This is rather troublesome. If these situations continue our representatives may be forced to actually read the legislation they're passing.
I'm all for bashing Congress and especially the Democrats in Congress however I don't think this is totally true. Yes, they didn't read the *final* version of the stimulus bill because it was 1,100 pages and it was finalized 12 hours before they were to vote on it again however the keyword in what I just said is "again". They had already voted on it multiple times, rewritten it, etc. so they knew what was in there for a vast majority of the bill. It was the final tweaks (some even handwritten on the document) that they were probably not all aware of but that doesn't mean they didn't read any of it. If they had only voted on it once and passed it then that would be a valid statement but both the Senate and the House had seen the stimulus bill at least twice before and based on that they should have already known what was in it. That's assuming they read it then when they were under less pressure, compared to the last day at least.
Java is going to be inherently slower on the same hardware due to the interpeting of the code that it must do. Obviously good coding helps too but there is going to be some inherent latency because of the fact the Java code isn't compiled to machine code.
I realize it is electric which implies no "fuel" efficiency but there is still a range metric which applies to any vehicle. And if you had read my post you would have seen that *I* did read the summary and mentioned in *my* post that the 28MPH was indeed an average. I referenced the fact they drove less than 70MPH (58MPH actually was their max) which doesn't really mean anything if you want to do any comparisons with ICE-based vehicles.
because as with any gas mileage ratings they measure them under ideal conditions which are hardly reflective of reality. I've yet to get any closer than 3mpg away from my car's highway MPG rating of 27MPG. I've used the majority of my tank traveling at 50-60 MPH which is the sweet spot for my car's gearing and also with minimal wind resistance compared to 70 or 80MPH. And with that type of driving I still could not get any closer than 24 MPG. I'm sure some people can get their car to meet the manufacturer's MPG ratings but many probably don't because they don't drive under the same conditions that the car was measured under. So with the Tesla Roadster traveling with an average speed of 28MPH and a maximum speed of less than 70, it is not surprising that a good fuel efficiency was the result. Drive with a more realistic speed and then get back to us so we have better numbers to compare with good ole ICE-based cars.
WiredRed makes an IM client/server called e/pop. It can integrate with ADS and settings are hardwired into the binary which is deployed to all clients. Therefore no worries that a user can change anything b/c only clients with the option enabled (again, in the binary) to change stuff can even see the available settings. It is not free though. If I recall correctly the price is about $15 per user. Because they make their own server it can work in private networks but the last I saw (4 years ago) they didn't use Jabber.
If they aren't making much money I'd wonder how they can afford legal counsel. But maybe "not much money" is relative to other corporations but still sufficient to pay for legal counsel? If they lose don't they have to pay for the legal expenses of the artist?
if they were contacted by the original artist? Would they not believe the artist as being the original? Surely they have to realize that at some point an authentic, original artist will one day approach them or that it isn't out of the realm of possibility that they may accuse an authentic, original artist of stealing his own work so why aren't they realizing that yet? They must think they can sell art and never have to be in contact with any original artist. They must think those chances are astronomical enough for it to never cross their collective minds that they are currently suing someone who made it possible for them to make money. We may be at the point now where it is a matter of saving face. They may prefer to continue the lawsuit rather than say they made a mistake.
I'm standing on a public street. Don't look at me! Yeah. That's reasonable.
What is reasonable is to give people a certain level of privacy without them requiring to be in a private neighborhood. Telling them to move to one is like telling a user who complains of a feature missing in the Linux kernel to write it themselves -- it isn't always feasible. But that doesn't make the request any less legitimate.
This is no different than if they required OSS to be implemented wherever possible. The federal gov't has proposed this (forget the details) and no one was up in arms then and that would totally eliminate *all* MS products from being installed.
It's also an entirely legitimate desire to want to be able to take photos in public.
It's also an entirely legitimate desire to not want photos taken of your house, neighbors, and neighborhood to make it *easier* for others to see it and use it for nefarious purposes. Is there a guarantee the photos will be exploited? No. Is there a guarantee the photos will be useful for google users? No. Who should win? I don't know.
It seems like you're just looking for reasons to criticize Obama, which I think is a bit off-topic.
