The GP does have a good point though. A D, even if it's a failing grade, means "you didn't pass, but you came close. Just try a little harder and you can pass next time," whereas an F says "You weren't even close to passing. You really need to radically rethink your study strategy and/or go into a different field."
I don't recall ever taking too many classes where I didn't know roughly how well I was doing long before the end of the class. Doesn't a student typically already know if they were close or not to passing? The test you got back with a 54 or the homework you handed in for a 62 or the quiz you got an 83 on all gave pretty exacting performance metrics. Most classes I took in middle school and higher even had introductory handouts on the weighting of the different types of assignments/tests so that I could calculate my final grade in advance.
If a student were operating in a bubble without any indication of how good or bad they were performing, then you and the GP would have a point. -N
Those companies are only abusing their monopoly if someone new comes in and is pressured out of the market by anti-competitive tactics. If no one else wants to take advantage of the opportunity to compete in a market, you're looking for a different reason why. Off the top of my head, perhaps there's too much government regulation making it too difficult to get into that field. Too much insurance costs because of liability concerns in an overly litigious society. Perhaps just no one realized how much of an opportunity there was here because no one really has a clue how much healthcare costs these days since no one using it looks at the bills anymore - they just have their insurance cover it and complain when there's a problem. How do you expect competition in a market to lower prices when the consumer doesn't decide what features to invest in and compare based on price?
In other words, the answer you're looking for is not "more government" - that is the problem. -N
I was alluding to the fact that I have driven a car to its limits and exceeded them. Now, I have a lot of difficulty competing since then. It's a good excuse for not being a very good driver I guess, but the distinction is unimportant.
The best drivers really have to combine a knowledge of where that line is as well as the bravery to drive right on it. -N
Racers who drive with a constant fear of crashing probably tend to crash more, or at the very least, don't get sponsorships. From experience, I can say that you cannot push a car to its limits worrying about crashing. -N
Braking feel is largely tied to brake fluid and friction materials. Cars that are 20 years old are not using the original stuff for any of that.
ABS does not help you stop sooner. It really doesn't and it's not supposed to. Seriously, it's to help you turn while stopping. In a straight line, you're often better off without it.
The current generation Civic has a torsion beam rear suspension, while the old ones like your '88 had a double-wishbone setup. It doesn't handle as well as the old ones. I wasn't making that up, believe it or not. Your '88 Civic was essentially a front-wheel drive sports car and competes on that level even today.
As for that Top Gear episode, there were a few matchups where the older car did a lot better than the modern equivalent, but yeah, as a rule, most newer cars are better than their equivalents 20 years ago.
Consider that my response was toward someone who made the flawed assumption that a car now will be less likely to hit that barrier because it will handle better, but the truth is that a modern car will not necessarily handle better and will be heavier. A heavier car inherently can't turn or stop as well as a lighter car. It's a flawed assumption. -N
You don't need the same braking power to slow a car weighing much less. The brakes in the mid-eighties Civics were plenty strong enough to lock up the tires. Once you can lock up the tires, you don't need more powerful brakes - just better driving skills.
ABS does not help you stop sooner. It helps you turn while stopping. ABS in a straight line will actually typically stop you slower, especially in slippery conditions.
A mid-late eighties Civic had double-wishbone suspension all around. They are still great-handling cars, but the mid-late eighties Civics and CRXs make great and popular race cars for a reason.
And a mid-late eighties Civic would have come with tires far less capable than modern tires, but those tires are long gone. They've been replaced by modern tires by now and are performing plenty well.
The original poster's claim is very valid, despite your concerns. Cars have gotten better at crashing in the last few decades without a doubt, but it's still important to also recognize that smaller, lighter cars are much better at avoiding crashes in the first place do to better braking, turning, and acceleration. -N
There's a psychology that happens when a person bids on something, especially nearing the end when they've mentally committed to it and expect to win it. They will bid higher if they get outbid. That means that if I want to win something, I'm going to outbid him close to the closing time, or else that person may convince themselves to bid higher to prevent losing the item.
