That's funny, because I seem to remember notable publications like the New York Times criticizing the earlier form of his budget which allocated MORE funds to the Army Corps of Engineers. Seems they thought the funds would be better used for "social programs."
Citations please. "I seem to remember" doesn't quite cut it.
And not just a lament about social program cuts in general, but an actual cite of NYT or other major news organization recommending diversion of funds away from the Army Corps of Engineers for that purpose.
The USA is doubtlessly the source of this abysmal misuse of 4x4 vehicles, but it's certainly spreading to the UK where mothers drive huge 4x4s to drop off their single child to the school a 5 minute walk down the road.
If such small distances were all that people were driving, then it would not matter so much that their vehicles were excessive. Living close to work and shopping close to home are a quite effective means for saving both fuel and pollution without giving up the comfort and capability of a larger vehicle.
No way I'd fault a person for driving a big gas-hogging truck if that person does minimal driving. Even better if he/she takes advantage of the short distance to work by biking in nice weather. That's what I used to do back when I lived only 1 mile from work. I had a vehicle that only got about 13mpg in the city. I biked much of the time. More because I enjoyed it than out of any great urge to save money or save the planet. My commute was short enough that both the cost and polution were trivial. Even when I drove to work all week, I was still usung much less fuel than most folks do with their econo-mizers when measured per-week rather than per-mile.
Driving less also greatly enhances the useful life and resale value of your vehicle, and reduces the risk of being in an accident. It's not uncommon for people who drive a lot to have to pay dealers to take their vehicle as trade-in on a new one, because the high-mileage has depreciated it below what is still owed on it. The difference is added to the cost of the new vehicle. Which, of course, increases what you owe, making the value-vs-debt problem even worse when you want to trade that one in after a couple of years of high-mileage driving. It sucks, but it happens all the time. Long commutes cost a lot more than just fuel. And some of those costs exist even if you drive an efficient vehicle.
So, if you can arrange your life so that you drive very little, and then choose to drive the biggest, comfiest, most excessive vehicle you can fit in your garage, then more power to you.
Of course, this means that you likely want to bag the items as you shop instead of afterwards.
I have a book called "Automobiles of the Future" that I've had since I was a kid. It was published sometime around the mid to late 1960's. Among the amazing concept cars that it depicts (some of which still seem pretty futuristic) was a very practical minded family car. It's most distinguishing feature was a built in shopping cart that docked into a receptacle in the rear. With something like that, you could just wheel your own cart into the supermarket, load it up with RFID tagged items, then wheel it out with only the briefest stop to scan and pay. No need to bag at all, because you can just leave everything in the cart for the trip home and wheel it into the kitchen when you get there. Your groceries would need only two transfers: store shelf to cart, and cart to fridge and/or cabinets.
As it is now, groceries typically get transferred from shelf to cart, then transferred to a conveyor at the checkout, then transferred from conveyor to bags, then transferred back to the cart, then transferred from the cart to your car, then carried from car to house, then transferred from bags to fridge or cabinet. That dockable shopping cart really seemed like an outstanding idea to me, even if a bit mundane compared to some of the other, more outlandish, concept car ideas back then. Even without modern checkout technology it would still be pretty helpful. Too bad it didn't become reality.
Moral of this story? RFIDs are cool and have their place, but can never replace the simplicity and cost-effectiveness of barcodes for identification of huge lots of items.
I didn't think it necessary to mention inter-library loan. It isn't exactly arcane knowlege, and it doesn't change my point. Libraries (collectively now, so as to account for inter-library loan) censor by just not acquiring certain materials.
That said, I'd like to make clear that I have a great deal of appreciation and admiration for public libraries. They're in a very tough position when it comes to balancing free speech against providing something valuable to their communities while not getting tarred and feathered by said communities. And, in my experience, they have dealt with this admirably. There's little benefit to either communities or to society at large to have libraries offer unfettered access to, for example, hard core pornography. Much more important is that they not censor ideas or points of view. And to that end, I think they do a very good job. About as good a job as is possible in their position. My local public library, for example, has science books and religious books. Anti-science books and anti-religious books. Mystical books and skeptical books. Far right political books, far left political books, and neutral books about politics or history.