No, just expanding on the parent's comment that a lot of gov't information is being posted online using his/hers specific example. I can't help that what I said is true. If what I said is off-topic it can't be any more than portions of the parent's post. Besides, it's hard to say whether the lack of useful information on recovery.org is really Obama's fault. It is a nice concept but in practice I think gov't bureaucracy will cause it to fail which doesn't necessarily mean it is Obama's fault.
However my statement regarding analog TV signals being extended to June really is related to Obama's personal opinions on the matter because he has stated his opinion on the matter. Again, that was just a response to something the parent said about Internet access not being a right. If saying something isn't a right is off-topic for this particular submission then the parent post should be rated as such. How many responses to portions of a post must there be before one is considered off-topic? Topics are going to gradually diverge from the submission eventually. Conversations tend to do that naturally. I may have been further from the central topic as compared to the submission but I believe I was on-topic with regard to the message I responded to directly.
The government is putting more online (e.g. recovery.gov) and soon you may need Internet access to participate fully as a citizen.
lol, have you been to recovery.org/gov ? There is nothing useful there. Even when the states start spending money they are being told to spend it fast and probably won't have the ability to record where it all goes. Do you realize how hard it is to track every where $90 million is spent within the government and then to get it pushed to the recovery.org website for public dissemination? You need a better example. How about irs.gov so people can download their tax forms? Also, they won't institute Internet access as a required for particpating as a citizen because not everyone can get it nor should they have to in order to exercise their right as a citizen of this country. Old fashioned methods, no matter how old, should be the requirement to participate at all as a citizen otherwise you alienate thousands, if not millions, of people. It would probably be considered unconstitutional. The sad thing is that Obama believes watching TV is a right and therefore extended the OTA analog service shutoff to June at the expense of millions of dollars just so some people wouldn't lose their TV signals.
In the past, some scientists who have came out against the war actually received death threats.
Never saw this in the news or heard of it elsewhere but if you say it then it must be true instead of only saying it to match the pattern of my message.
The sad thing is that the evidence for war is subjective and yet people think they should make death threats to defend it.
Again, never heard of any death threats being made in the news but if you say it then it must be true instead of trying to match my message tit for tat. Based on one AC's message, should I now complain that you made a gross generalization that anyone who supports the war made death threats against those who did not support it? Should I now be offended because I may have supported the war without making death threats to anyone? No, I'm capable of realizing that I'm an exception to your statement because I have a higher level of thinking and reasoning. Others should do the same with my original message.
The same immature responses occur when conservatives are arguing about evolution. They believe they are always right and if you aren't on their side you must be stupid, your PhD backing your credibility is actually worthless, and you must be a member of the sheeple party. Conservatives don't have a higher level of thinking to get past the subjectivity of the evidence they rely on to make their case.
Actually, the conservatives in general don't call people names. It any given conversation it is the evolutionist calling the creationist names. If you don't believe me then you obviously don't pay attention to those debates that happen on this very website. Conservatives do have a higher level of thinking about evidence. They don't make assumptions about evidence nor interpret evidence to fit needlessly complex ideas/assumptions to cover up, not fill in, all the gaps. It is not up to them to need a higher level of thinking however in order to make their argument. They only have to fight for their ideas when the evolutionists challenge them on those beliefs because evolutionists believe they have an agenda they must push to indoctrinate others. I'm sure you'll say that religious nuts (and I'm sure that would be similar to the name you would use because you would feel compelled to use an insult but deny it since I called you on it) are always trying to indoctrinate others. The difference is that religious *people* don't have to lie to get additional members and there is no agenda involved either.
That very well may be the reason they attack those who do have the higher level of thinking. That hearkens back to school days where the stupid kids are the bullies. A lot of times those kids also had broken homes but a correlation I believe exists between their intelligence and their personality trait that makes them lash out as their only defense mechanism.
Well, it is good to know you can copy/paste from other people's messages without making any modifications. I guess imitation is the greatest form of flattery.