Relying on the maximum bid proxy to win things for you is a good way not to win things. You're assuming we're all rational robots who've determined a set maximum before even bidding once. -N
Putting them away for life just makes them a taxpayer burden. They aren't a threat to the public in any way. Instead, they should be punished appropriately. Obviously, disbarred, fined heavily since they likely aren't scraping for cash after all those kickbacks, lots of community service, loss of retirement/pension income, and a nice big felony record that will keep them from ever getting a decent job again. -N
The documentation isn't as straightforward, since it assumes you are. But it's not overly complicated from what I've seen. (Disclaimer: I use it with tapes) -N
I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as my largest complaint with this election. I find nothing inherently wrong with an elected government official who prefers a government that socializes/communizes/whatever by starting programs at the cost of all people to benefit all people. It's not my thing, but I can acknowledge that others can and do disagree and those people have someone to vote for in Obama.
For those of us who would prefer a government to be less involved and just let free market principles guide the world, there is no one to vote for. McCain will likely cost this country far more than Obama from what I can gather, but he's being labelled as the conservative option and I know many conservatives who will vote for him because of that.
There's no choice for people who want a limited government without skipping down to a third-party, which is unfortunately a large step down.
Disclaimer: I would vote for Ron Paul if I could. Second to that, I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich. I'd place the honesty and intelligence of an elected official before even their political positions and both these men approach government from two very different idealogies, but with honesty and integrity. -N
Sounds to me like they made a bunch of stuff up. The OpenMoko folks have gone to great lengths to develop the hardware platform from a completely open perspective, so that it developers can have full access to the hardware and full specs to program to.
Ultimately, calling this a Windows phone running Linux is like saying that all ARM processors are really Windows machines that can also run Linux.
The article really focused on OpenMoko vs. iPhone, but at least as far as I read, didn't get the point. The iPhone is geared toward those who buy things already working and the FreeRunner is aimed at those who want to make it better. -N
Evolution is based in science. It has evidence and is discovered/researched by way of scientific means. People who believe the scientific method can accurately be used to discover and research things can go so far as to say that they believe in them because science supports it.
ID is based on religion and tradition. It does not come from evidence or from any application of science as we define science. It's presented as an alternate explanation evidenced by religious texts and motivations. People who believe in God or religion and believe what their respective religion tells them to believe about creationism or ID can go so far as to say they believe in ID or creationism because their religion supports it.
The real conflict with evolution versus ID is that ID proponents want ID taught in science class. That would be akin to Darwinism and evolution being taught in a psychology or theology class. It's just out of place. Most reasonable people I know on both sides of this can accept that there's a difference between philosophy and science and that they don't need to be mixed and that one is free to take their own beliefs from one, the other, or some combination of both.
The issue I take with this movie is not that it presents ID and/or creationism, but that it makes those who believe in it out to be the victim of oppression because "you can't talk about that in science class" and because the scientific community will shun you for teaching it. Truthfully, the scientific community only wants to make sure it's not presented as science because it devalues work they take seriously. And Ben Stein is using/abusing his reputation for being a very intelligent person convince religious folks that they are being oppressed, so they'll lash out against anyone who says that ID and creationism shouldn't be taught in science class. Everyone's free to believe what they want, but school is not the place for misrepresenting the beliefs of some or even many people as the result of scientific research.
And finally based on all I've said above about my perspective, my reply to you is that Ben Stein is out to make money and nothing else. If he really believes as you say, then he could have skipped this movie. Of course, evolution is not a "answer for why life exists and why the universe works that way that it does" or anything like that. I watched the preview; it was very clearly edited with a single goal in mind: to victimize those who have religious beliefs counter to accepted scientific theory. He is not pointing out that universities don't allow dissenting views. I can't imagine there exists a university without theology or psychology classes to discuss creationism and ID very thoroughly. The failure here is not for professors to teach ID or creationism, but for science professors to validate any education based on ID or creationism with scientific evidence. -N
It worked for Iceweasel, I suppose. But I'm guessing that adds more confusion than anything else. And that probably pissed of a few people too. I'd think it's just better to call it by it's real full name and not the acronym. -N
This whole conversation is a moot point because it's a question being asked without this fundamental technical principle. You can't have open-source software that is capable of decrypting some content and then just keep a user who has that open-source software not to rewrite it to let them remove the encryption. The only thing this conversation can turn into is another search result about the relative evils of DRM. -N
Once you make the mental leap that you are going to be giving your software away, then, what difference does it make how you do so? I really don't want to spend too much time worrying that someone might make money with my stuff when I know that I won't.