This being a rather conservative town, I'm sometimes surprised at the extent to which our public library doesn't censor. The range of ideas that they make freely available is quite broad. But I'm glad they don't have a bunch of "adult" material in their collection. That would only detract from the valuable service that they provide, and would create a risk of losing that service because of political backlash.
I would agree that ANY censorship opens up a huge can of worms. Like how to determine what is or is not considered "adult" material. And the potential for abuse if those who are empowered to make that decision place materials in that category as a way to suppress ideas. But unwieldy as those problems are, it just wouldn't be practical for libraries to not exercise some selectivity in the materials that they offer. Even if there were no ideological or political issues to contend with, there is still the matter that it just isn't practical to offer everything that's ever been published. So they have to pare it down by some means. I'd rather that be done as a best-effort attempt to build a collection that provides the greatest value to their communities. That does include materials that challenge the communities' beliefs. But it doesn't include porn.
I had a first generation 60MHz Pentium machine that honored the turbo button. I discovered this when it mysteriously slowed to such a crawl that it made my old 10MHz 286 seem fast. The turbo button had been accidentally pushed. It took me a few minutes to figure this out because I really didn't expect that the turbo feature would still be implemented on a machine that modern.
That might also be a good punishment for folks who develop negligently vulnerable critical systems, and those who fail to make a reasonable effort to securely operate and maintain them.
Indeed. During the campaign leading up to the presidential election in 1984, Democratic candidate Walter Mondale said "Let's tell the truth. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."
It would, of course, be pretty silly to attribute his overwhelming loss to Reagan to this one comment. But that bit of honesty did seem to do him more harm than good.
I would not assume that Hatch believes it either. Like the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA, he just has a vested interest in convincing us to believe it.
I generally agree with the adage about not assuming malice for what can be explained by simple incompetence. But I really don't think that incompetence is a reasonable explanation for what people like Hatch and the xxAA's have been up to. They know what they're doing, and are experts at doing it. It's their motives that are suspect, not their intelligence.
In addition, you say "Of course, you masochists/pagans like that, but Christians don't.," which first insults anyone reading this who has a different religion, and second assumes that everyone is Christian.
It also assumes that all Christians are offended at anyone who doesn't behave like them, which also assumes that they all want to behave that way in the first place. Non-christians are not the only ones who've been insulted.
On the other hand, the grandparent post may have been an attempt to demonstrate what's wrong with that kind of thinking, rather than promoting it. Sarcasm can be useful, but sometimes backfires.
Ah, but the school did them a favor. What better way to start these hatchling PHB's on their way than with a dramatic illustration of how the big boys play CYA.
How many people are still using an 11 year old HDD? (That'd be, what, 1GB or so?)
I have a 14 year old 40MB (that's right, MB) drive that is currently in use on my freesco router, which is an old 486 machine assembled in an even older AT style case that appears to be from around 1987 or so. This setup has been working fine for about 5 years now. It was originally floppy only, but I stuck the HDD in it about 3 years ago because the floppy made booting very slow and sometimes had difficulty reading reliably.
And no offense, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim that liberalism is all about the freedom to express and implement ideas. Take a look at how the Left *freaks out* about Fox News and/or talk radio as an counter-example.
Fox News and right-wing talk radio does indeed get a lot of flack from the left. IMO, that is entirely earned. But that assessment is immaterial to the point, whether you agree with it or not. The important question is: Who on the left has tried to infringe Fox News' or any right wing talk radio show's right to free speech? That is, after all, what you're implying. Because without that implication, your counterexample is not a counterexample at all. Has anyone other than perhaps a few atypical idiots on the fringe (The right has some of those as well, no?) tried to take them off the air?
Using your own free speech to express opposition is not at all the same as suppressing someone elses free speech. That's what's so great about this "free speech" concept. Though it allows miscreants like the KKK to promote their hatred, it also allows the rest of us to speak out against such ideas and to promote better ones. And I rather like it that way. Much better to express than to oppress.
