Actually, there is no good comparison. CNN's viewers are split between the main CNN network and CNN Headline News. Added together, these outnumber Fox viewers, at least the last time I saw numbers (several months ago). Of course, there are going to be people who switch from one to the other, so there's no good comparison.
"I would imagine that SCO's claim as to the unconstitutionality of the GPL is that it doesn't have anyone holding the reins, while the Constitution's language implies some kind of actual, physical copyright holder."
Um, there *is* a copyright holder of GPLed software. If there wasn't, the GPL would be unenforcable as it would be public domain.
Read any of the zillion other posts explaining why this isn't a problem. Infrared is registered by almost all CCDs. Camera takes picture, cops send out ticket to person with bigass IR beam coming from their car.
"When you pull up to a red light with the lights and siren going, and some idiot sees you stop and decides it's their turn to go."
Ah, one of those times it'd be nice to have a police cruser in tow behind you. Another nice time is when you're in a school bus and people go flying by the stop sign that pops out so you can get across the street nicely... (I haven't ridden one in over 5 years, but this was always a huge pet peeve)
The unfamiliarity of traffic circles are what cause problems. If people were used to them, it would be much easier. They don't work as well for intersections of really fast roads, but otherwise a well-designed and marked traffic circle can ease congestion.
"Here in Nevada, people driving at or below the speed limit have been ticketed for obstructing traffic...you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, so you might as well go with the flow."
You could probably argue that in court and be sucessful.
"Accidents in cars are cause by driver carelessness that can be easily be determined by a police investigation, and complemented by witnesses."
Half of plane accidents are caused by pilot error that can easily be determined by a NTSB investigation, and complimented by ATC recordings.
Okay, that's a bit extreme. But how "easy" you think it is to determine fault is absolutely wrong. My dad has been in three car crashes; in two of them, despite being rear-ended while stopped, there was not enough evidence to assign blame because no witnesses stayed at the scene.
I agree. I'll be one of the first people to jump up at privacy violations, but I think both that the privacy issues with this are minimal and that the benefits are enormous. I would pay to have one of these installed so in the event of a crash if there's a dispute over who is at fault or if insurance should cover, I can pull the information and say "look, not my fault." Of course, if these start phoning home and reporting violations, then we have a major problem. They should be accessable only with a warrant or by the owner (or people s/he hires).
Exactly. For instance, how many people really need something like this card reader? Almost every computer I've seen has a lock that you can turn (with a normal key) that will make it impossible to turn on the computer (not sure about off). Or case mods. Almost the whole point of case mods is doing it yourself.
Alias isn't being annoying here really. Here's the problem with being able to import into the full version: say your company wants to do 3D graphics. Normally they would have to buy the full version for each computer. However, with the PLE they could put that on all of the computers except the rendering computers, get everything working, and render them on the full version. There would be essentially no way to tell unless you crippled the output of the full version for files imported from the PLE in which case we're back to where we started. (Or as an alternative people could create a company to render things that others created in the PLE.)
Alias I'm sure is well aware of the problems with this approach and sees them as undesirable, but for them the lesser of two evils is to disable filesharing between the versions.
However, all manned launches have been on designs of ours, or at least von Braun who you may or may not count. Mercury used the Redstone and Atlas rockets, Gemini the Titan, Apollo the Saturn, and the Shuttle on the Shuttle's system. All of these are our designs from everything I've hard.
I'm not saying that we don't use Kuznetzov rockets for missiles or whatnot, but nothing we've used to put people into space has been imported. (That's not strictly true; parts of the Shuttle system are imported, but almost all the assembly and most of the parts are domestically done.)
"The only success the US remembers is the man-on-the moon and I think that achieved little as robots like the russian moon landers (that got to the moon first) could have done it faster, better with less risk."
And putting the man on the moon was a damn good end to the race too. It doesn't matter in the marathon if the eventual winner started slow and sprinted the last bit to win, he still won.