The the appropriate license for your projects is BSD or public domain, but that doesn't necessarily mean that others have the same perspective. Is it so hard to imagine that others would want to ensure their code and modifications to it remain open? That's what the GPL is for: ensuring that is getting more complicated as the older defitions of using code and distributing code and modifying code are getting blurrier, so a new revision of the GPL is going to clarify some of that.
I haven't made my mind up on the v3 stuff yet, but I'm a GPL supported more than a BSD supporter. But I can still understand why someone would want to follow the "more free" BSD policies for simplicity's sake to avoid a lot of the legal wranglings and to encourage more ubiquitous acceptance of the code into more markets/uses.
The initial OpenMokos have just shipped to developers. They'll hopefully be more generally available toward the end of this year. I'm excited to get one as soon as I can, and no I'm not affiliated with them - I just think they are doing some awesome work. -N
Wow... buncha' idiots on here I guess. I KNOW it's a stereogram. But it was not a stereogram of a sailboat. It was a stereogram of a bunch of random shapes like he described. I forgot why I stopped posting here, but thanks for reminding me. -N
And you missed his joke. The picture from the movie wasn't a sailboat. I remember stopping it at some point to see the image and it was a random picture of geometric shapes or something. -N
I'm constantly frustrated by trying to accomplish things for the users I'm responsible for who are heavily restricted by Microsoft applications reliance. This includes family and friends when they ask for my help, but most recently, a new remote employee at my company needed to be able to access our mail server for sending/receiving mail with his company account. The network from which he accesses the internet is managed by another company that uses Exchange and Outlook. Apparently, Outlook, when connected to an Exchange server account, can't usefully be configured to access multiple accounts at once. It's absurd that any email client be unable to support multiple accounts these days and even Outlook does support it - I'm sure - but under these circumstances, we're forced to have this user keep two email clients open all the time. One client for his corporate email at his location and one for his corporate email for my company.
I genuinely enjoy the opportunity to help the users of my systemss. I make them as accessible as I can to users, both local and remote. In this scenario, there's nothing I can do to improve this user's experience. The icing on the cake is that his IT department passes the blame on to me for not providing a solution that can be integrated into their Citrix- and Exchange-dependant infrastructure, even though they acknowledge that it would be very difficult to integrate even if I used those tools.
This is another case of the arbitrary and nonsensical limitations of Microsoft software restricting users from accessing anything standards-compliant or utilizing a mixed environment. -Neil
I was wondering the same thing. Not that anyone really has a realistic sense of scale when it comes to things as big as the sun, but the frames in that animation could be separated by seconds or hours and that article gives no indication one way or the other. I guess either way, it's safe to say "really fast." It sure didn't take days from what I gather and anything that travels around the sphere of the sun in less than a day has got to be moving pretty quick. -N
When the hell was IE 'technologically superior' to Netscape in its heyday? IE 3.0? Netscape Communicator was the 'hotness' in comparison
Not then. IE4 was what turned things around. Netscape 4 was barely better than 3 with more bloat while IE4 was monumentally better than IE3. You're referring to the time when Netscape had the monopoly of convenience because that's what everyone used, what everyone got free (if they were lucky) with their dial-up software, etc.
That's a bad example. Passwords don't need to be recovered because they can be stored in a one-way hash. Any password that should be compared to it can be similarly hashed for comparison so that you never have to access the original password - even the person who set it.
For the contents of an email in someone's IMAP folder, though, that email's contents needs to be retrievable by the IMAP server that is going to send that content to the user. If nothing else, the system administrator should be able to assume the permissions of the IMAP server to read that data.
I can't imagine troubleshooting things without being able to do things by hand. If there's a problem with an application running or with accessing the data, the best way to troubleshoot is and always will be to try to access the data the way that application is and see what happens. -N
Slashdot Mirror
readily available supply of Nerf weapons
The GP does have a good point though. A D, even if it's a failing grade, means "you didn't pass, but you came close. Just try a little harder and you can pass next time," whereas an F says "You weren't even close to passing. You really need to radically rethink your study strategy and/or go into a different field."
