Not a bad post at all. Two responses from me, though:
I was using Windows many months ago and Outlook bombed on me. The solution? Restart my computer. I mean really, who has fixed this problem? I was using Cakewalk Pro 9 and it caused a GPF for no apparent reason. I had to reboot and lose all my recent work. Why hasn't someone fixed this yet? Just today I was debugging a VBA Macro in Excel, and in step-through mode I tried to view code in a separate module. The result: Excel closed my workbook, the VBA editor closed my file, no prompts about saving, it was all gone. What a horror story! Who is going to fix this?
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but rather want to point out that the computing community has a VERY laid back attitude about Windows errors. We always remember the time that linux screwed up the monitor by 50 pixels or how it took 2 hours to get a samba share configured the first time, but objectively, this really pales in comparison to the volume of glitches we face in Windows (ignoring severity or nature). "It's just Windows, it's gonna do that from time to time." Honestly, if IE shuts down because "memory could not be "read"" again today, I'll go nuts. (And WHY does the message put quotes around "read"? It's doubly frustrating; the implication is the IE doesn't even know what it was trying to do when it screwed up. Don't ask me! I was just "trying" to "read" from this "memory" stuff!)
I had a soundcard with drivers that simply would not work right under Windows. I tried everything - updates, drivers from slightly different models, old versions, you name it. Eventually I formatted the drive and installed the drivers on a new Windows installation and they worked fine. Guess what, that blows. A Windows drive filled with cruft requires a format to install new soundcard drivers - but surely we say, "Ha ha, that's just Microsoft, at least you didn't have to edit a configuration file!!"
Secondly, what would Slashdot gain from showing parity between MS and linux issues? The site is by and for people involved in fringe or non-mainstream operating systems and the history of the industry is smeared with zealotry. The competition calls the GPL a "viral license" and slings all the mud it can. The media refer to linux as a "hacker's tool" and imply that it is for criminals. It seems to me that a little righteous indignation is exactly what is called for. I'll surely agree that the cheerleading from the readers is a bit much, but most of the articles are reasonably objective, in my opinion.
And please don't think I'm cheerleading myself. I'm certainly no linux expert and I've had my fair share of challenges running it. I think it is a big deal when decent font support happens, and I think it is a big deal when Windows assaults me with advertising. Alternatively, it is a challenge when my config files are screwed up but it is impossible to fix a blue screen.
That's like ten pounds of insight in a five pound bag. No, I'm just kidding.
Who, in any field, in any time, has become "worth looking up to" by overemphasizing anything? By the very definition of overemphasizing, they are not presenting a well balanced form of their art. Who has truly cashed in on this strategy? Pee Wee Herman? Vanilla Ice? MC Hammer? RATT? All of these overemphasized some aspect of their art.
Taking this one step further, which you have avoided, what musical group is revered for its musical contributions yet overemphasized a lack of talent? The Sex Pistols? That's a joke. Nobody ever says, "This piece has a real 'Anarchy in the UK' influence." The SNL skit where a Martin Backpack guitar and a Casio keyboard are used to perform a minimalist song is funny because it embraces the same idea as the Pistols. They can't play, they can't write, but they can perform (for laughs or cheers). How is this any better than people who can play, can't write, but can perform? It's just as annoying and tedious. The crucial factor is whether or not a person can write. Those are the legends.
Dylan can play pretty well, but you'd never know it from most of his recordings or performances. He emphasizes his writing. Where has that gotten him? Oh yeah, everywhere. The same with Page/Jones of Zeppelin. Jones wrote the arrangements and Page had the skill to make the music immortal. And like it or not (here's my two cent predition) in 30 years people will still listen to Marilyn Manson, not because of the controversy, not because of the media circus, not because he had fake boobs, but because he's one of the very few people who made interesting albums in the 90s. The writing was good, that music will last. In the same vein as David Bowie making Ziggy Stardust, Antichrist Superstar will be a niche classic for quite awhile.
What else? The Velvet Underground had some very capable musicians. Did they overemphasize their skills? No, because they had phenomenal compositions that incorporated their skills into beautiful arrangements. In the absence of that writing, I'm sure they would have sounded like a book of musical exercises, just like Steve Vai does.
The crucial factor is not whether or not a musician has incredible skill. It is the writing which makes the difference. Some have it, some don't. To avoid an overemphasis of technical skills is just as damning as embracing an overemphasis of its absence. Either is equally superfluous to legendary music. Music lovers will be listening to Page's guitar sing on "Since I've Been Loving You" as well as Muddy Water's guitar growl and snarl through "Rolling Stone" for years to come, in neither case because of the technical skill but rather because of the song writing. Technique is cheap; inspiration is golden.