That said, I too think the success of Apollo is not the be-all, end-all finale as we like to think. Saying one nation "won" the space race to me seems silly. It was too unstructured to really matter. The start seems reminiscent of two brothers walking along, one running ahead to their parents car, and stating that they roundly trounced their bro in the race to the car. (Not to this extent because the US should have been looking into space more than they were, but that's the idea.) Meanwhile, the "end" of the race was set by an arbitary decree from Kennedy.
Both sides have very significant achievements. The Soviets of course had the first of many things: first satellite, first person in space (and orbit to boot!), first spacewalk, first permanent space station (maybe... not sure; anyway, the first that was up for any length of time), etc. OTOH, the US also had firsts: first in-flight docking, first moon orbit, first moon landing, first mostly reusable spacecraft (and essentially the only ever developed; the Russians have one but it flew only one or two missions if that). The US program should also be noted for the speed at which it got up and running; after being blindsighted by Sputnik, we were only a month or two behind launching the first person (though about 6 mths behind the first orbit).
So I think even beginning to hint that one program is somehow "better" than the other is silly.
It would have been much harder to cover than you seem to think. China essentially announced the launch, and if there was no further news about it people would start to get suspicious. Saying it was just delayed may or may not be possible depending on whether other nations got surveilance photos of the then-abandoned launch pad.
On the other hand, the US is not even 250 years old, whereas England has called itself that since I think no later than the 11th century, France the 1200s IIRC, and I'm not sure about Spain or Portugal or the other big exploration countries.
"And let's face it: Russia was only steps behind America for much of that race."
Russia was ahead for the first half or so; they were first to launch a satellite, the first to launch a man*, the first to orbit a person (which was for them wrapped up in the first manned flight, while for us it took until our third launch), and the first to perform an EVA. The first thing we were first at so to speak was inflight rendezvous, and that wasn't until Gemini 12. The first time we put ourselves clearly in the lead was Christmas 1968 with the flight of Apollo 8.
*They were also the first to orbit a woman (maybe 1967? The late 60s come to mind), however as this is not a technological achievement I left it out.
I'll agree on the YRO issue, but the fact that this topic has now had more posts than almost any other *shows* that this is news for nerds. It may not be exclusively for nerds, but it obviously attracts more interest than most stories shows that it is for nerds.
Not only that, but how many teachers on the first day of first grade say "ok, now we begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance, but due to a 1944 Supreme Court decision you are not required to say it". No, my teachers throughout elementary schoo said something like "we start each day with the Pledge". I didn't like it, but it was years before it even *occured* to me that we might not have to actually say it.
"As the legislative history of the 1954 Act sets forth: At this moment of our history the principles underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual."
And Eisenhower's signing speech:
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
If that isn't *admitting* that the act is unconstitutional, I don't know what is.
"Are you arguing that someone should be suing the crap out of your parents in front of the supreme court for telling you to obey your teacher? I somehow don't think you are, but that's the direction your argument leads."
Not at all... my point is solely that the "it's voluntary; if you don't like the Pledge then don't say it" argument is complete and utter crap.
"More Slashdot FUD. Did any of you editors actually go to public school in the US?"
Yes; I graduated High School 1 1/2 years ago.
"Pledging allegiance was voluntary when I went, thirty years ago."
And nothing can change over 30 years...
"And no state has a law requiring anyone from reciting it either."
Yes, but laws are not the only thing in force here. Perhaps a personal account is in order here. In Elementary School we began each day with the Pledge. Now of course you are taught by your parents that you should obey your teachers, they are in charge when you're at school, etc. Hence when the teacher says "we start each day with the Pledge", we did. Including me. It didn't even occur to me that I might not have to say the Pledge until I had been saying it daily for a couple years. That you're not legally required to say it had no bearing on the matter, and social pressure had everything to bear. So as soon as you find a teacher who starts their first grade class with "OK class, each day we start with the Pledge. Those of you who don't want to say it don't have to due to the 1946 Supreme Court ruling West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, though" let me know.
Slashdot Mirror
I've also read that some of the instruments that can measure some relevant information were hiding from the storm's power.
It's also a good thing to note that spacew.com predicted a 3am arrival time, just a little off, from the very start.
So you like being completely and utterly misinformed?
