Compilers aren't programmed to be viral or reproductive, but could be, even being capable of testing their offspring (compilers they've compiled) for defects.
This could be a big step forward to self-improving AI.
We don't. You pay extra to send to another country and you pay when you are not in the country of your subscription. But you don't pay anything ever to receive non-premium text messages when you're not roaming.
Things just work better in Europe because we have a very organised set of prefixes.
The US not so much. They should have migrated to a structure where each state has its own prefix: 01 for California, 02 for New York, 03 for Texas, etc.. SF would be 010/011, NyC 020/021. The Bay area would probably be 01*. This would make things much more transparent for users. The US could have had a whole 07* range for mobiles, perhaps. They could have a dedicated 08* and 09* range for free and premium numbers. Right now +1868 takes us to Trinidad & Tobago of all places.. It's a mess.:-)
It's really not too much of a problem on Sprint. Just tell them you don't want them and they disable it.
It is a major problem with text messaging in the US, because the sender probably will still be charged for sending the message.
Also, there is definitely something wrong when a brand new phone number instantly receives so much spam. I've had half a dozen of spam messages on any of my numbers in ten years, at most, and although my number is not listed, I don't hide it either, it's publically visible on my web site. I know of no one who instantly was spammed on a new phone/number and only very few people who get any significant amount of spam period.
Whenever people get a new SIM/phone, the only messages they get are a few (free of charge) messages informing them about the most basic network features and charges. And some service messages with configuration details for Internet, MMS and streaming.
If spam is common with Sprint, I would definitely call that a problem. There is a problem here with young users being enticed by commercials for ringtones and wallpapers, subscribing them into expensive premium services - that's why we give them prepaids. But out of the box spam, wow. I would definitely not settle for just wanting my money back if Sprint or its partners had anything to do with it, that's just uncalled for.
What was the justification for such a system? Surely it must be an entirely unintended side effect of some other short-sighted but at least sane idea?
In the US, there is are no dedicated prefixes for mobiles. A 415 number could be a landline in San Francisco, or it could be a mobile over there, or even a mobile from that area currently in Zimbabwe. The sending party can't possibly know this and might expect (when also in SF) to pay as little as zero, when also in SF and placing a free local call. Therefore, the receiving party pays, having full knowledge about the phone type (landline/cellular) and its location.
In Europe this is quite different: mobiles have dedicated prefixes. The sending party now knows to be calling a mobile and to get charged differently. Only when the receiving party is roaming (e.g. in Zimbabwe) it pays for receiving a call - the sending party pays up to the border.
These differences between Europe and the US have always existed for voice calls and simply continued to be when it comes to SMS.
With most European providers you don't even pay for receiving text messages even when roaming, precisely because there is no way to reject them.
(I know this why? Well, I have a landline number here in Holland, a mobile number here in Holland and one for the UK, as well as VOIP-redirected landline leases in San Francisco and London. And I've previously had mobile numbers in the US, Uganda and South Africa.)
It's a Palm user. Had he bought a Nokia with built-in SIP/VOIP client he would be able to call any US number for 1 pence a minute (that's 2 dollar cents). That's what it costs me with my VOIP provider - and there's a bloody ocean in between.
You say IE 6 is so far behind, but the majority of browsers (FF and IE7, not or) are not. Develop primarily for this majority. Save the workarounds for the minority.
Who do you think is more likely to eat at McDonalds: the person who views the comercial but 'think's they are ignoring the commercials or the person who nerver ever sees a commercial for McDonalds?
The latter. McDonald's is probably an option for both persons anyway, but the first person is more likely to learn about alternatives through advertising because competitors advertise as well.
When I see a McDonald's commercial, I can make a split second decision without any effort between "neh I'm not hungry" and "good idea, I should eat something". And that something could be anything: a home-made salad, a pizza delivery, a good hamburger deal from another restaurant I might know about.. or maybe if it sounds like a good enough idea, why not, whatever McDonald's product I feel like.