On the matter of implementation though, you're probably right. The Left will definitely try to prevent implementation of right-wing ideals. The Right does the converse. Unless you can get everyone to agree about everything, that simply cannot be any other way.
A sane response to the above paranoia would be to add `or any later version approved by me'.
For a project that has many contributors, some likely untraceable, who is "me"? And if your project does manage to resolve that issue, what happens when this "me" dies, or becomes antagonistic towards the project?
It seems to me that all you would have accomplished is to move the dependence from the FSF's future good behavior to someone else. With lots of projects, that's lots of someone else's. I suppose that could be good in the sense of not having the whole of GPL'd OSS susceptible to a single point of failure. But it increase the risks and complexity of developing with shared code. Risks and complexities that potentially could extend to users as well as developers. In which case, you wouldn't have to wait for the FSF to screw things up.
How is it that less than half is considered nearly all? Or are they stretching their ATMs so that it is so large that it is physically touching more than one branch, or just building branches next to eachother and throwing an ATM in between?
No, no. It's not like that at all. They're installing more than 3000 online stations at EACH branch location. Except for a few very small branches, which will have 3000 or fewer online stations.
Slashdot Mirror
And not just a lament about social program cuts in general, but an actual cite of NYT or other major news organization recommending diversion of funds away from the Army Corps of Engineers for that purpose.
No way I'd fault a person for driving a big gas-hogging truck if that person does minimal driving. Even better if he/she takes advantage of the short distance to work by biking in nice weather. That's what I used to do back when I lived only 1 mile from work. I had a vehicle that only got about 13mpg in the city. I biked much of the time. More because I enjoyed it than out of any great urge to save money or save the planet. My commute was short enough that both the cost and polution were trivial. Even when I drove to work all week, I was still usung much less fuel than most folks do with their econo-mizers when measured per-week rather than per-mile.
Driving less also greatly enhances the useful life and resale value of your vehicle, and reduces the risk of being in an accident. It's not uncommon for people who drive a lot to have to pay dealers to take their vehicle as trade-in on a new one, because the high-mileage has depreciated it below what is still owed on it. The difference is added to the cost of the new vehicle. Which, of course, increases what you owe, making the value-vs-debt problem even worse when you want to trade that one in after a couple of years of high-mileage driving. It sucks, but it happens all the time. Long commutes cost a lot more than just fuel. And some of those costs exist even if you drive an efficient vehicle.
So, if you can arrange your life so that you drive very little, and then choose to drive the biggest, comfiest, most excessive vehicle you can fit in your garage, then more power to you.
As it is now, groceries typically get transferred from shelf to cart, then transferred to a conveyor at the checkout, then transferred from conveyor to bags, then transferred back to the cart, then transferred from the cart to your car, then carried from car to house, then transferred from bags to fridge or cabinet. That dockable shopping cart really seemed like an outstanding idea to me, even if a bit mundane compared to some of the other, more outlandish, concept car ideas back then. Even without modern checkout technology it would still be pretty helpful. Too bad it didn't become reality.
I thought that the advantage of gas turbines was power to weight ratio, not fuel efficiency.
I didn't think it necessary to mention inter-library loan. It isn't exactly arcane knowlege, and it doesn't change my point. Libraries (collectively now, so as to account for inter-library loan) censor by just not acquiring certain materials.
That said, I'd like to make clear that I have a great deal of appreciation and admiration for public libraries. They're in a very tough position when it comes to balancing free speech against providing something valuable to their communities while not getting tarred and feathered by said communities. And, in my experience, they have dealt with this admirably. There's little benefit to either communities or to society at large to have libraries offer unfettered access to, for example, hard core pornography. Much more important is that they not censor ideas or points of view. And to that end, I think they do a very good job. About as good a job as is possible in their position. My local public library, for example, has science books and religious books. Anti-science books and anti-religious books. Mystical books and skeptical books. Far right political books, far left political books, and neutral books about politics or history.
