Finally, bus systems are vastly easier to upgrade to better fuel technologies than a mess of privately-owned cars.
Very true. Lots of busses have been running on CNG for many years.
However, buses rarely run people over, so arguably a significantly lower number of people die. This makes sense since a subcompact will kill a pedestrian just about as efficiently as a bus, and 50 subcompacts going two ways per day is a hell of a lot less safe than one bus with a professional driver.
Good point. I hadn't thought about it quite that way. I have, however, given some thought to the risk-mitigation aspect of public transportation more from the perspective of the risk for an individual rider, rather than the total accident risk in the grand scheme of things. If the risk per mile of a bus being involved in an accident is the same as for a private automobile, then the odds of me being involved in an accident on he bus is the same as it would be if I drove my van. But for the bus, the cost of an accident is spread much thinner, and already covered by the fares and subsidies that fund the transit system. If I am in a minor non-injury accident while driving to work in my van, it will likely screw up a sizeable portion of my work day, and cost me lots of money. Of course insurance may cover most of it, but that is still a cost that I bear in the form of premiums. If I am in a minor non-injury accident while riding a bus, I can just walk away and wait for another bus. The only ill consequence for me personally is that I will be a little late for work that day. My cost for that day is the same $2 fare that I pay every day.
To me, this is one of the strongest incentives to use public transportation. Risk is one of the biggest costs of using an automobile. And it's one that people often fail to properly account for when comparing the relative cost of private vs. public transportation.
Voltage doesn't matter, it's amperage that'll kill you...
That is a popular, but very dangerous idea. It is the current that can kill you, but voltage definitely does matter. How much current flows depends on both voltage and resistance. Human bodies exhibit widely varying, but usually relatively high resistance. A 12 volt car battery is capable of delivering 10 to 50 times more current than a 110V wall outlet. But you are far more likely to harmed by touching the terminals of the wall outlet than the terminals of the car battery. Unlike the 110V at the outlet, 12V usually isn't enough to cause a dangerous current to flow accross the high resistance of a human body. That the battery is capable of delivering enormous current doesn't change that. But don't let that lull you into a false sense of security either. Low voltages can sometimes cause a shock, it just requires more unusual circumstances and is much less likely to cause serious harm. Of course, electrical shock isn't the only possible hazard. Sparks igniting flammable materials, for example. Or being burned by a piece of wire that is hot because of a short. Low voltages can easily create those hazards, especially if lots of current is available
Unless you are absolutely certain that a power source is inherently capable of delivering only very small current (like your taser example, though that is not completely without danger either), "higher voltage = greater danger" is an entirely reasonable assumption.
Those are cool. All the ones I've seen are actually electro-mechanical though, which is why they have such good visibility in daylight. I don't know what they cost, but they certainly _look_ expensive.
I could easily argue that rules banning teachers from hanging a cross above their desk, from decorating their class rooms during holidays and laws which move to drive all mention of religion out of every social forum a promotion of Atheism. In that case all of those laws would be unconstitutional.
Indeed you could easily argue that. But as for the restrictions of classroom religious displays (assuming we're talking only about public schools), I seriously doubt you could convince any judge who isn't on the payroll of the religious right. To equate religious neutrality on the part of people representing the government with promotion of atheism requires a rather extreme leap of imagination.
However, for "laws which move to drive all mention of religion out of every social forum", I think you would have a solid case based on both the "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;." and the "... or abridging the freedom of speech," parts of the first amendment. I'd gladly join you in opposing such laws, though I am not aware of any either existing or pending. Perhaps you can point them out?
Oh really? The following is an excerpt from S.B. 105, recently passed by the Utah state senate (still pending in the House, but has a "favorable recommendation" from the house committee that is reviewing it):
20 (3) (a) The pledge of allegiance to the flag shall be recited:
21 (i) at the beginning of the day in each elementary public school in the state[.]; and
22 [(b) Local school boards are encouraged to provide for the reciting of the pledge of
23 allegiance to the flag]
24 (ii) once a week at the beginning of a school day in [their] each public secondary
25 [schools] school in the state.
26 [(c)] (b) Each student shall be informed by posting a notice in a conspicuous place that
27 the student has the right not to participate in reciting the pledge.