It costs me barely any effort to decide how to react to an advertisement, let alone to decide to ignore it. And if I still happen to register unconsciously the products advertised, how is that a shame?
I can't even remember the advertisements on this page. Oh, for me they were:
- a system admin job in Amsterdam. Already saw that, I'm a happy programmer in Rotterdam so not interested, but good to get reconfirmation the ICT job market is still good here. No time wasted on that one.
- something to fix Internet Explorer: I don't remember that one. I'm fine with Firefox at work and Konqueror or Firefox at home, so I missed nothing. No time wasted on this one either.
I can see how one would like to block advertisements which are truly annoying and time consuming, but most are harmless at most and actually useful at best.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
I was reacting to the "get there two hours before departure" rule, which is widespread in Europe as well, but definitely not necessary in most cases even when advertised.
Maybe the US has focused more on the Airbus/hub strategy than the Boeing point-to-point strategy, partially due to the way its cities developed, but in that case the solution would be to have more regional airports (and why not, regional urbanisation to battle commutes).
The Greater LA area for example is big enough to have dozens of national and international airports, spreading customers instead of cramming them into LAX would make sense. But that's urban planning and has very little to do with air travel itself.
Showing another way how it can be done differently is not a moot point, it enforces the book and extends the discussion.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Even assuming your "we can guarantee a complete security check within two hours" service, it's still a suggestion only. Just look at the "latest check-in" time at the signs when you actually do check-in and notice that the latest option they give you is usually not more than an hour and even less at smaller airports.
And they do this for some trains actually, they advice at least thirty minutes for Eurostar trains to the UK which is similar to the boarding time for flights. The advantage here is that check-in and security are one single step, having just one service every two hours from one gate. Again the hub size is the deciding factor here, not the form of transportation.
Re:If that was the case...
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why are bus and train routes on time more often than planes?
Most airlines I've flown with show higher "on time" numbers than the Dutch railways (they are now but have been struggling to reach the mandated 86% while we are repeatedly mentioned to have one of the world's most efficient networks).
Why are so many flights cancelled?
It happened to me once, to Moscow. I was offered a replacement flight the same day and only because my visum was about to expire I had not a single hour to spare - our fault (business trip). It happened to a friend of mine once - we rebooked the flight to another BA one ten minutes later.
You don't want to know how often I've had a scheduled train exceed that amount of delay or not even showing up at all. The same for metro, tram or bus services. Obviously I travel more by "regular" public transportation than plane, but I'm really not convinced there's a huge difference per mile/km travelled.
Why are there so many frequent flyer mileage packages which give perks to people who are clearly NOT the everyman?
I hardly know of any business that doesn't attempt some sort of useless loyalty programme. And frankly, usually I am disappointment when none is available.
I fly occassionally, twice a year if I'm lucky, round trip, with connections. 5 out of 8 plans I've flown on were delayed.
I'm sorry to hear that. I make at least twenty different legs a year and maybe one or two of them cause me a delay. Most of my time wasted travelling by plane is by getting there too early because I don't trust getting there on time - blame that on the other forms of transportation.
More than anything, I do NOT want to be stuck overnight in an airport terminal trying to get home.
If you book your entire flight at once, most airliners offer you compensation. I must admit I'm specifically lucky here, my bank/creditcard company insures me against delays, I get a huge (more than enough) compensation in case I am forced to get a hotel or buy new clothes and toiletries in case of luggage delay. But I must concede the authors could be right here, I believe this is a good European law where airliners are required to compensate you.
But you aren't treated like the everyman on an airline, you are treated like crap.
Never have I felt this way, except maybe when a combined fire and late arrival delayed a flight of mine after stores had closed at the gate (11pm-ish) and we weren't allowed back to the terminal for refreshments even with the two-hour delay. I filed a complaint and got 50% of my total fare back - the full 100% share of that return leg.