In my experience Fox is tilted much more the the right than any mainstream network is to the left. Read "What Liberal Media" for more details.
Actually, there is no good comparison. CNN's viewers are split between the main CNN network and CNN Headline News. Added together, these outnumber Fox viewers, at least the last time I saw numbers (several months ago). Of course, there are going to be people who switch from one to the other, so there's no good comparison.
"I would imagine that SCO's claim as to the unconstitutionality of the GPL is that it doesn't have anyone holding the reins, while the Constitution's language implies some kind of actual, physical copyright holder."
Um, there *is* a copyright holder of GPLed software. If there wasn't, the GPL would be unenforcable as it would be public domain.
Read any of the zillion other posts explaining why this isn't a problem. Infrared is registered by almost all CCDs. Camera takes picture, cops send out ticket to person with bigass IR beam coming from their car.
"When you pull up to a red light with the lights and siren going, and some idiot sees you stop and decides it's their turn to go."
Ah, one of those times it'd be nice to have a police cruser in tow behind you. Another nice time is when you're in a school bus and people go flying by the stop sign that pops out so you can get across the street nicely... (I haven't ridden one in over 5 years, but this was always a huge pet peeve)
The unfamiliarity of traffic circles are what cause problems. If people were used to them, it would be much easier. They don't work as well for intersections of really fast roads, but otherwise a well-designed and marked traffic circle can ease congestion.
Precisely, which is why making the lights go 4-way red is a bad idea.
"Here in Nevada, people driving at or below the speed limit have been ticketed for obstructing traffic...you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, so you might as well go with the flow."
You could probably argue that in court and be sucessful.
So it's better to submit to a slippery slope fallacy than it is to use tools for better?
"Accidents in cars are cause by driver carelessness that can be easily be determined by a police investigation, and complemented by witnesses."
Half of plane accidents are caused by pilot error that can easily be determined by a NTSB investigation, and complimented by ATC recordings.
Okay, that's a bit extreme. But how "easy" you think it is to determine fault is absolutely wrong. My dad has been in three car crashes; in two of them, despite being rear-ended while stopped, there was not enough evidence to assign blame because no witnesses stayed at the scene.
I agree. I'll be one of the first people to jump up at privacy violations, but I think both that the privacy issues with this are minimal and that the benefits are enormous. I would pay to have one of these installed so in the event of a crash if there's a dispute over who is at fault or if insurance should cover, I can pull the information and say "look, not my fault." Of course, if these start phoning home and reporting violations, then we have a major problem. They should be accessable only with a warrant or by the owner (or people s/he hires).
Not to mention the "also-good-for-making-popcorn" dept of the article.
Exactly. For instance, how many people really need something like this card reader? Almost every computer I've seen has a lock that you can turn (with a normal key) that will make it impossible to turn on the computer (not sure about off). Or case mods. Almost the whole point of case mods is doing it yourself.
Alias isn't being annoying here really. Here's the problem with being able to import into the full version: say your company wants to do 3D graphics. Normally they would have to buy the full version for each computer. However, with the PLE they could put that on all of the computers except the rendering computers, get everything working, and render them on the full version. There would be essentially no way to tell unless you crippled the output of the full version for files imported from the PLE in which case we're back to where we started. (Or as an alternative people could create a company to render things that others created in the PLE.)
Alias I'm sure is well aware of the problems with this approach and sees them as undesirable, but for them the lesser of two evils is to disable filesharing between the versions.
However, all manned launches have been on designs of ours, or at least von Braun who you may or may not count. Mercury used the Redstone and Atlas rockets, Gemini the Titan, Apollo the Saturn, and the Shuttle on the Shuttle's system. All of these are our designs from everything I've hard.
I'm not saying that we don't use Kuznetzov rockets for missiles or whatnot, but nothing we've used to put people into space has been imported. (That's not strictly true; parts of the Shuttle system are imported, but almost all the assembly and most of the parts are domestically done.)
"The only success the US remembers is the man-on-the moon and I think that achieved little as robots like the russian moon landers (that got to the moon first) could have done it faster, better with less risk."
And putting the man on the moon was a damn good end to the race too. It doesn't matter in the marathon if the eventual winner started slow and sprinted the last bit to win, he still won.