28 [(d)] (c) A student shall be excused from reciting the pledge upon written request from
29 the student's parent or legal guardian.
I'm sure you'll notice lines 26-27, which say that student's have the right to not participate. But I would like to also draw your attention to lines 28-29. Since when does any person (other than convicted criminals) require special permission to not be denied a constitutionally guaranteed right? And that is exactly what this legislation will do to any student who's parents do not provide the written request. These students will be denied a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Utah already has a law requiring kids to say the pledge of allegiance, but it is somewhat less draconian in that it does not require parental permission for students to exercise their right to not participate.
It pisses a lot of people off. That doesn't mean its incorrect though. That is why I believe the 9th circuit court of appeals shoud be commended for having the courage an integrity to uphold their sworn duty to uphold the constitution even with such a political hot-potato.
Let's quote the First Amendment, shall we?
Good idea. But see my reply to bluGill where I address that.
Did that say anything about favoritism? NO! It just said the government can't PREVENT someone from worshipping how they want. The government is free to favor as much as they like. Indeed, the way people like you seem to want things (that elected officials are not allowed to even talk about God) would be favoritism towards atheism.
They can talk about God all they want. The first half of the first amendment ensures their right to believe as they choose, the second half of the first amendment ensures their right to talk about it. Where they cross the line is when they express such views in their official capacity as representating the position of the government itself. Or even more clear-cut, when it is established as law. The addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God we trust" to currency was the result of a law passed by Congress. That being the case, I don't believe any reasonable case can be made that "under God" and "In God we trust" don't violate the first amendment. Despite its popularity, the supposition is patently absurd.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Making a law "respecting an establishment of religion" is precisely what Congress did. A look at the historical context makes that very clear. This was during the time of the "red scare", when Sen. McCarthy was pushing forward the communist witch hunt. Tensions were high, fear of WWIII was in the air. One of the things that many Americans feared and hated about communism (or at least the Soviet flavor of it) was it's official establishment of Atheism. The purpose of "under God" and "In God We Trust", was to officially disavow atheism, highliting the distinction between "us" and "them". Thus an "establishment of religion" was in fact precisely the intent of those laws.
Read that carefully. Note that it does NOT say seperation of church and state. It says that a national religion may not be established. So long as which God(s) isn't specified, and you are free to worship as you choose. True seperation of church and state is easy to derive from this, and it is reasonable, but it isn't required to assume it.
Isn't it? Thomas Jefferson seemed to think so:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
I believe Thomas Jefferson would rightly be considered a bit of an expert on the subject. Does that paragraph leave any reasonable doubt that "separation of church and state" was a guiding principle behind the first amendment?
As for not specifying which god, what if Congress decided to put this on the currency:
"In Goddess we trust"
It doesn't specify which Goddess. Must be ok then, right? And is anyone _really_ naive enough to not know which God (notice the capital "G") Congress had in mind?
This court is one of the most-overturned circuit courts in the US. They are famous with coming up with some of the most crackpot far-leftist decisions. They recently came to fame by banning the Pledge of Allegiance. To quote from CNN [cnn.com]:
It is the most often overturned because it is the most willing to speak the truth even when the truth is unpopular. A government entity exhibiting religious favoritism _is_ unconstitutional. That the 9th circuit is often overturned is not an indication that it is guilty of "crackpot" decisions, but rather a telling indicator of the wide spread cowardice and corruption in the rest of the judicial system. The 9th circuit exhibited rare courage and integrity by upholding the constitution even when doing so was politically dangerous.
Congress broke the law when it added the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. It also broke the law when it added "In God we trust" to US currency. And various government agencies break the law on a daily basis by posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and other government buildings, and by compelling students in publicly funded schools to recite the already illegal pledge. The current presidential administration and Congress is bent on soiling the constitution yet again through their new "faith based initiatives".
Unfortunately, precious few public officials are willing to tell the truth about any of this. The 9th circuit is to be commended for doing so.
Telegard released a 2.7 version but I believe that was the end of it. Renegade was activly developed right up to the end of the BBS scene.
Renegade has been pretty stagnant the last several years, but appears to be not entirely dead. It has changed hands a few times. Some fairly recent (meaning less than a year old) info is here.