I don't recall ever taking too many classes where I didn't know roughly how well I was doing long before the end of the class. Doesn't a student typically already know if they were close or not to passing? The test you got back with a 54 or the homework you handed in for a 62 or the quiz you got an 83 on all gave pretty exacting performance metrics. Most classes I took in middle school and higher even had introductory handouts on the weighting of the different types of assignments/tests so that I could calculate my final grade in advance.
If a student were operating in a bubble without any indication of how good or bad they were performing, then you and the GP would have a point.
-N
Those companies are only abusing their monopoly if someone new comes in and is pressured out of the market by anti-competitive tactics. If no one else wants to take advantage of the opportunity to compete in a market, you're looking for a different reason why. Off the top of my head, perhaps there's too much government regulation making it too difficult to get into that field. Too much insurance costs because of liability concerns in an overly litigious society. Perhaps just no one realized how much of an opportunity there was here because no one really has a clue how much healthcare costs these days since no one using it looks at the bills anymore - they just have their insurance cover it and complain when there's a problem. How do you expect competition in a market to lower prices when the consumer doesn't decide what features to invest in and compare based on price?
In other words, the answer you're looking for is not "more government" - that is the problem.
-N
I was alluding to the fact that I have driven a car to its limits and exceeded them. Now, I have a lot of difficulty competing since then. It's a good excuse for not being a very good driver I guess, but the distinction is unimportant.
The best drivers really have to combine a knowledge of where that line is as well as the bravery to drive right on it.
-N
Racers who drive with a constant fear of crashing probably tend to crash more, or at the very least, don't get sponsorships. From experience, I can say that you cannot push a car to its limits worrying about crashing.
-N
And I came in last and nearly last, respectively, in both competitions. Having never played GT, now I know why. ;-)
-N (#28 FSP)
Self defense is not vigilantism.
-N
Braking feel is largely tied to brake fluid and friction materials. Cars that are 20 years old are not using the original stuff for any of that.
ABS does not help you stop sooner. It really doesn't and it's not supposed to. Seriously, it's to help you turn while stopping. In a straight line, you're often better off without it.
The current generation Civic has a torsion beam rear suspension, while the old ones like your '88 had a double-wishbone setup. It doesn't handle as well as the old ones. I wasn't making that up, believe it or not. Your '88 Civic was essentially a front-wheel drive sports car and competes on that level even today.
As for that Top Gear episode, there were a few matchups where the older car did a lot better than the modern equivalent, but yeah, as a rule, most newer cars are better than their equivalents 20 years ago.
Consider that my response was toward someone who made the flawed assumption that a car now will be less likely to hit that barrier because it will handle better, but the truth is that a modern car will not necessarily handle better and will be heavier. A heavier car inherently can't turn or stop as well as a lighter car. It's a flawed assumption.
-N
You don't need the same braking power to slow a car weighing much less. The brakes in the mid-eighties Civics were plenty strong enough to lock up the tires. Once you can lock up the tires, you don't need more powerful brakes - just better driving skills.
ABS does not help you stop sooner. It helps you turn while stopping. ABS in a straight line will actually typically stop you slower, especially in slippery conditions.
A mid-late eighties Civic had double-wishbone suspension all around. They are still great-handling cars, but the mid-late eighties Civics and CRXs make great and popular race cars for a reason.
And a mid-late eighties Civic would have come with tires far less capable than modern tires, but those tires are long gone. They've been replaced by modern tires by now and are performing plenty well.
The original poster's claim is very valid, despite your concerns. Cars have gotten better at crashing in the last few decades without a doubt, but it's still important to also recognize that smaller, lighter cars are much better at avoiding crashes in the first place do to better braking, turning, and acceleration.
-N
There's a psychology that happens when a person bids on something, especially nearing the end when they've mentally committed to it and expect to win it. They will bid higher if they get outbid. That means that if I want to win something, I'm going to outbid him close to the closing time, or else that person may convince themselves to bid higher to prevent losing the item.
