based on the IBM model M. You will not need a new keyboard again for a good many years.
Model M keyboards do not 'die'. On occasion, one will be called to Valhalla to feast with the heroes of legend for eternity; so replacements aren't out of the question; but that's pretty much the only failure mode.
Not the only one. I have one that has several non-functional keys because enough of the plastic rivets that hold the metal plate to the internal plastic board have failed, producing a warp. There is probably some technique to re-attach it, but I haven't found one yet. 30 years ain't bad for plastic rivets, but clearly they have a limited lifespan.
Using that logic, suicide bombers should be called "sacrificial bombers".
Probably so, but that doesn't make for good marketing / war propaganda. The people committing these acts don't call it "suicide", they call it Jihad or martyring. "Kamikaze" was translated for Americans into being synonymous with suicide, too, but it actually means "divine wind".
Some of the suicides are depicted as honorable, including the suicide of Samson.
Don't confuse suicide with self-sacrifice. Indeed, you could claim that Jesus committed suicide because he could have gotten out of the crucifixion several times, and chose to allow it - "the lamb" is sacrificed. Samson sacrificed himself in order to bring down the pagan temple of Dagon. He took many Philistine lords with him.
Calling this "suicide" is like saying James Brady tried to commit suicide by jumping in front of a bullet.
This is NOT a technical issue that new software will solve. It is a training or management issue. If people don't understand how to use version control, they will use it like a file share instead. I've encountered this MANY times, and right now I'm struggling with the idiots (actual software developers) that are using dead-simple SubVersion tools and STILL want to make copies for new versions, create new folders for the "current" docs and rename folders as archives. Constantly. And these are supposed to be DEVELOPERS! They seem to have no concept of tagging, branching, or even versioning in general. WHY did you delete all these files and then commit a bunch of modified files into a new folder!??!?
The only way to fix this is to create some policy and procedure documents (they can be really short and simple), and then get management to ENFORCE them. Otherwise, you might as well just throw out the version control system and let everybody do whatever they want in a shared store. Because that's what they'll do anyway if they don't "get" version control.
Easy to install, free for 20-users or less, rock solid, and clients for many OSes. Most importantly, it supports single-user checkouts, which is vital for things like Word documents that won't merge.
Perforce sucks, and everybody knows it. Go away, paid shill.
Looking over the history of alcohol and society, I would have to say that alcohol has brought more problems into society than has created social benefits.
Not true. Even if you dismiss the credibility of studies showing how beer and wine making promoted the formation of agrarian societies, it's clear that long ocean voyages would have been impossible without mead - it was the only way to store potable fluids for long periods.
You could even go so far as to say it was alcohol that created modern society. Now, you can claim we would all be better off if society had never progressed beyond hunter-gatherer lifestyles, but that's a pretty pessimistic viewpoint.
alcohol addiction, something that happens to humans every three seconds in the world
Quite impossible. Alcohol addiction is not something that happens over and over - once you're addicted, it's for life. Just go to any AA meeting and ask. There are only 6.9 new people every three seconds. By your reckoning, that means that 43% of the global population are alcoholics. I feel like that's a bit inflated.
Something rather important is that all or virtually all of that effect is in your socialization and expectations around alcohol, not the alcohol itself. There are plenty of classic studies showing that people who believe they consume alcohol, behave as if they really did - and conversely, that alcohol does very little to your inhibitions unless you figure out that's what they're feeding you.
Those studies show less about the effects of alcohol and more about the way our physiology works. It's a placebo effect based on a conditioned response. It also works on people with severe long-term pain. After treating it with morphine successfully, an injection of saline because just as effective as actual morphine. Plenty of studies on that, too.
I'm not drinking alcohol at all this year (just as an experiment - I'm not a recovering alcoholic or anything like that).
Me too, though for different reasons. I ran out a few years ago and have been too lazy to go to the liquor store (the ABC store here in VA) to get some more. I do like beer, but don't often drink it because, I think, the Hops gives me a headache -- I have an allergy to pine needles.
As a major hop-head, you have my deepest sympathies, sir. I typically enjoy beers in the 70 - 120 IBUs range. If I had to stick to low (or non-) hopped beer I would certainly quit drinking it. In fact, I did for many years in the mid-to-late 1980's, before I discovered craft beer.
87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. Thatâ(TM)s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever.
If companies would stop devising ever more clever ways to mislead, cheat, and defraud while remaining technically within the letter of existing rules, then government might be able to stop revising the rules.
Right. Because we can't hold people responsible for their actions - if one person messes up, we need to make everyone pay. Typical government response.