Really? I didn't know I named any names to make it personal. It was a general statement and there are exceptions as with everything. It is general in the sense that not all liberals react that way but it is not general in the sense that a high-profile opponent of a high-profile debate always get personally attacked for their dissenting opinion. Dyson is an exception himself which is why he is being personally attacked. If someone on here is offended by my statement then that is there problem. Should I have said as part of my post "you know who you are" so that you would realize you could excuse yourself from being part of the target of my statement, if in fact you either aren't a liberal or aren't a liberal who attacks someone for disagreeing with you? You should be capable of excusing yourself anyway if someone makes a general statement that you know doesn't apply to you. My statements only described what actually happens (especially when it is easy to see because it forms a pattern) rather than describing what isn't actually true (e.g. calling someone a mad scientist when they really are not). It is sort of like profiling. Many people view it as bad but it is a way to predict when someone may do something based on previous patterns of people conducting similar activities. It has a high degree of success at the expense of some exceptions being included.
Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a liberal the liberal only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats. In the past, some scientists who have came out against global warming actually received death threats. The sad thing is that the evidence for global warming is subjective and yet people think they should make death threats to defend it. The same immature responses occur when liberals are arguing about religion. They believe they are always right and if you aren't on their side you must be stupid, your PhD backing your credibility is actually worthless, and you must be a member of the sheeple party. Liberals don't have a higher level of thinking to get past the subjectivity of the evidence they rely on to make their case. That very well may be the reason they attack those who do have the higher level of thinking. That hearkens back to school days where the stupid kids are the bullies. A lot of times those kids also had broken homes but a correlation I believe exists between their intelligence and their personality trait that makes them lash out as their only defense mechanism.
Look at it this way: you'll only be 35. With 30 more years to retirement ON AN OPTIMISTIC note, assuming SS hasn't forced everyone to work till their 70th birthday.
You are being optimistic if you think someone could live on SS alone (assuming that is what you implied). Given the relatively small amount most people get each month from SS payments and inflation (yes I know they are adjusted for inflation) you basically have to plan for your own retirement, which you should be doing anyway to not feel crunched to pay your bills when you are 70. You should be viewing SS payments as merely supplemental income. Don't ever plan on someone else paying for you to live but then again we now have the "me too" society that expects to get an allowance from Big Daddy (the gov't) for every little thing.
The article doesn't make it clear so I can only guess that the missing storage capacity is part of some SAN. Maybe the 48 1TB hard drives are only local storage (obviously) but are in addition to some existing SAN that they didn't mention in this particular article. Either that or the article is just wrong about the 4.5PB database.
installing stuff to run it as a hobby and not push any major data sets through the system you really only need to worry about RAM and disk capacity (for storing the VM files which will house the OS and programs). Just get as much RAM as you can so you can give each VM its own normal amount of RAM (500MB-4GB) depending on which applications are in the VMs. You probably want each VM to have at least 10GB of disk space so calculate that in to your overall disk capacity requirements. Your hardware in the end will be based on how many VMs you will end up running. Each one will have to have an OS installed of course so you are going to have some wasted disk space. Worst thing you can do is skimp on RAM....you don't want your host OS to be swapping because you gave the VMs too much memory and didn't have enough left for the host.
was to build a program that reflected an idea I had in my head. Sometimes the ideas weren't that great and the program fizzled out but other times I had a good enough idea that kept my attention and I was able to hone my programming skills at the same time. Of course this is not as good as contributing to a larger project or having some kind of formal experience but it was something. Granted, my career isn't actually as a developer but a systems engineer but I like programming on the side and in the process my skills did get better than they were while I was in college. YMMV.
Why should I pay a penalty if the other party didn't uphold its end of the agreement?
In my own little world, if the other party didn't hold up their end of the agreement then the contract is already broken and I don't owe a thing. I know, I know, try convincing the carrier of that.
Maybe they should name it in honor of Obama who hails from the same state (Illinois).
We already have the God particle (Higgs boson) so unfortunately it can't be named after Obama despite how much that may upset millions of socialist liberals. Maybe we should call it the Dollar particle? In a few years it would be the only dollar (as well as any others that are created) left in this world that is worth anything.
Slashdot Mirror
This is rather troublesome. If these situations continue our representatives may be forced to actually read the legislation they're passing.