Maybe there's US companies are allowed to treat customers as crap at greater liberty (pun intended), but I seriously doubt it is typical of air travel alone. (Our national railways are required to give refunds as well in case of severe delays. I tried but failed when my 10pm Amtrak train showed up in South Carolina three hours late.)
(Sidenote: I miss the days when travelling to the US was something one would do for fun, in my case 1997/2001/2002. Continental didn't give me my luggage in 2002 when transferring in Atlanta and entering the country, nobody at customs gave me a hard time for entering the country for three weeks without any luggage and in San Francisco it took me all of ten minutes to asked what to do because it also wasn't there. Actually I pretty much assumed that I could just report it, go to my friends and have it deliver ASAP, which is indeed how these things work.
"Terminal chaos" has nothing to do with airliners and airports but much more with those inhabitants of this planet who are so braindead to cause a riot when they aren't sure whether they packed a toothbrush while they really aren't going anywhere where they couldn't buy a new one in virtually every street.
Remember this every time you hear "Mr. Bla, you must board immediately, we're already offloading your luggage" through the terminal speakers, look around you, and then be amazed how airports can function so well with all the idiots using them.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
To fly, it's an hour to the airport, plus I'd have to arrive at the airport 2 hours early, wait in 3 different queues (check-in, security, boarding) fly for an hour, arrive, wait for my luggage(at least half hour), and then an hour into the city.
The two hours rule is only there to spread the queues.
And you are really showing the worst case scenario. Even at major airports you can easily arrive less than an hour prior to your flight and do a kiosk check-in within five minutes. Security varies (it's worse in the UK) but modern airports combine security with boarding which again takes twenty minutes maximum if you choose not to arrive at the gate an hour in advance.
Local airports are even better, I can catch a seven o'clock flight here in Rotterdam leaving my house at six, half five if I choose public transportation instead of a taxi.
While that might be a best case scenario, it should also be included in a fair analysis of air travel. Yes, I might pay fifty or even a hundred euro more, but it does save me the time and cost of travel to/from and time of pre/post-boarding holdups of bigger airports. While prices are still comparable with high-speed trains even for those non-budget flights.
And sometimes there simply isn't another option: by train I can't get to London before noon or leave past five, making a single day business trip nearly impossible and a short vacation quite inefficient when it comes to cost versus time spent at location - hotels cost a lot as well and despite common belief, days off in Europe aren't unlimited. (The argument becomes even bigger when using the American amount of holidays.)
The title is: "Terminal Chaos: Why U.S. Air Travel Is Broken and How to Fix It", emphasis mine.
Yes, yes, I know.. I shouldn't be another one of us here who fly the European flag in discussions. But...
I tend to expect my flights on time because they usually are, on short-haul they often arrive prior to schedule. I get excellent service even on the budget flights.. the drinks might cost me but I get them just fine. Except for Sky Alliance flights (KLM-AirFrance, Delta) I expect my luggage to arrive with me.
Security is a bit of a nuisance, but I experience longer queues for most concerts, football matches, and so on.
Then again, this has always been my experience outside of Europe as well, so maybe I'm just very lucky?
The pun seems to be that KDE isn't structured, efficient, portable or serious, despite being written in C++. I can't blame you for missing it, or finding it not funny.
Israel was omitted because of fraud from that country, which seems like a good reason.
But what a major user-interface flaw... Israel should simply have been an option, and only after selection an error message should have appeared (using Web 1.0, 2.0 or 3.14 for all I care) explaining why donations from Israel are not possible.
That would bring clarity to end-users, remove all possible doubt on political motives (if you have those just display them prominently) and we wouldn't waste bandwidth on this discussion that could have been allocated to porn.
I totally agree. It's all happening because we want and need more. Not less.
(Semi-rant follows. It's late and I started typing. Sorry?)