This being a rather conservative town, I'm sometimes surprised at the extent to which our public library doesn't censor. The range of ideas that they make freely available is quite broad. But I'm glad they don't have a bunch of "adult" material in their collection. That would only detract from the valuable service that they provide, and would create a risk of losing that service because of political backlash.
I would agree that ANY censorship opens up a huge can of worms. Like how to determine what is or is not considered "adult" material. And the potential for abuse if those who are empowered to make that decision place materials in that category as a way to suppress ideas. But unwieldy as those problems are, it just wouldn't be practical for libraries to not exercise some selectivity in the materials that they offer. Even if there were no ideological or political issues to contend with, there is still the matter that it just isn't practical to offer everything that's ever been published. So they have to pare it down by some means. I'd rather that be done as a best-effort attempt to build a collection that provides the greatest value to their communities. That does include materials that challenge the communities' beliefs. But it doesn't include porn.
Overall, I think they do a great job.
5. 50 cheap dates for "Bubba".
I hadn't realized it had been so long until I looked it up. The parent's "over 5 years" comment was off, but actually not as far off as I thought.
I had a first generation 60MHz Pentium machine that honored the turbo button. I discovered this when it mysteriously slowed to such a crawl that it made my old 10MHz 286 seem fast. The turbo button had been accidentally pushed. It took me a few minutes to figure this out because I really didn't expect that the turbo feature would still be implemented on a machine that modern.
That might also be a good punishment for folks who develop negligently vulnerable critical systems, and those who fail to make a reasonable effort to securely operate and maintain them.
Indeed. During the campaign leading up to the presidential election in 1984, Democratic candidate Walter Mondale said "Let's tell the truth. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."
It would, of course, be pretty silly to attribute his overwhelming loss to Reagan to this one comment. But that bit of honesty did seem to do him more harm than good.
I would not assume that Hatch believes it either. Like the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA, he just has a vested interest in convincing us to believe it.
I generally agree with the adage about not assuming malice for what can be explained by simple incompetence. But I really don't think that incompetence is a reasonable explanation for what people like Hatch and the xxAA's have been up to. They know what they're doing, and are experts at doing it. It's their motives that are suspect, not their intelligence.
On the other hand, the grandparent post may have been an attempt to demonstrate what's wrong with that kind of thinking, rather than promoting it. Sarcasm can be useful, but sometimes backfires.
Ah, but the school did them a favor. What better way to start these hatchling PHB's on their way than with a dramatic illustration of how the big boys play CYA.
Raising donations? They should rejoice! The "Voyager 1", reference obviously implies that a second Voyager series is in the works.
I have a 14 year old 40MB (that's right, MB) drive that is currently in use on my freesco router, which is an old 486 machine assembled in an even older AT style case that appears to be from around 1987 or so. This setup has been working fine for about 5 years now. It was originally floppy only, but I stuck the HDD in it about 3 years ago because the floppy made booting very slow and sometimes had difficulty reading reliably.
Using your own free speech to express opposition is not at all the same as suppressing someone elses free speech. That's what's so great about this "free speech" concept. Though it allows miscreants like the KKK to promote their hatred, it also allows the rest of us to speak out against such ideas and to promote better ones. And I rather like it that way. Much better to express than to oppress.
On the matter of implementation though, you're probably right. The Left will definitely try to prevent implementation of right-wing ideals. The Right does the converse. Unless you can get everyone to agree about everything, that simply cannot be any other way.
It seems to me that all you would have accomplished is to move the dependence from the FSF's future good behavior to someone else. With lots of projects, that's lots of someone else's. I suppose that could be good in the sense of not having the whole of GPL'd OSS susceptible to a single point of failure. But it increase the risks and complexity of developing with shared code. Risks and complexities that potentially could extend to users as well as developers. In which case, you wouldn't have to wait for the FSF to screw things up.
Any bets on how long it would take AFP to sue to get relisted after their ratings plummet?
Hey, at least they used the word "ensure" correctly.