I'm all for bashing Congress and especially the Democrats in Congress however I don't think this is totally true. Yes, they didn't read the *final* version of the stimulus bill because it was 1,100 pages and it was finalized 12 hours before they were to vote on it again however the keyword in what I just said is "again". They had already voted on it multiple times, rewritten it, etc. so they knew what was in there for a vast majority of the bill. It was the final tweaks (some even handwritten on the document) that they were probably not all aware of but that doesn't mean they didn't read any of it. If they had only voted on it once and passed it then that would be a valid statement but both the Senate and the House had seen the stimulus bill at least twice before and based on that they should have already known what was in it. That's assuming they read it then when they were under less pressure, compared to the last day at least.
Java is going to be inherently slower on the same hardware due to the interpeting of the code that it must do. Obviously good coding helps too but there is going to be some inherent latency because of the fact the Java code isn't compiled to machine code.
I realize it is electric which implies no "fuel" efficiency but there is still a range metric which applies to any vehicle. And if you had read my post you would have seen that *I* did read the summary and mentioned in *my* post that the 28MPH was indeed an average. I referenced the fact they drove less than 70MPH (58MPH actually was their max) which doesn't really mean anything if you want to do any comparisons with ICE-based vehicles.
because as with any gas mileage ratings they measure them under ideal conditions which are hardly reflective of reality. I've yet to get any closer than 3mpg away from my car's highway MPG rating of 27MPG. I've used the majority of my tank traveling at 50-60 MPH which is the sweet spot for my car's gearing and also with minimal wind resistance compared to 70 or 80MPH. And with that type of driving I still could not get any closer than 24 MPG. I'm sure some people can get their car to meet the manufacturer's MPG ratings but many probably don't because they don't drive under the same conditions that the car was measured under. So with the Tesla Roadster traveling with an average speed of 28MPH and a maximum speed of less than 70, it is not surprising that a good fuel efficiency was the result. Drive with a more realistic speed and then get back to us so we have better numbers to compare with good ole ICE-based cars.
The way I read "single output file" was not of an ISO but of an AVI-type file which DVDShrink does not do.
He also said a Windows solution would be sufficient as long as it works. But he wants a single file as output though so dvdshrink won't work.
Duh. We will only modify our own airspace so it won't affect everyone else in the world. Think man, think!
WiredRed makes an IM client/server called e/pop. It can integrate with ADS and settings are hardwired into the binary which is deployed to all clients. Therefore no worries that a user can change anything b/c only clients with the option enabled (again, in the binary) to change stuff can even see the available settings. It is not free though. If I recall correctly the price is about $15 per user. Because they make their own server it can work in private networks but the last I saw (4 years ago) they didn't use Jabber.
If they aren't making much money I'd wonder how they can afford legal counsel. But maybe "not much money" is relative to other corporations but still sufficient to pay for legal counsel? If they lose don't they have to pay for the legal expenses of the artist?
if they were contacted by the original artist? Would they not believe the artist as being the original? Surely they have to realize that at some point an authentic, original artist will one day approach them or that it isn't out of the realm of possibility that they may accuse an authentic, original artist of stealing his own work so why aren't they realizing that yet? They must think they can sell art and never have to be in contact with any original artist. They must think those chances are astronomical enough for it to never cross their collective minds that they are currently suing someone who made it possible for them to make money. We may be at the point now where it is a matter of saving face. They may prefer to continue the lawsuit rather than say they made a mistake.
I'm standing on a public street. Don't look at me! Yeah. That's reasonable.
What is reasonable is to give people a certain level of privacy without them requiring to be in a private neighborhood. Telling them to move to one is like telling a user who complains of a feature missing in the Linux kernel to write it themselves -- it isn't always feasible. But that doesn't make the request any less legitimate.
This is no different than if they required OSS to be implemented wherever possible. The federal gov't has proposed this (forget the details) and no one was up in arms then and that would totally eliminate *all* MS products from being installed.
It's also an entirely legitimate desire to want to be able to take photos in public.
It's also an entirely legitimate desire to not want photos taken of your house, neighbors, and neighborhood to make it *easier* for others to see it and use it for nefarious purposes. Is there a guarantee the photos will be exploited? No. Is there a guarantee the photos will be useful for google users? No. Who should win? I don't know.
It seems like you're just looking for reasons to criticize Obama, which I think is a bit off-topic.