It's already been common sense for a long time to use fewer resources to achieve the same production level, or to increase efficiency to obtain more a higher level of production using the same resources. Nearly every job in the world is based upon that notion. Regardless of whether you are POTUS or working in a sweatshop in Asia, you will seek to find a way to get the minimum of required approval with the least amount of effort. So will we be more efficient in the future? You bet. Humanity has collectively been working on that for ages, it's in our nature.
But in the end we will still use more and more energy, because our species wants to untap more of the universe's potential. Simply because each and every individual wants to. Every person's desires require the use energy, one way or the other. Our goal is simply to be able to use more energy, not less.
That's why I'm very concerned about the opposition to nuclear power.
It's by far the best choice when it comes to the environment. Whether one believes in man-made global warming or not, the environmental record of nuclear energy has been far better than that of fossils. The risks of widespread nuclear use don't even come close to the risk of total deforestation if we come to depend on bio fuels.
It's also by far the best choice when it comes to a long term plan. Any worries about the limited supply of raw materials don't make sense: even the lowest estimation for nuclear energy by far surpasses that of fossil energy and I haven't yet seen any research claiming bio fuels are renewable at such a rate that they can meet even a fraction of our current world-wide requirements, let alone be considered sustainable on the long term. Assuming our population will grow, we'll need that land for food and oxygen. And even if we can eventually produce either at a far smaller scale by using just energy, we'll still need it for habitation. (I'm assuming here that if we find the means to habitate non-Earth land on a mass scale, our species-wide energy reserves are no longer a big issue.)
Of course any available energy not untapped is basically wasted, so I am specifically not opposing truly sustainable (a far better word than renewable) sources such as solar power. But it's just absurd to see so much opposition to nuclear power when we're happily embracing sources that really make far less sense.
In that case, vote McCain. Obama's energy independence policy is more of a wet dream than a realistic programme for the future.
His cap-and-trade system for emissions will only work when the entire world abides to it, so Obama's vision depends on the rest of the world more than anything else.
Combatting deforestation? I'm all for it, but again he's making a promise of which the fulfillment depends on the rest of the world to not harm their or their suppliers' rainforests.
Renewable energy sources are a good thing, of course.
But cutting energy consumption? Is he serious? There is simply no way we're going to use less energy anytime soon. No way. Absolutely not. Won't happen. We should consider ourselves lucky if efficiency innovations progress rapidly enough to keep us at current levels.
Run for the hills! Internet traffic doubles/triples during a major sports event? Who could have known!
That's about as worthy of an article as one "discovering" Euro Cup 2008 matches causes certain European streets to be abandoned for ninety minutes.
I can understand how such a traffic increase would be reason for alarm for the average network administrator, but you'd think service providers whose main business is the infrastructure would be aware of major streaming events. This shouldn't have surprised so many people.
Don't worry, I can have plenty of fun without my PDA/smartphone.
But in a theme park I would like to take pictures (I no longer carry a separate camera).
And perhaps not everyone in our group likes the same rides so we agree to split and ring later (I no longer carry a separate regular phone). Or meet at a specific time (I no longer wear a separate watch).
I frequently use public transit and would like to check bus/train connection times [i]before[/i] leaving a particular place so I won't have to wait (that's no fun, and I no longer carry around timetables).
I do indeed quite enjoy having those abilities and lacking them could indeed harm total the amount of fun for me. I would still have fun, but there would be unnecessary inconveniences.
Besides, there might be people I care about and who happen to not be in the theme park with me. I understand that it's respectful to give those who are present priority over those who are not, but to claim that exclusivity works best?
Just imagine all the fun! You can't take any pictures or videos, you can't text or ring when you lose sight of each other, therefore you'll have to stick with the group even when your auntie visits the loo for the tenth time before lunch.. but the highlight must be when your best mate dies of an overdose because you have no way of reaching 999 (the UK equivalent of 911/112).
Some (most?) Nokia NSeries will happily accept a Bluetooth keyboard. That plus Putty for Symbian and you're set - especially if you have the TV-OUT cable with you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure you can watch some of that stuff for free without giving Viacom money.