Another classic BBS, Synchronet, has much healthier life signs. It has been GPL'd and is quite actively developed, including a Linux port. It also has a fair number of active users with a fairly active network of telnet accessible BBS's.
BTW, any old time BBS'ers out there who might want to locate some of the BBS people you used to know, might be interested in this site, where you can list yourself for BBS's that you used to use.
I know a lot of you on Slashdot aren't old enough to remember when Challanger exploded at takeoff, and don't remember the uphoria and excitement that we all used to have when the Space Shuttle was new, or the excitement that a honest to God civilian was getting to go into space. In this era of any rich playboy with $20mil can get into space with enough effort, its hard to imagine what that was like for us, especially those of us who were young at the time.
I stayed up all night to watch the first shuttle launch. The very same shuttle that was lost today. I'm not an overly emotional person. But this cuts me deep.
The one thing I find odd about this design is the use of a CD-ROM drive. In 1991 CD-ROM media was very scarce as I recall. Almost all programs were distributed on disk. I built my first PC in 1993 (Amiga and ST prior to that) and it didn't have a CD-ROM drive for some time CD Burners were extremely expensive (thousands) and were the size of a large home stereo amplifier. As I recall, most software was distributed on 3.5 inch disk well into 1994... right?
So in 1991, the inclusion of a CD-ROM on this device was intended as either: 1) A very expensive cup holder. 2) A device a waaay ahead of its time. Or 3) A hoax.
2X CD-ROM drives were about $200 in the latter part of 1993, and were actually fairly common on new machines. I got my first Pentium machine that year, and it came with one. Not sure what was available in 1991 or what it would have cost, but probably quite a bit more. I know that CD-ROM drives were commercially available at least as far back as 1987, but they were very exotic high-end stuff back then.
The cheapest CD writers in 1993 were about $3K. $4K was more typical, and a few models up around $6K. Blank CD-R disks were $15 to $20 each. They were easy enough to find from mail-order houses, but you definitely wouldn't find them at Wal-Mart, and probably wouldn't even find them at 90% of computer stores. Again, I don't know what the situation was in 1991, but "rarer" and "costlier" are very good bets. And there was more cost than just the burner. You also had to have enough HD space for all your source material, plus an image of the CD. And these couldn't be low-end drives either. Low-end models would occasionaly "recalibrate", causing a momentary pause in the data stream, and CD writers at the time didn't have enough cache to tolerate this. So, in 1993 a typical CD writing setup, computer and all, was about a $10K investment. 1991 would certainly have been much worse.
Re:About this concept car
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 2
"The Lupo, a production car, needs less than 5l/100km, or close to 50mpg, and that with a top speed of 199km/h or about 120mph.
After reading the review of the Lupo, with it's comfort and durability problems, I'm thinking that VW might be wise to hire some good bicycle designers to team up with their automotive engineers. Why? Because in the world of bicycles, designing things that are ergonomic and lightweight without being flimsy is second nature. On the other hand, building an entire automobile using the exotic materials and high quality construction of a really good bicycle would probably result in an astonishingly expensive automobile. But I bet the lightweight seat would be comfortable and the cup holder wouldn't break from normal use.
It's amazing. If it's from Microsoft all 3rd party-effort (like accounting or customer tracking applications, or in the case of Windows drivers.) all of the sudden is credited to Microsoft.
It didn't look to me like he was giving Microsoft credit for any of those applications. He was just pointing out that DOS is still performing real work, even in some fairly critical roles. I thought that was pretty clear, myself.
Face it: DOS is a very, very primitive OS. Even in 1981 when it was released, it was already outdated. A decade later, when it was still shipped on most PCs, it was even more outdated. multi-user, multitasking...
It was a small OS that was well suited to the limited hardware it was meant to run on (think 4.77MHz 8086 with a 180K single sided floppy and 128K ram on a first generation IBM PC.). Yeah, DOS was already primitive compared to Unix and other big OS's of the same time period, but tell me, just how would you get Unix to run on a machine such as that? And even if you could do it, do you think those tiny machines would have been able to run applications as well as they did if they had a fatter OS? It was a good choice for machines that individuals and small businesses could reasonably afford at that time. And it was stable. Sure, it didn't have much resistance to misbehaving applications, but malfunctions of DOS itself were almost unheard of. And many of those old DOS applications were very stable as well.