Be careful when you advocate mandatory medical procedures. It can be very dangerous. In 1945 there were about 10 vaccinations recommended for children before age 6. Today, when you count all the booster shots, it's about 200. The benefits of flu vaccines is very questionable (they didn't even include the most prevalent strain in this year's vaccine), and with the pace of medical research it will only grow. There is a long list of FDA-approved drugs that have been withdrawn once it was discovered how dangerous they were in the general population. Perhaps worst of all is the total immunity from liability afforded to all the pharmaceutical companies for approved vaccines. They are not even held accountable if something goes wrong.
I am not anti-vax. Most vaccines are important, and I think it's good that most schools require children to get the important vaccines before they are allowed into the schools. But it can certainly go too far, and the Gardasil requirement mandated by Rick Perry for Texan 12 and 13 year-old girls is a perfect example (note the executive order was NOT approved by the legislature, and Perry received large donations from Merk, the company with the patent for Gardasil).
I have to agree with Rand that there should be ways for individuals and parents to opt out, especially for the less critical vaccines.
Or you could you know, just hire people that seem dependable and evaluate them on their performance, which seems a whole lot simpler and less judgmental.
And you know what? That's why it would work just fine without regulation. Because businesses that do that will be much more successful. What you do when you regulation anti-discrimination by law is you eliminate the market penalty for discrimination. I know that sounds backwards, but let me explain. I think it's easy to see what the public would do to a business that tried to discriminate against customers (just look what happened to Paula Deen). But there is a labor market penalty, too.
If you're passing up good talent for superficial racial/gender/other reasons, then you're paying a premium for talent. Women and minorities are still behind in salary, so it is sometimes beneficial to hire them, because they are likely just as good as white male counterparts, but offer their services for less. Businesses that don't reject that discount will have an advantage over those that do.
There is more to it, but Milton Friedman explains it much better than I can, describing how affirmative action and anti-discrimination in hiring policies actually harms the people it is intended to help.
yeah, that no-regulation-free-market-economics-will-save-us-all economic model that he espouses has worked so well
FUCK YOU, AC, for perpetuating this asinine straw man bullshit. 87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. That’s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever. The Federal IRS tax code ALONE is a whopping 73,954 pages, and is so complicated not even IRS tax attorneys can provide consistent answers to tax questions.
But, sure, to you fucking I-love-dictatorial-and-abusive-central-government fucktards defend every ludicrous piece of shit regulation as if ANY rollback is OMG IT IS LIKE ANARCHY IN THE STREETS!
Yea, well fuck you. And the horse you rode in on. And the entourage that rode with you. And the grooms that stabled your horses.
Protip: It's not about a central government, and you look like a loon trying to twisted it into one, fuck wad.,
Cute. You sound like those guys back in the 1930's that were all like "OMG - how can you oppose income tax? It will only ever affect the super rich. Regular working folks will NEVER pay it!!" Or the guys back in 2010 that said "What, do you think the government is collecting your phone calls and emails or something! What a loon you are for thinking that!"
What do you think all the "cooperation across all governance scales" is all about, anyway?
International treaties and agreements, of course.
You have to read the entire policy Agenda to get a sense of vast scope of what they are proposing. It's huge. To get an idea of how the UN handles things when large sums of money are involved (carbon trading, support for sustainable development in 3rd world countries, and other policies require international transfers of large sums), you need only remember what happened with the Oil for Food Program.
You might also want to consider that the biggest embezzler from that program was Maurice Strong (he fled to China to escape prosecution) is also involved in the origins of Agenda 21 and helped craft the Rio convention and the initial IPCC report.
The IPCC doesn't write a single report. The have 3 different working groups, each writing their own report. The first group deals with the science, the second deals with the impacts, and the third deals with mitigation. Obviously, the 3rd one is the most politically influenced.
You forgot the fourth output from the groups: the "Synthesis Report", subtitled "Summary for Policymakers". This is where most of the information comes from that the media reports to the public.
How do they exactly phrase their call for centralized authority ? What's the page number ?
Oh, it's subtly sprinkled throughout the reports as well as in companion plans from climate-change related UN organizations. For instance, on Page 17 of the summary is this not-so-subtle admonition to create a global governance structure:
Climate change has the characteristics of a collective action problem at the global scale... Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests independently. Cooperative responses, including international cooperation, are therefore required to effectively mitigate GHG emissions and address other climate change issues. The effectiveness of adaptation can be enhanced through complementary actions across levels, including international cooperation. The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective cooperation.