I found a bunch on this site.. hopefully they won't find out.
This could be big.
Compilers aren't programmed to be viral or reproductive, but could be, even being capable of testing their offspring (compilers they've compiled) for defects.
This could be a big step forward to self-improving AI.
We don't. You pay extra to send to another country and you pay when you are not in the country of your subscription. But you don't pay anything ever to receive non-premium text messages when you're not roaming.
Things just work better in Europe because we have a very organised set of prefixes.
The US not so much. They should have migrated to a structure where each state has its own prefix: 01 for California, 02 for New York, 03 for Texas, etc.. SF would be 010/011, NyC 020/021. The Bay area would probably be 01*. This would make things much more transparent for users. The US could have had a whole 07* range for mobiles, perhaps. They could have a dedicated 08* and 09* range for free and premium numbers. Right now +1868 takes us to Trinidad & Tobago of all places.. It's a mess. :-)
It's really not too much of a problem on Sprint. Just tell them you don't want them and they disable it.
It is a major problem with text messaging in the US, because the sender probably will still be charged for sending the message.
Also, there is definitely something wrong when a brand new phone number instantly receives so much spam. I've had half a dozen of spam messages on any of my numbers in ten years, at most, and although my number is not listed, I don't hide it either, it's publically visible on my web site. I know of no one who instantly was spammed on a new phone/number and only very few people who get any significant amount of spam period.
Whenever people get a new SIM/phone, the only messages they get are a few (free of charge) messages informing them about the most basic network features and charges. And some service messages with configuration details for Internet, MMS and streaming.
If spam is common with Sprint, I would definitely call that a problem. There is a problem here with young users being enticed by commercials for ringtones and wallpapers, subscribing them into expensive premium services - that's why we give them prepaids. But out of the box spam, wow. I would definitely not settle for just wanting my money back if Sprint or its partners had anything to do with it, that's just uncalled for.
What was the justification for such a system? Surely it must be an entirely unintended side effect of some other short-sighted but at least sane idea?
In the US, there is are no dedicated prefixes for mobiles. A 415 number could be a landline in San Francisco, or it could be a mobile over there, or even a mobile from that area currently in Zimbabwe. The sending party can't possibly know this and might expect (when also in SF) to pay as little as zero, when also in SF and placing a free local call. Therefore, the receiving party pays, having full knowledge about the phone type (landline/cellular) and its location.
In Europe this is quite different: mobiles have dedicated prefixes. The sending party now knows to be calling a mobile and to get charged differently. Only when the receiving party is roaming (e.g. in Zimbabwe) it pays for receiving a call - the sending party pays up to the border.
These differences between Europe and the US have always existed for voice calls and simply continued to be when it comes to SMS.
With most European providers you don't even pay for receiving text messages even when roaming, precisely because there is no way to reject them.
(I know this why? Well, I have a landline number here in Holland, a mobile number here in Holland and one for the UK, as well as VOIP-redirected landline leases in San Francisco and London. And I've previously had mobile numbers in the US, Uganda and South Africa.)
It's a Palm user. Had he bought a Nokia with built-in SIP/VOIP client he would be able to call any US number for 1 pence a minute (that's 2 dollar cents). That's what it costs me with my VOIP provider - and there's a bloody ocean in between.
You can (and must) upgrade IE.
You say IE 6 is so far behind, but the majority of browsers (FF and IE7, not or) are not. Develop primarily for this majority. Save the workarounds for the minority.
Who do you think is more likely to eat at McDonalds: the person who views the comercial but 'think's they are ignoring the commercials or the person who nerver ever sees a commercial for McDonalds?
The latter. McDonald's is probably an option for both persons anyway, but the first person is more likely to learn about alternatives through advertising because competitors advertise as well.
When I see a McDonald's commercial, I can make a split second decision without any effort between "neh I'm not hungry" and "good idea, I should eat something". And that something could be anything: a home-made salad, a pizza delivery, a good hamburger deal from another restaurant I might know about.. or maybe if it sounds like a good enough idea, why not, whatever McDonald's product I feel like.