Relying on the maximum bid proxy to win things for you is a good way not to win things. You're assuming we're all rational robots who've determined a set maximum before even bidding once.
-N
Putting them away for life just makes them a taxpayer burden. They aren't a threat to the public in any way. Instead, they should be punished appropriately. Obviously, disbarred, fined heavily since they likely aren't scraping for cash after all those kickbacks, lots of community service, loss of retirement/pension income, and a nice big felony record that will keep them from ever getting a decent job again.
-N
The documentation isn't as straightforward, since it assumes you are. But it's not overly complicated from what I've seen. (Disclaimer: I use it with tapes)
-N
I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as my largest complaint with this election. I find nothing inherently wrong with an elected government official who prefers a government that socializes/communizes/whatever by starting programs at the cost of all people to benefit all people. It's not my thing, but I can acknowledge that others can and do disagree and those people have someone to vote for in Obama.
For those of us who would prefer a government to be less involved and just let free market principles guide the world, there is no one to vote for. McCain will likely cost this country far more than Obama from what I can gather, but he's being labelled as the conservative option and I know many conservatives who will vote for him because of that.
There's no choice for people who want a limited government without skipping down to a third-party, which is unfortunately a large step down.
Disclaimer: I would vote for Ron Paul if I could. Second to that, I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich. I'd place the honesty and intelligence of an elected official before even their political positions and both these men approach government from two very different idealogies, but with honesty and integrity.
-N
Sounds to me like they made a bunch of stuff up. The OpenMoko folks have gone to great lengths to develop the hardware platform from a completely open perspective, so that it developers can have full access to the hardware and full specs to program to.
Ultimately, calling this a Windows phone running Linux is like saying that all ARM processors are really Windows machines that can also run Linux.
The article really focused on OpenMoko vs. iPhone, but at least as far as I read, didn't get the point. The iPhone is geared toward those who buy things already working and the FreeRunner is aimed at those who want to make it better.
-N
Evolution is based in science. It has evidence and is discovered/researched by way of scientific means. People who believe the scientific method can accurately be used to discover and research things can go so far as to say that they believe in them because science supports it.
ID is based on religion and tradition. It does not come from evidence or from any application of science as we define science. It's presented as an alternate explanation evidenced by religious texts and motivations. People who believe in God or religion and believe what their respective religion tells them to believe about creationism or ID can go so far as to say they believe in ID or creationism because their religion supports it.
The real conflict with evolution versus ID is that ID proponents want ID taught in science class. That would be akin to Darwinism and evolution being taught in a psychology or theology class. It's just out of place. Most reasonable people I know on both sides of this can accept that there's a difference between philosophy and science and that they don't need to be mixed and that one is free to take their own beliefs from one, the other, or some combination of both.
The issue I take with this movie is not that it presents ID and/or creationism, but that it makes those who believe in it out to be the victim of oppression because "you can't talk about that in science class" and because the scientific community will shun you for teaching it. Truthfully, the scientific community only wants to make sure it's not presented as science because it devalues work they take seriously. And Ben Stein is using/abusing his reputation for being a very intelligent person convince religious folks that they are being oppressed, so they'll lash out against anyone who says that ID and creationism shouldn't be taught in science class. Everyone's free to believe what they want, but school is not the place for misrepresenting the beliefs of some or even many people as the result of scientific research.
And finally based on all I've said above about my perspective, my reply to you is that Ben Stein is out to make money and nothing else. If he really believes as you say, then he could have skipped this movie. Of course, evolution is not a "answer for why life exists and why the universe works that way that it does" or anything like that. I watched the preview; it was very clearly edited with a single goal in mind: to victimize those who have religious beliefs counter to accepted scientific theory. He is not pointing out that universities don't allow dissenting views. I can't imagine there exists a university without theology or psychology classes to discuss creationism and ID very thoroughly. The failure here is not for professors to teach ID or creationism, but for science professors to validate any education based on ID or creationism with scientific evidence.
-N
It worked for Iceweasel, I suppose. But I'm guessing that adds more confusion than anything else. And that probably pissed of a few people too. I'd think it's just better to call it by it's real full name and not the acronym.