And there's more on page 32 that hints at centralized planning as a requirement to avert global disaster:
International cooperation is critical for effective mitigation, even though mitigation can also have local co-benefits. Adaptation focuses primarily on local to national scale outcomes, but its effectiveness can be enhanced through coordination across governance scales, including international cooperation.
What do you think all the "cooperation across all governance scales" is all about, anyway? How would you interpret "Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales", and calling for new "effective institutions and governance"? Hmmm? All over the place in those reports.
The report is not moving in the direction you think. The trend over time has been to move away from recommending nuclear. In the first IPCC report, nuclear was considered the answer to AGW. Now it is considered something that should be minimized.
That's because the IPCC report is a political document, not a scientific one. Sure, they use scientific studies to justify their political position, but the purpose of the document is to drive a political agenda, one that calls for centralized authority.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified in Rio de Janeiro in 1992
As was Agenda 21. Anthropogenic Catastrophic Climate Change is the "threat" that the world's elites decided to use, and Agenda 21 is the "solution". It's an all-encompassing, cradle-to-grave, global governance model for every aspect of human life, with specifics for how each parcel of land in the world will be used (see also the Wildlands Project, the land-use companion plan to Agenda 21.
The World Wildlife Foundation also received a lot of funding from Royal Dutch Shell, and John Loudon (former Shell president) actually served as the WWF president for four years.
Standard Oil's charitable arm has given millions of dollars to Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and others.
Four companies sponsor Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project:
Exxon
General Electric
Sluberger (Oil Field Services company)
Toyota
This is easily fixed. They can do it the same way they do every time they think they've got a case against someone, but screw up and realize the prosecution will fail. They just find some other scapegoat and charge them with obstruction of justice. The preeminent example is the Martha Stewart case. The feds were going after Peter Bacanovic for insider trading. When they discovered they didn't the evidence to indict, they looked at all the people they talked to during the investigation and decided Martha Stewart had lied, so they went after her for obstruction.
They can do the same switch in this case. Can't convict a suspect because their phone is encrypted? Charge some high-profile Google or Apple executive with obstruction of justice instead.
Slashdot Mirror
based on the IBM model M. You will not need a new keyboard again for a good many years.
Model M keyboards do not 'die'. On occasion, one will be called to Valhalla to feast with the heroes of legend for eternity; so replacements aren't out of the question; but that's pretty much the only failure mode.
Not the only one. I have one that has several non-functional keys because enough of the plastic rivets that hold the metal plate to the internal plastic board have failed, producing a warp. There is probably some technique to re-attach it, but I haven't found one yet. 30 years ain't bad for plastic rivets, but clearly they have a limited lifespan.
Using that logic, suicide bombers should be called "sacrificial bombers".
Probably so, but that doesn't make for good marketing / war propaganda. The people committing these acts don't call it "suicide", they call it Jihad or martyring. "Kamikaze" was translated for Americans into being synonymous with suicide, too, but it actually means "divine wind".
Some of the suicides are depicted as honorable, including the suicide of Samson.
Don't confuse suicide with self-sacrifice. Indeed, you could claim that Jesus committed suicide because he could have gotten out of the crucifixion several times, and chose to allow it - "the lamb" is sacrificed. Samson sacrificed himself in order to bring down the pagan temple of Dagon. He took many Philistine lords with him.
Calling this "suicide" is like saying James Brady tried to commit suicide by jumping in front of a bullet.
How do you think they push it down the pipe, then?
They use a pig.
Thank you, Barack. Nice to know who your friends are.
--- Warren Buffet
This is NOT a technical issue that new software will solve. It is a training or management issue. If people don't understand how to use version control, they will use it like a file share instead. I've encountered this MANY times, and right now I'm struggling with the idiots (actual software developers) that are using dead-simple SubVersion tools and STILL want to make copies for new versions, create new folders for the "current" docs and rename folders as archives. Constantly. And these are supposed to be DEVELOPERS! They seem to have no concept of tagging, branching, or even versioning in general. WHY did you delete all these files and then commit a bunch of modified files into a new folder!??!?
The only way to fix this is to create some policy and procedure documents (they can be really short and simple), and then get management to ENFORCE them. Otherwise, you might as well just throw out the version control system and let everybody do whatever they want in a shared store. Because that's what they'll do anyway if they don't "get" version control.
Easy to install, free for 20-users or less, rock solid, and clients for many OSes. Most importantly, it supports single-user checkouts, which is vital for things like Word documents that won't merge.
Perforce sucks, and everybody knows it. Go away, paid shill.
Really? Climate change is a Bible thumper thing? AI? Nano Tech? Sounds more like the left, not the right.