It costs me barely any effort to decide how to react to an advertisement, let alone to decide to ignore it. And if I still happen to register unconsciously the products advertised, how is that a shame?
I can't even remember the advertisements on this page. Oh, for me they were:
- a system admin job in Amsterdam. Already saw that, I'm a happy programmer in Rotterdam so not interested, but good to get reconfirmation the ICT job market is still good here. No time wasted on that one.
- something to fix Internet Explorer: I don't remember that one. I'm fine with Firefox at work and Konqueror or Firefox at home, so I missed nothing. No time wasted on this one either.
I can see how one would like to block advertisements which are truly annoying and time consuming, but most are harmless at most and actually useful at best.
I was reacting to the "get there two hours before departure" rule, which is widespread in Europe as well, but definitely not necessary in most cases even when advertised.
Maybe the US has focused more on the Airbus/hub strategy than the Boeing point-to-point strategy, partially due to the way its cities developed, but in that case the solution would be to have more regional airports (and why not, regional urbanisation to battle commutes).
The Greater LA area for example is big enough to have dozens of national and international airports, spreading customers instead of cramming them into LAX would make sense. But that's urban planning and has very little to do with air travel itself.
Showing another way how it can be done differently is not a moot point, it enforces the book and extends the discussion.
Even assuming your "we can guarantee a complete security check within two hours" service, it's still a suggestion only. Just look at the "latest check-in" time at the signs when you actually do check-in and notice that the latest option they give you is usually not more than an hour and even less at smaller airports.
And they do this for some trains actually, they advice at least thirty minutes for Eurostar trains to the UK which is similar to the boarding time for flights. The advantage here is that check-in and security are one single step, having just one service every two hours from one gate. Again the hub size is the deciding factor here, not the form of transportation.
Most airlines I've flown with show higher "on time" numbers than the Dutch railways (they are now but have been struggling to reach the mandated 86% while we are repeatedly mentioned to have one of the world's most efficient networks).
It happened to me once, to Moscow. I was offered a replacement flight the same day and only because my visum was about to expire I had not a single hour to spare - our fault (business trip). It happened to a friend of mine once - we rebooked the flight to another BA one ten minutes later.
You don't want to know how often I've had a scheduled train exceed that amount of delay or not even showing up at all. The same for metro, tram or bus services. Obviously I travel more by "regular" public transportation than plane, but I'm really not convinced there's a huge difference per mile/km travelled.
I hardly know of any business that doesn't attempt some sort of useless loyalty programme. And frankly, usually I am disappointment when none is available.
I'm sorry to hear that. I make at least twenty different legs a year and maybe one or two of them cause me a delay. Most of my time wasted travelling by plane is by getting there too early because I don't trust getting there on time - blame that on the other forms of transportation.
If you book your entire flight at once, most airliners offer you compensation. I must admit I'm specifically lucky here, my bank/creditcard company insures me against delays, I get a huge (more than enough) compensation in case I am forced to get a hotel or buy new clothes and toiletries in case of luggage delay. But I must concede the authors could be right here, I believe this is a good European law where airliners are required to compensate you.
Never have I felt this way, except maybe when a combined fire and late arrival delayed a flight of mine after stores had closed at the gate (11pm-ish) and we weren't allowed back to the terminal for refreshments even with the two-hour delay. I filed a complaint and got 50% of my total fare back - the full 100% share of that return leg.
Maybe there's US companies are allowed to treat customers as crap at greater liberty (pun intended), but I seriously doubt it is typical of air travel alone. (Our national railways are required to give refunds as well in case of severe delays. I tried but failed when my 10pm Amtrak train showed up in South Carolina three hours late.)