That said, I too think the success of Apollo is not the be-all, end-all finale as we like to think. Saying one nation "won" the space race to me seems silly. It was too unstructured to really matter. The start seems reminiscent of two brothers walking along, one running ahead to their parents car, and stating that they roundly trounced their bro in the race to the car. (Not to this extent because the US should have been looking into space more than they were, but that's the idea.) Meanwhile, the "end" of the race was set by an arbitary decree from Kennedy.
Both sides have very significant achievements. The Soviets of course had the first of many things: first satellite, first person in space (and orbit to boot!), first spacewalk, first permanent space station (maybe... not sure; anyway, the first that was up for any length of time), etc. OTOH, the US also had firsts: first in-flight docking, first moon orbit, first moon landing, first mostly reusable spacecraft (and essentially the only ever developed; the Russians have one but it flew only one or two missions if that). The US program should also be noted for the speed at which it got up and running; after being blindsighted by Sputnik, we were only a month or two behind launching the first person (though about 6 mths behind the first orbit).
So I think even beginning to hint that one program is somehow "better" than the other is silly.
It would have been much harder to cover than you seem to think. China essentially announced the launch, and if there was no further news about it people would start to get suspicious. Saying it was just delayed may or may not be possible depending on whether other nations got surveilance photos of the then-abandoned launch pad.
On the other hand, the US is not even 250 years old, whereas England has called itself that since I think no later than the 11th century, France the 1200s IIRC, and I'm not sure about Spain or Portugal or the other big exploration countries.
"And let's face it: Russia was only steps behind America for much of that race."
Russia was ahead for the first half or so; they were first to launch a satellite, the first to launch a man*, the first to orbit a person (which was for them wrapped up in the first manned flight, while for us it took until our third launch), and the first to perform an EVA. The first thing we were first at so to speak was inflight rendezvous, and that wasn't until Gemini 12. The first time we put ourselves clearly in the lead was Christmas 1968 with the flight of Apollo 8.
*They were also the first to orbit a woman (maybe 1967? The late 60s come to mind), however as this is not a technological achievement I left it out.
I'll agree on the YRO issue, but the fact that this topic has now had more posts than almost any other *shows* that this is news for nerds. It may not be exclusively for nerds, but it obviously attracts more interest than most stories shows that it is for nerds.
Not only that, but how many teachers on the first day of first grade say "ok, now we begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance, but due to a 1944 Supreme Court decision you are not required to say it". No, my teachers throughout elementary schoo said something like "we start each day with the Pledge". I didn't like it, but it was years before it even *occured* to me that we might not have to actually say it.
Yes. From the Legislative History:
"As the legislative history of the 1954 Act sets forth: At this moment of our history the principles underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual."
And Eisenhower's signing speech:
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
If that isn't *admitting* that the act is unconstitutional, I don't know what is.
"Are you arguing that someone should be suing the crap out of your parents in front of the supreme court for telling you to obey your teacher? I somehow don't think you are, but that's the direction your argument leads."
Not at all... my point is solely that the "it's voluntary; if you don't like the Pledge then don't say it" argument is complete and utter crap.
"More Slashdot FUD. Did any of you editors actually go to public school in the US?"
Yes; I graduated High School 1 1/2 years ago.
"Pledging allegiance was voluntary when I went, thirty years ago."
And nothing can change over 30 years...
"And no state has a law requiring anyone from reciting it either."
Yes, but laws are not the only thing in force here. Perhaps a personal account is in order here. In Elementary School we began each day with the Pledge. Now of course you are taught by your parents that you should obey your teachers, they are in charge when you're at school, etc. Hence when the teacher says "we start each day with the Pledge", we did. Including me. It didn't even occur to me that I might not have to say the Pledge until I had been saying it daily for a couple years. That you're not legally required to say it had no bearing on the matter, and social pressure had everything to bear. So as soon as you find a teacher who starts their first grade class with "OK class, each day we start with the Pledge. Those of you who don't want to say it don't have to due to the 1946 Supreme Court ruling West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, though" let me know.