-N
This whole conversation is a moot point because it's a question being asked without this fundamental technical principle. You can't have open-source software that is capable of decrypting some content and then just keep a user who has that open-source software not to rewrite it to let them remove the encryption. The only thing this conversation can turn into is another search result about the relative evils of DRM.
-N
The the appropriate license for your projects is BSD or public domain, but that doesn't necessarily mean that others have the same perspective. Is it so hard to imagine that others would want to ensure their code and modifications to it remain open? That's what the GPL is for: ensuring that is getting more complicated as the older defitions of using code and distributing code and modifying code are getting blurrier, so a new revision of the GPL is going to clarify some of that.
I haven't made my mind up on the v3 stuff yet, but I'm a GPL supported more than a BSD supporter. But I can still understand why someone would want to follow the "more free" BSD policies for simplicity's sake to avoid a lot of the legal wranglings and to encourage more ubiquitous acceptance of the code into more markets/uses.
-NThe initial OpenMokos have just shipped to developers. They'll hopefully be more generally available toward the end of this year. I'm excited to get one as soon as I can, and no I'm not affiliated with them - I just think they are doing some awesome work.
-N
http://www.openmoko.com/
Wow... buncha' idiots on here I guess. I KNOW it's a stereogram. But it was not a stereogram of a sailboat. It was a stereogram of a bunch of random shapes like he described. I forgot why I stopped posting here, but thanks for reminding me.
-N
And you missed his joke. The picture from the movie wasn't a sailboat. I remember stopping it at some point to see the image and it was a random picture of geometric shapes or something.
-N
I'm constantly frustrated by trying to accomplish things for the users I'm responsible for who are heavily restricted by Microsoft applications reliance. This includes family and friends when they ask for my help, but most recently, a new remote employee at my company needed to be able to access our mail server for sending/receiving mail with his company account. The network from which he accesses the internet is managed by another company that uses Exchange and Outlook. Apparently, Outlook, when connected to an Exchange server account, can't usefully be configured to access multiple accounts at once. It's absurd that any email client be unable to support multiple accounts these days and even Outlook does support it - I'm sure - but under these circumstances, we're forced to have this user keep two email clients open all the time. One client for his corporate email at his location and one for his corporate email for my company.
I genuinely enjoy the opportunity to help the users of my systemss. I make them as accessible as I can to users, both local and remote. In this scenario, there's nothing I can do to improve this user's experience. The icing on the cake is that his IT department passes the blame on to me for not providing a solution that can be integrated into their Citrix- and Exchange-dependant infrastructure, even though they acknowledge that it would be very difficult to integrate even if I used those tools.
This is another case of the arbitrary and nonsensical limitations of Microsoft software restricting users from accessing anything standards-compliant or utilizing a mixed environment.
-Neil
I was wondering the same thing. Not that anyone really has a realistic sense of scale when it comes to things as big as the sun, but the frames in that animation could be separated by seconds or hours and that article gives no indication one way or the other. I guess either way, it's safe to say "really fast." It sure didn't take days from what I gather and anything that travels around the sphere of the sun in less than a day has got to be moving pretty quick.
-N
When the hell was IE 'technologically superior' to Netscape in its heyday? IE 3.0? Netscape Communicator was the 'hotness' in comparison
Not then. IE4 was what turned things around. Netscape 4 was barely better than 3 with more bloat while IE4 was monumentally better than IE3. You're referring to the time when Netscape had the monopoly of convenience because that's what everyone used, what everyone got free (if they were lucky) with their dial-up software, etc.
-N
That's a bad example. Passwords don't need to be recovered because they can be stored in a one-way hash. Any password that should be compared to it can be similarly hashed for comparison so that you never have to access the original password - even the person who set it.
For the contents of an email in someone's IMAP folder, though, that email's contents needs to be retrievable by the IMAP server that is going to send that content to the user. If nothing else, the system administrator should be able to assume the permissions of the IMAP server to read that data.
I can't imagine troubleshooting things without being able to do things by hand. If there's a problem with an application running or with accessing the data, the best way to troubleshoot is and always will be to try to access the data the way that application is and see what happens.
-N