(Sidenote: I miss the days when travelling to the US was something one would do for fun, in my case 1997/2001/2002. Continental didn't give me my luggage in 2002 when transferring in Atlanta and entering the country, nobody at customs gave me a hard time for entering the country for three weeks without any luggage and in San Francisco it took me all of ten minutes to asked what to do because it also wasn't there. Actually I pretty much assumed that I could just report it, go to my friends and have it deliver ASAP, which is indeed how these things work.
"Terminal chaos" has nothing to do with airliners and airports but much more with those inhabitants of this planet who are so braindead to cause a riot when they aren't sure whether they packed a toothbrush while they really aren't going anywhere where they couldn't buy a new one in virtually every street.
Remember this every time you hear "Mr. Bla, you must board immediately, we're already offloading your luggage" through the terminal speakers, look around you, and then be amazed how airports can function so well with all the idiots using them.
The two hours rule is only there to spread the queues.
And you are really showing the worst case scenario. Even at major airports you can easily arrive less than an hour prior to your flight and do a kiosk check-in within five minutes. Security varies (it's worse in the UK) but modern airports combine security with boarding which again takes twenty minutes maximum if you choose not to arrive at the gate an hour in advance.
Local airports are even better, I can catch a seven o'clock flight here in Rotterdam leaving my house at six, half five if I choose public transportation instead of a taxi.
While that might be a best case scenario, it should also be included in a fair analysis of air travel. Yes, I might pay fifty or even a hundred euro more, but it does save me the time and cost of travel to/from and time of pre/post-boarding holdups of bigger airports. While prices are still comparable with high-speed trains even for those non-budget flights.
And sometimes there simply isn't another option: by train I can't get to London before noon or leave past five, making a single day business trip nearly impossible and a short vacation quite inefficient when it comes to cost versus time spent at location - hotels cost a lot as well and despite common belief, days off in Europe aren't unlimited. (The argument becomes even bigger when using the American amount of holidays.)
The title is: "Terminal Chaos: Why U.S. Air Travel Is Broken and How to Fix It", emphasis mine.
Yes, yes, I know.. I shouldn't be another one of us here who fly the European flag in discussions. But...
I tend to expect my flights on time because they usually are, on short-haul they often arrive prior to schedule. I get excellent service even on the budget flights.. the drinks might cost me but I get them just fine. Except for Sky Alliance flights (KLM-AirFrance, Delta) I expect my luggage to arrive with me.
Security is a bit of a nuisance, but I experience longer queues for most concerts, football matches, and so on.
Then again, this has always been my experience outside of Europe as well, so maybe I'm just very lucky?
The pun seems to be that KDE isn't structured, efficient, portable or serious, despite being written in C++. I can't blame you for missing it, or finding it not funny.
Is water the only material that can sublimate? If not, why should we be so sure this has to be water just because we want it to be?
But what a major user-interface flaw... Israel should simply have been an option, and only after selection an error message should have appeared (using Web 1.0, 2.0 or 3.14 for all I care) explaining why donations from Israel are not possible.
That would bring clarity to end-users, remove all possible doubt on political motives (if you have those just display them prominently) and we wouldn't waste bandwidth on this discussion that could have been allocated to porn.
I totally agree. It's all happening because we want and need more. Not less.
(Semi-rant follows. It's late and I started typing. Sorry?)
It's already been common sense for a long time to use fewer resources to achieve the same production level, or to increase efficiency to obtain more a higher level of production using the same resources. Nearly every job in the world is based upon that notion. Regardless of whether you are POTUS or working in a sweatshop in Asia, you will seek to find a way to get the minimum of required approval with the least amount of effort. So will we be more efficient in the future? You bet. Humanity has collectively been working on that for ages, it's in our nature.
But in the end we will still use more and more energy, because our species wants to untap more of the universe's potential. Simply because each and every individual wants to. Every person's desires require the use energy, one way or the other. Our goal is simply to be able to use more energy, not less.
That's why I'm very concerned about the opposition to nuclear power.