No, just expanding on the parent's comment that a lot of gov't information is being posted online using his/hers specific example. I can't help that what I said is true. If what I said is off-topic it can't be any more than portions of the parent's post. Besides, it's hard to say whether the lack of useful information on recovery.org is really Obama's fault. It is a nice concept but in practice I think gov't bureaucracy will cause it to fail which doesn't necessarily mean it is Obama's fault.
However my statement regarding analog TV signals being extended to June really is related to Obama's personal opinions on the matter because he has stated his opinion on the matter. Again, that was just a response to something the parent said about Internet access not being a right. If saying something isn't a right is off-topic for this particular submission then the parent post should be rated as such. How many responses to portions of a post must there be before one is considered off-topic? Topics are going to gradually diverge from the submission eventually. Conversations tend to do that naturally. I may have been further from the central topic as compared to the submission but I believe I was on-topic with regard to the message I responded to directly.
The government is putting more online (e.g. recovery.gov) and soon you may need Internet access to participate fully as a citizen.
lol, have you been to recovery.org/gov ? There is nothing useful there. Even when the states start spending money they are being told to spend it fast and probably won't have the ability to record where it all goes. Do you realize how hard it is to track every where $90 million is spent within the government and then to get it pushed to the recovery.org website for public dissemination? You need a better example. How about irs.gov so people can download their tax forms? Also, they won't institute Internet access as a required for particpating as a citizen because not everyone can get it nor should they have to in order to exercise their right as a citizen of this country. Old fashioned methods, no matter how old, should be the requirement to participate at all as a citizen otherwise you alienate thousands, if not millions, of people. It would probably be considered unconstitutional. The sad thing is that Obama believes watching TV is a right and therefore extended the OTA analog service shutoff to June at the expense of millions of dollars just so some people wouldn't lose their TV signals.
In the past, some scientists who have came out against the war actually received death threats.
Never saw this in the news or heard of it elsewhere but if you say it then it must be true instead of only saying it to match the pattern of my message.
The sad thing is that the evidence for war is subjective and yet people think they should make death threats to defend it.
Again, never heard of any death threats being made in the news but if you say it then it must be true instead of trying to match my message tit for tat. Based on one AC's message, should I now complain that you made a gross generalization that anyone who supports the war made death threats against those who did not support it? Should I now be offended because I may have supported the war without making death threats to anyone? No, I'm capable of realizing that I'm an exception to your statement because I have a higher level of thinking and reasoning. Others should do the same with my original message.
The same immature responses occur when conservatives are arguing about evolution. They believe they are always right and if you aren't on their side you must be stupid, your PhD backing your credibility is actually worthless, and you must be a member of the sheeple party. Conservatives don't have a higher level of thinking to get past the subjectivity of the evidence they rely on to make their case.
Actually, the conservatives in general don't call people names. It any given conversation it is the evolutionist calling the creationist names. If you don't believe me then you obviously don't pay attention to those debates that happen on this very website. Conservatives do have a higher level of thinking about evidence. They don't make assumptions about evidence nor interpret evidence to fit needlessly complex ideas/assumptions to cover up, not fill in, all the gaps. It is not up to them to need a higher level of thinking however in order to make their argument. They only have to fight for their ideas when the evolutionists challenge them on those beliefs because evolutionists believe they have an agenda they must push to indoctrinate others. I'm sure you'll say that religious nuts (and I'm sure that would be similar to the name you would use because you would feel compelled to use an insult but deny it since I called you on it) are always trying to indoctrinate others. The difference is that religious *people* don't have to lie to get additional members and there is no agenda involved either.
That very well may be the reason they attack those who do have the higher level of thinking. That hearkens back to school days where the stupid kids are the bullies. A lot of times those kids also had broken homes but a correlation I believe exists between their intelligence and their personality trait that makes them lash out as their only defense mechanism.
Well, it is good to know you can copy/paste from other people's messages without making any modifications. I guess imitation is the greatest form of flattery.
Good personal attack against Liberals there.