No - it's an effort to destroy the most successful world economies. They even admit that's the goal. Nothing to do with "environmentalism".
That worth at least fiddy cent.
You can't have no tree fitty, you Lock Ness Monster!
Looking over the history of alcohol and society, I would have to say that alcohol has brought more problems into society than has created social benefits.
Not true. Even if you dismiss the credibility of studies showing how beer and wine making promoted the formation of agrarian societies, it's clear that long ocean voyages would have been impossible without mead - it was the only way to store potable fluids for long periods.
You could even go so far as to say it was alcohol that created modern society. Now, you can claim we would all be better off if society had never progressed beyond hunter-gatherer lifestyles, but that's a pretty pessimistic viewpoint.
alcohol addiction, something that happens to humans every three seconds in the world
Quite impossible. Alcohol addiction is not something that happens over and over - once you're addicted, it's for life. Just go to any AA meeting and ask. There are only 6.9 new people every three seconds. By your reckoning, that means that 43% of the global population are alcoholics. I feel like that's a bit inflated.
Something rather important is that all or virtually all of that effect is in your socialization and expectations around alcohol, not the alcohol itself. There are plenty of classic studies showing that people who believe they consume alcohol, behave as if they really did - and conversely, that alcohol does very little to your inhibitions unless you figure out that's what they're feeding you.
Those studies show less about the effects of alcohol and more about the way our physiology works. It's a placebo effect based on a conditioned response. It also works on people with severe long-term pain. After treating it with morphine successfully, an injection of saline because just as effective as actual morphine. Plenty of studies on that, too.
I'm not drinking alcohol at all this year (just as an experiment - I'm not a recovering alcoholic or anything like that).
Me too, though for different reasons. I ran out a few years ago and have been too lazy to go to the liquor store (the ABC store here in VA) to get some more. I do like beer, but don't often drink it because, I think, the Hops gives me a headache -- I have an allergy to pine needles.
As a major hop-head, you have my deepest sympathies, sir. I typically enjoy beers in the 70 - 120 IBUs range. If I had to stick to low (or non-) hopped beer I would certainly quit drinking it. In fact, I did for many years in the mid-to-late 1980's, before I discovered craft beer.
87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. Thatâ(TM)s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever.
If companies would stop devising ever more clever ways to mislead, cheat, and defraud while remaining technically within the letter of existing rules, then government might be able to stop revising the rules.
Right. Because we can't hold people responsible for their actions - if one person messes up, we need to make everyone pay. Typical government response.
I think he should give details of the many tragic cases he's heard about.
Well that would be morally and legally (because of HIPAA rules) wrong. But you can check out all the statistics yourself.
Be careful when you advocate mandatory medical procedures. It can be very dangerous. In 1945 there were about 10 vaccinations recommended for children before age 6. Today, when you count all the booster shots, it's about 200. The benefits of flu vaccines is very questionable (they didn't even include the most prevalent strain in this year's vaccine), and with the pace of medical research it will only grow. There is a long list of FDA-approved drugs that have been withdrawn once it was discovered how dangerous they were in the general population. Perhaps worst of all is the total immunity from liability afforded to all the pharmaceutical companies for approved vaccines. They are not even held accountable if something goes wrong.
I am not anti-vax. Most vaccines are important, and I think it's good that most schools require children to get the important vaccines before they are allowed into the schools. But it can certainly go too far, and the Gardasil requirement mandated by Rick Perry for Texan 12 and 13 year-old girls is a perfect example (note the executive order was NOT approved by the legislature, and Perry received large donations from Merk, the company with the patent for Gardasil).
I have to agree with Rand that there should be ways for individuals and parents to opt out, especially for the less critical vaccines.
Or you could you know, just hire people that seem dependable and evaluate them on their performance, which seems a whole lot simpler and less judgmental.
And you know what? That's why it would work just fine without regulation. Because businesses that do that will be much more successful. What you do when you regulation anti-discrimination by law is you eliminate the market penalty for discrimination. I know that sounds backwards, but let me explain. I think it's easy to see what the public would do to a business that tried to discriminate against customers (just look what happened to Paula Deen). But there is a labor market penalty, too.
If you're passing up good talent for superficial racial/gender/other reasons, then you're paying a premium for talent. Women and minorities are still behind in salary, so it is sometimes beneficial to hire them, because they are likely just as good as white male counterparts, but offer their services for less. Businesses that don't reject that discount will have an advantage over those that do.
