wrong with Quicken?
You assume skepticism is healthy. I'm not sure I agree.
Yeah, in the world of information compartmentalization they're going to put citations on everything in the wiki. Sure they are. What planet are you on?
I answer phones with the phrase, "This is Nate". I can't believe how many people this throws off who can't get their heads out of their asses when they don't hear the useless and unnecessary "Hello?".
Subject line says it all. This isn't news to anyone who has a freakin' clue about RF systems.
Tell VxWorks, Microware, or Green Hills Software that their tools are dead.
They'll laugh you to the door, waving their massive government and aviation contracts as so many hand-fans, to keep you cool as you explode with envy.
RTOS systems and toolchains that are rock-solid are hard to create and to continually release STABLE software for.
Open-source's penchant for acting like a bunch of typewriting monkeys, doesn't bode well for its use in mission-critical (usually involving human life) systems that must be audited... and never will.
Great end-user software, but you don't want anything but a commercial RTOS moving the rudder, ailerons, elevator and controlling the FADEC that's got 100% control of the engines.
RTOS FTW!
Wow, what an amazingly good example of twisting statistics.
He takes the numbers in the table showing Driver Deaths, Other Deaths, and Total Deaths and makes his argument completely based on the right-hand Total Deaths column.
He completely misses that in the "lowest" cars for deaths, that the ratio of you dying to the other guy dying is approximately 2:1 for all of them.
Then you look at the ratios for the so-called "big and bad" vehicles, and while they're in more accidents that relate to death, they're also almost all the exact opposite 1:2 that you'll die over the other guy.
So his table proves that the physics of collisions still apply -- mass wins. The big and bad drivers kill the other drivers. But what he was trying to say was that the mid-sized sedans are "safer". They're not.
The document has tons of other technical flaws in it, but it's a great example of pseudo-science written not as science, but twisting the numbers to prove a false "point".
Your "young drivers" will be four times less likely to be killed versus driving a Camry, according to the numbers in the table.
Or religiously believe what you want to believe. I don't drive an SUV because it's a status symbol, I use mine regularly off-road and in bad weather.
Sorry, I will not feel too badly if we're both out in conditions that require more vehicle than you like, you do something stupid in front of me and lose control of your ultra-safe minivan, come across the median and the fire department has to use the jaws of life to pry your head out of my bumper.
Once they get you out, they'll yank my truck out of your minivan, and I'll drive home.
The moral of the story -- everyone chooses their vehicles for different reasons, but lumping all SUV owners into the same "big and bad" mentality as the twit housewives taking Suburbans to the local mall, is as short-sighted and misguided as it gets.
Some of us know and understand the limitations of our larger vehicles and need them for real work, or other purposes (towing, off-road access to work sites in the mountains in WINTER, live in harsher climates, etc.) and we also teach those "poor little children" how to drive them properly.
Every time I see something that uses the heart-string puller phrase, "think of the children" I already know the argument being made is usually false and built off of stupid assumptions. You didn't disappoint.
And Visio is pre-installed for 99% of the users using it by their IT departments.
Your point is?
So the commercial product will always be better. Is that what your point is?
And pass the costs of DRM in such a "super-chip" along to the consumer! Yay!
(Because we're all excited to pay to protect our provider's content!)
A "DRM/encryption/reverse-engineering cold-war" amongst the DTV businesses only hurts the people paying for the product in the long-term. Great.
... is a far better lab than any crap you can set up on a workbench. Give the kids a magnifying glass and some good hiking shoes.
Oh lookie... We've finally brought computing all the way back to the Apple IIc !
Oh I'll watch a movie, and even pay for the opportunity to do so, personally.
I just don't get worked up over DRM. Who cares? Saw the movie, don't need it on my hard drive.
Even better, the sooner you realize the utter shit that entertainment companies crank out is totally useless and stop buying it, and spend your time doing something more interesting or worthwhile... the sooner DRM doesn't matter, too.
Another new movie, another thing to watch once and forget, if even that... how many come out a month now? Who cares anymore? Wait for the three or four good ones in a year, perhaps... spend the $9 on the real theatre experience, grab a $10 coke and popcorn and enjoy.
Collecting them on DVD is utterly retarded. Spending time putting one on a hard disc? Come on.
You saw it didn't you? Haven't you got anything better to do?
I tend to read "asshole" into "ruthless businessman".
Some people put value on such behavior, many others find most things "businessmen" do as very dishonorable.
Many "ruthless businessmen" feel they can "make up for their behavior" by donating millions or billions to charity, even while screwing their own employees out of the majority of their company's profits that the employees worked for.
You forgot that a squadron of F-22A Raptors can take on multiple squadrons of F-15's and win. The F-35 "Joint Strike Fighter" will likely have similar results.
And let's not point out that armed drones are here already... and an unmanned aircraft can always pull more G's and a tighter turn than a manned aircraft, so they'll have some distinct advantages over the older generation technology.
Technology doesn't just last longer, it also gets better at what it does, usually.
Desktop computer software? Mmmm... not so much. The curve isn't "slowing" the innovation simply isn't there. How about some of the software "engineers" out there starting to act like real engineers and building to "building codes", subjecting themselves to licensure to work with financial and other critical systems as determined by law, and the resulting personal liability... just like other professions?
Maybe then the weekly patching of hundreds of bugs in OS's, applications, and server code would slow up enough that some real innovation could get done. A little discipline in the software industry would be nice.