Really? I didn't know I named any names to make it personal. It was a general statement and there are exceptions as with everything. It is general in the sense that not all liberals react that way but it is not general in the sense that a high-profile opponent of a high-profile debate always get personally attacked for their dissenting opinion. Dyson is an exception himself which is why he is being personally attacked. If someone on here is offended by my statement then that is there problem. Should I have said as part of my post "you know who you are" so that you would realize you could excuse yourself from being part of the target of my statement, if in fact you either aren't a liberal or aren't a liberal who attacks someone for disagreeing with you? You should be capable of excusing yourself anyway if someone makes a general statement that you know doesn't apply to you. My statements only described what actually happens (especially when it is easy to see because it forms a pattern) rather than describing what isn't actually true (e.g. calling someone a mad scientist when they really are not). It is sort of like profiling. Many people view it as bad but it is a way to predict when someone may do something based on previous patterns of people conducting similar activities. It has a high degree of success at the expense of some exceptions being included.
Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a liberal the liberal only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats. In the past, some scientists who have came out against global warming actually received death threats. The sad thing is that the evidence for global warming is subjective and yet people think they should make death threats to defend it. The same immature responses occur when liberals are arguing about religion. They believe they are always right and if you aren't on their side you must be stupid, your PhD backing your credibility is actually worthless, and you must be a member of the sheeple party. Liberals don't have a higher level of thinking to get past the subjectivity of the evidence they rely on to make their case. That very well may be the reason they attack those who do have the higher level of thinking. That hearkens back to school days where the stupid kids are the bullies. A lot of times those kids also had broken homes but a correlation I believe exists between their intelligence and their personality trait that makes them lash out as their only defense mechanism.
Look at it this way: you'll only be 35. With 30 more years to retirement ON AN OPTIMISTIC note, assuming SS hasn't forced everyone to work till their 70th birthday.
You are being optimistic if you think someone could live on SS alone (assuming that is what you implied). Given the relatively small amount most people get each month from SS payments and inflation (yes I know they are adjusted for inflation) you basically have to plan for your own retirement, which you should be doing anyway to not feel crunched to pay your bills when you are 70. You should be viewing SS payments as merely supplemental income. Don't ever plan on someone else paying for you to live but then again we now have the "me too" society that expects to get an allowance from Big Daddy (the gov't) for every little thing.
The article doesn't make it clear so I can only guess that the missing storage capacity is part of some SAN. Maybe the 48 1TB hard drives are only local storage (obviously) but are in addition to some existing SAN that they didn't mention in this particular article. Either that or the article is just wrong about the 4.5PB database.
Feinman? Surely you're joking, Mr Feynamn! Sorry just couldn't resist picking a nit.
Feynamn? Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman! Sorry just couldn't resist picking a nit.
installing stuff to run it as a hobby and not push any major data sets through the system you really only need to worry about RAM and disk capacity (for storing the VM files which will house the OS and programs). Just get as much RAM as you can so you can give each VM its own normal amount of RAM (500MB-4GB) depending on which applications are in the VMs. You probably want each VM to have at least 10GB of disk space so calculate that in to your overall disk capacity requirements. Your hardware in the end will be based on how many VMs you will end up running. Each one will have to have an OS installed of course so you are going to have some wasted disk space. Worst thing you can do is skimp on RAM....you don't want your host OS to be swapping because you gave the VMs too much memory and didn't have enough left for the host.
was to build a program that reflected an idea I had in my head. Sometimes the ideas weren't that great and the program fizzled out but other times I had a good enough idea that kept my attention and I was able to hone my programming skills at the same time. Of course this is not as good as contributing to a larger project or having some kind of formal experience but it was something. Granted, my career isn't actually as a developer but a systems engineer but I like programming on the side and in the process my skills did get better than they were while I was in college. YMMV.
Why should I pay a penalty if the other party didn't uphold its end of the agreement?
In my own little world, if the other party didn't hold up their end of the agreement then the contract is already broken and I don't owe a thing. I know, I know, try convincing the carrier of that.
Maybe they should name it in honor of Obama who hails from the same state (Illinois).
We already have the God particle (Higgs boson) so unfortunately it can't be named after Obama despite how much that may upset millions of socialist liberals. Maybe we should call it the Dollar particle? In a few years it would be the only dollar (as well as any others that are created) left in this world that is worth anything.