There is more to it, but Milton Friedman explains it much better than I can, describing how affirmative action and anti-discrimination in hiring policies actually harms the people it is intended to help.
yeah, that no-regulation-free-market-economics-will-save-us-all economic model that he espouses has worked so well
FUCK YOU, AC, for perpetuating this asinine straw man bullshit. 87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. That’s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever. The Federal IRS tax code ALONE is a whopping 73,954 pages, and is so complicated not even IRS tax attorneys can provide consistent answers to tax questions.
But, sure, to you fucking I-love-dictatorial-and-abusive-central-government fucktards defend every ludicrous piece of shit regulation as if ANY rollback is OMG IT IS LIKE ANARCHY IN THE STREETS!
Yea, well fuck you. And the horse you rode in on. And the entourage that rode with you. And the grooms that stabled your horses.
Protip: It's not about a central government, and you look like a loon trying to twisted it into one, fuck wad.,
Cute. You sound like those guys back in the 1930's that were all like "OMG - how can you oppose income tax? It will only ever affect the super rich. Regular working folks will NEVER pay it!!" Or the guys back in 2010 that said "What, do you think the government is collecting your phone calls and emails or something! What a loon you are for thinking that!"
What do you think all the "cooperation across all governance scales" is all about, anyway?
International treaties and agreements, of course.
You have to read the entire policy Agenda to get a sense of vast scope of what they are proposing. It's huge. To get an idea of how the UN handles things when large sums of money are involved (carbon trading, support for sustainable development in 3rd world countries, and other policies require international transfers of large sums), you need only remember what happened with the Oil for Food Program.
You might also want to consider that the biggest embezzler from that program was Maurice Strong (he fled to China to escape prosecution) is also involved in the origins of Agenda 21 and helped craft the Rio convention and the initial IPCC report.
The IPCC doesn't write a single report. The have 3 different working groups, each writing their own report. The first group deals with the science, the second deals with the impacts, and the third deals with mitigation. Obviously, the 3rd one is the most politically influenced.
You forgot the fourth output from the groups: the "Synthesis Report", subtitled "Summary for Policymakers". This is where most of the information comes from that the media reports to the public.
How do they exactly phrase their call for centralized authority ? What's the page number ?
Oh, it's subtly sprinkled throughout the reports as well as in companion plans from climate-change related UN organizations. For instance, on Page 17 of the summary is this not-so-subtle admonition to create a global governance structure:
And there's more on page 32 that hints at centralized planning as a requirement to avert global disaster:
What do you think all the "cooperation across all governance scales" is all about, anyway? How would you interpret "Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales", and calling for new "effective institutions and governance"? Hmmm? All over the place in those reports.
The report is not moving in the direction you think. The trend over time has been to move away from recommending nuclear. In the first IPCC report, nuclear was considered the answer to AGW. Now it is considered something that should be minimized.
That's because the IPCC report is a political document, not a scientific one. Sure, they use scientific studies to justify their political position, but the purpose of the document is to drive a political agenda, one that calls for centralized authority.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified in Rio de Janeiro in 1992
As was Agenda 21. Anthropogenic Catastrophic Climate Change is the "threat" that the world's elites decided to use, and Agenda 21 is the "solution". It's an all-encompassing, cradle-to-grave, global governance model for every aspect of human life, with specifics for how each parcel of land in the world will be used (see also the Wildlands Project, the land-use companion plan to Agenda 21.
The ignorance in your statement is mind-boggling and shows a deep bias
... said every social science report EVER
Because it's bollocks.
No, actually, it's quite true. Just a few examples:
Dana Nuccitelli (of Skeptical Science - an AGW support blog) is actually employed at Tetra Tech (the big oil company).
Pew Charitable Trust's Center for Climate and Energy Solutions are principally funded by Royal Dutch Shell, HP, and Entergy Corp.
The World Wildlife Foundation also received a lot of funding from Royal Dutch Shell, and John Loudon (former Shell president) actually served as the WWF president for four years.
Standard Oil's charitable arm has given millions of dollars to Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and others.
Four companies sponsor Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project: Exxon General Electric Sluberger (Oil Field Services company) Toyota
This is easily fixed. They can do it the same way they do every time they think they've got a case against someone, but screw up and realize the prosecution will fail. They just find some other scapegoat and charge them with obstruction of justice. The preeminent example is the Martha Stewart case. The feds were going after Peter Bacanovic for insider trading. When they discovered they didn't the evidence to indict, they looked at all the people they talked to during the investigation and decided Martha Stewart had lied, so they went after her for obstruction.
They can do the same switch in this case. Can't convict a suspect because their phone is encrypted? Charge some high-profile Google or Apple executive with obstruction of justice instead.