I believe the world would have been worse off, not better, if a more sophisticated OS had been used on early PC's. Of course, it did outlive it's usefullness. By 1985, much superior alternatives were available that were practical even for the consumer and small business class of machines. Maybe the world would have been better off switching to a more sophisticated OS then. But by that time, it had a significant installed base.
As a die-hard Microsoft user you probably don't know, but those existed long before Windows - and also before DOS.
He seems knowlegeable enough. He quite likely is aware of that. But as a die-hard Microsoft basher, you apparently would rather assume otherwise. I personally loathe Microsoft. But this kind of gratituitous bashing of anyone who grants MS any credit at all, only gives the MS apologists more ammo to use against the rest of us.
A giant web that might be strong enough to catch people! That would be really scary if the story included a picture.
I've had spiders build webs accross the frame of my front door. I can just imagine the spider thinking, "Oh man, if I can catch just one of those things, I'll never go hungry again!"
Microsoft playing "catch-up"? Nonsense. Only, what, 9% of the internet users out there use browsers other than IE? Of that, how many of those alternate browsers have tabbed browsing...
I suspect that Netscape, Mozilla, and Opera collectively make up most of that 9%. Given that all of those have tabbed browsing, then the answer is "nearly all of them". Or maybe not. I guess it really depends on how many of those 9% are surfing around using old versions.
and of those clients using those browsers how many actually *use* tabs?
Good question. I don't have any statistics, but I suspect the percentage is pretty high. Of the few Mozilla users I know, ALL use and love tabs. In fact, tabbed browsing has influenced many, including myself, to use Mozilla as their primary browser, resorting to IE only to deal with those increasingly rare sites that don't work with Mozilla (and significant portion of those fail only because of really stupid browser detection that causes the page to refuse even to try to load if it detects something other than IE). Mozilla is good enough at this point that I now use IE for less than 1% of my web browsing.
I agree that Microsoft is scanning around and implementing good features, but no one other than/.'ers will ever know they got the idea from someone else. You're only playing 'catch-up' if there's something to catch-up to. IE has over 90% of the internet userbase, I'd say *that* was something to catch-up to.
Of course MS isn't playing catch up in user share. No one claimed otherwise. But when it comes to features, MS definitely has some catching up to do.
I'm surprised this theft hasn't attracted more attention in the mainstream media, since "Principia" is generally considered the most important scientific works in history.
Apparently the theft of a well authenticated artifact documenting the foundations of classical physics isn't nearly as newsworthy as a crack in a bone box with a fake inscription and a shady history.
Or take mass transit. Until city mass-transit starts requiring personalized identification, it's safer, often cheaper in the long run, and certainly less polluting.
When I'm sitting on a 48,000 pound bus with 2 other passengers, I'm not so certain about the less polluting part. It all depends on how many passengers it takes to break even, and what the average number of passengers is on a typical city bus at any given moment. Unfortunately, those numbers are completely unknown to me.
I think a better use of time would be to have all these programmers here develop a better OCR. Then you wouldn't need the proofreading and could just feed books into the scanner. I mean there are lots of things wrong with OCR and reasons why it can't be absolutely perfect, but it CAN bet better. If we just write one line of code a day each we'll have better OCR in no time.
Oh great! A wealth of classic literature and no one but our computers will read it!
I dont think I'd want them able to track My driving habits...
More important than my driving habits, I wouldn't want them tracking when/where I go. And no, I don't have anything evil I want to hide. It's just that it's none of their business what churches, political events, social events, etc. that people attend. That may not be their intent, but the potential for abuse bothers me.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. I hadn't thought about it quite that way. I have, however, given some thought to the risk-mitigation aspect of public transportation more from the perspective of the risk for an individual rider, rather than the total accident risk in the grand scheme of things. If the risk per mile of a bus being involved in an accident is the same as for a private automobile, then the odds of me being involved in an accident on he bus is the same as it would be if I drove my van. But for the bus, the cost of an accident is spread much thinner, and already covered by the fares and subsidies that fund the transit system. If I am in a minor non-injury accident while driving to work in my van, it will likely screw up a sizeable portion of my work day, and cost me lots of money. Of course insurance may cover most of it, but that is still a cost that I bear in the form of premiums. If I am in a minor non-injury accident while riding a bus, I can just walk away and wait for another bus. The only ill consequence for me personally is that I will be a little late for work that day. My cost for that day is the same $2 fare that I pay every day.