It's by far the best choice when it comes to the environment. Whether one believes in man-made global warming or not, the environmental record of nuclear energy has been far better than that of fossils. The risks of widespread nuclear use don't even come close to the risk of total deforestation if we come to depend on bio fuels.
It's also by far the best choice when it comes to a long term plan. Any worries about the limited supply of raw materials don't make sense: even the lowest estimation for nuclear energy by far surpasses that of fossil energy and I haven't yet seen any research claiming bio fuels are renewable at such a rate that they can meet even a fraction of our current world-wide requirements, let alone be considered sustainable on the long term. Assuming our population will grow, we'll need that land for food and oxygen. And even if we can eventually produce either at a far smaller scale by using just energy, we'll still need it for habitation. (I'm assuming here that if we find the means to habitate non-Earth land on a mass scale, our species-wide energy reserves are no longer a big issue.)
Of course any available energy not untapped is basically wasted, so I am specifically not opposing truly sustainable (a far better word than renewable) sources such as solar power. But it's just absurd to see so much opposition to nuclear power when we're happily embracing sources that really make far less sense.
While I agree in general, there are some valid exceptions:
- betting agencies who are by law required to do as much as they can to prevent users from certain countries to place (certain) bets,
- content with export restrictions (BBC videos are paid for by the British and therefore only available in the UK)
User input can obviously not be trusted, so in these cases blocking users with GeoIP makes sense.
As annoying as it can be... Opera Mini uses Opera proxies in Norway.. guess what kind of AdSense ads and other targetted content appears?
In that case, vote McCain. Obama's energy independence policy is more of a wet dream than a realistic programme for the future.
His cap-and-trade system for emissions will only work when the entire world abides to it, so Obama's vision depends on the rest of the world more than anything else.
Combatting deforestation? I'm all for it, but again he's making a promise of which the fulfillment depends on the rest of the world to not harm their or their suppliers' rainforests.
Renewable energy sources are a good thing, of course.
But cutting energy consumption? Is he serious? There is simply no way we're going to use less energy anytime soon. No way. Absolutely not. Won't happen. We should consider ourselves lucky if efficiency innovations progress rapidly enough to keep us at current levels.
Run for the hills! Internet traffic doubles/triples during a major sports event? Who could have known!
That's about as worthy of an article as one "discovering" Euro Cup 2008 matches causes certain European streets to be abandoned for ninety minutes.
I can understand how such a traffic increase would be reason for alarm for the average network administrator, but you'd think service providers whose main business is the infrastructure would be aware of major streaming events. This shouldn't have surprised so many people.
Don't worry, I can have plenty of fun without my PDA/smartphone.
But in a theme park I would like to take pictures (I no longer carry a separate camera).
And perhaps not everyone in our group likes the same rides so we agree to split and ring later (I no longer carry a separate regular phone). Or meet at a specific time (I no longer wear a separate watch).
I frequently use public transit and would like to check bus/train connection times [i]before[/i] leaving a particular place so I won't have to wait (that's no fun, and I no longer carry around timetables).
I do indeed quite enjoy having those abilities and lacking them could indeed harm total the amount of fun for me. I would still have fun, but there would be unnecessary inconveniences.
Besides, there might be people I care about and who happen to not be in the theme park with me. I understand that it's respectful to give those who are present priority over those who are not, but to claim that exclusivity works best?
Do you really think it's a good idea to bother emergency services with countless "I lost my mommy" calls?
Just imagine all the fun! You can't take any pictures or videos, you can't text or ring when you lose sight of each other, therefore you'll have to stick with the group even when your auntie visits the loo for the tenth time before lunch.. but the highlight must be when your best mate dies of an overdose because you have no way of reaching 999 (the UK equivalent of 911/112).
Fun fun fun!
Some (most?) Nokia NSeries will happily accept a Bluetooth keyboard. That plus Putty for Symbian and you're set - especially if you have the TV-OUT cable with you.
Not necessarily: the sample population also misses all the true Luddites, who wouldn't even have a phone to answer the survey.