To me, this is one of the strongest incentives to use public transportation. Risk is one of the biggest costs of using an automobile. And it's one that people often fail to properly account for when comparing the relative cost of private vs. public transportation.
Unless you are absolutely certain that a power source is inherently capable of delivering only very small current (like your taser example, though that is not completely without danger either), "higher voltage = greater danger" is an entirely reasonable assumption.
If someone asks you to hold a couple of stripped wires while they make a phone call, don't do it.
Those are cool. All the ones I've seen are actually electro-mechanical though, which is why they have such good visibility in daylight. I don't know what they cost, but they certainly _look_ expensive.
However, for "laws which move to drive all mention of religion out of every social forum", I think you would have a solid case based on both the "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;." and the "... or abridging the freedom of speech," parts of the first amendment. I'd gladly join you in opposing such laws, though I am not aware of any either existing or pending. Perhaps you can point them out?
Utah already has a law requiring kids to say the pledge of allegiance, but it is somewhat less draconian in that it does not require parental permission for students to exercise their right to not participate.
As for not specifying which god, what if Congress decided to put this on the currency:
"In Goddess we trust"
It doesn't specify which Goddess. Must be ok then, right? And is anyone _really_ naive enough to not know which God (notice the capital "G") Congress had in mind?
Congress broke the law when it added the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. It also broke the law when it added "In God we trust" to US currency. And various government agencies break the law on a daily basis by posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and other government buildings, and by compelling students in publicly funded schools to recite the already illegal pledge. The current presidential administration and Congress is bent on soiling the constitution yet again through their new "faith based initiatives".
Unfortunately, precious few public officials are willing to tell the truth about any of this. The 9th circuit is to be commended for doing so.
Another classic BBS, Synchronet, has much healthier life signs. It has been GPL'd and is quite actively developed, including a Linux port. It also has a fair number of active users with a fairly active network of telnet accessible BBS's.
BTW, any old time BBS'ers out there who might want to locate some of the BBS people you used to know, might be interested in this site, where you can list yourself for BBS's that you used to use.
The cheapest CD writers in 1993 were about $3K. $4K was more typical, and a few models up around $6K. Blank CD-R disks were $15 to $20 each. They were easy enough to find from mail-order houses, but you definitely wouldn't find them at Wal-Mart, and probably wouldn't even find them at 90% of computer stores. Again, I don't know what the situation was in 1991, but "rarer" and "costlier" are very good bets. And there was more cost than just the burner. You also had to have enough HD space for all your source material, plus an image of the CD. And these couldn't be low-end drives either. Low-end models would occasionaly "recalibrate", causing a momentary pause in the data stream, and CD writers at the time didn't have enough cache to tolerate this. So, in 1993 a typical CD writing setup, computer and all, was about a $10K investment. 1991 would certainly have been much worse.
2600 Magazine? Now there's something to not leave lying around in your trash.
I personally see nothing wrong with it, but it's bound to have some spin value to the neo-McCarthyites if they're ever out to get you.
I believe the world would have been worse off, not better, if a more sophisticated OS had been used on early PC's. Of course, it did outlive it's usefullness. By 1985, much superior alternatives were available that were practical even for the consumer and small business class of machines. Maybe the world would have been better off switching to a more sophisticated OS then. But by that time, it had a significant installed base. He seems knowlegeable enough. He quite likely is aware of that. But as a die-hard Microsoft basher, you apparently would rather assume otherwise. I personally loathe Microsoft. But this kind of gratituitous bashing of anyone who grants MS any credit at all, only gives the MS apologists more ammo to use against the rest of us.
Ok, so it's hurricane proof. But imagine what that pivoting base would do for you in a tornado. I hope they don't sell many of these in west Texas.