Hi. Do they teach reading comprehension where you come from? Where I'm from, our reading comprehension skills point out that there is nothing in my post indicating that the USSR had a single virtue. There was an objective observation that if the United States attempted to expand its sphere of influence (that is a pretty basic political term which has a neutral connotation) then the USSR would likely oppose it. The two superpowers kept each other in check with regards to global imperialism.
Of course, with a Soviet educational system in the shambles that you represent and an economic model doomed to cataclysmic failure, the West became the sure winner as early as the mid 1950s. Unfortunately for the Soviet people, it took another 35 years for the ill-conceived revolution to sputter to a halt, robbing an entire generation of their livelihood before realizing that the rest of the world had left them in dusty history.
In short, the West was massively more effective than anything the Soviets ever did except sacrificing its own people for fascism and depriving them of reading comprehension skills. In the future, if you'd like a slightly more complimentary commentary out of me, show the tiniest glint of decency.
The point of group insurance is to ameliorate the costs of any individual's costs among the entire group. This system works best when we all pay the same amount, therefore we all get the same amount of unknown, future protection.
Exceptions to this often exist when an individual has behavior that increases his likelihood of high costs. Motorcycle stunt riders, lifetime smokers, and lion tamers should expect to pay more, since their behavior places them at higher risk of burdensome medical costs.
If we assess these high fees based on a person's identity, for example, skin color or genome content, it is no different than saying that "black people are likely to commit crimes, so round them up first when looking for a suspect." While you might actually catch a lot of criminals this way, it is hardly ethical or just.
In health insurance, unlike policing the citizenry, if you raise fees based on a person's identity rather than their behavior, they are likely to quit participating in the system, which decreases the combined financial pool, which increases the burden on you to pay for your medical costs. As long as a person can say, "If I quit smoking, I'll save money," they're far more likely to cough up the cash.
Group health care is a very interesting and finnicky instance of philosophy and economics. There are many things you cannot do in health care that is perfectly permissible in other areas due to the artificial communism that makes health care work.
I work in a plant that manufactures turbine components. We have some land based rings that are so massive (approx. 23 sections per ring, 250 lbs per section) and reach such high RPMs that I'm told it takes over 12 hours for them to come to rest once the fuel is cut off. That's a lot of horsepower. These are used for power generation as well as naval engines. I'm not sure if the marine applications turn generators or a drive shaft, though. With proper gearing, I would think that it would be similar to turbines that drive helicoptor rotors.
"You really really really really really really really are a dumbass."
Don't they teach you anything about adverbs where you go to school? Now I'll move on to what I sometimes call the "super ultra extreme complicated level".
You have apparently written this reply to someone who wants to see the federal government compensate the "freaking INDIANS", however you mistakenly addressed it to me. While it is painfully obvious to children with a second grade reading ability that in no way did I imply that it would be right or just for the federal government to do so, not for an instant did foolish notions like wit, reason, sense, or intelligence taint your hand-in-the-pants urgency to post some half intelligible key mashing. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't care one whit. What makes your post different from normal is that you have demonstrated that a turtle inhaling gasoline fumes would outsmart and outperform you at a game of Simon, all the while attempting to call me a "dumbass".
Hey, don't write that suicide note just yet. Being wrong is tough on the pride, but it happens to everyone sometimes.
By the way, when you say I'm a winner and a retard, that implies that you're a loser and a retard. That's an odd way of insulting someone, but to each his own.
Yes, college educated middle class men have committed terrorist attacks on the US. You get a gold star for that observation. Now explain to me how the American military might is going to prevent this from happening in the future. How many missles does it take to stop 1 anonymous crazy man from sneaking a jagged piece of metal onto an airplane and crashing it? Oh that's right, 0 missles, because no matter how poor a man is, how poorly educated a man is, how many aircraft carriers the US has, and how many nuclear weapons we have, it only takes one crazy man, one plane ticket, and one sharp piece of metal to pull this off.
So, continue to "love the insightfulness of slashdot". I'll continue to love "reading comprehension". Guess we'll continue to live in conflict, but that's alright by me.
Yes, many previous Presidents were quite different. For most of the 20th century, there was an imminent threat from a nation representing a polar opposite of the principles on which America stood. When the US made an imperialistic move, understandably extending our sphere of influence, there was a global superpower willing to stand up and fight back. This is no more. When the Bush dictates his plans to smaller countries without veto power in the UN or representation in other global venues, he very effectively turns them into quasi-American colonies. They are ruled from Washington without representation. They must submit their sovereignty or be mowed over by force.
In the past, this would have been opposed by the nuclear force of the Soviet Union. Today, we live in American hegemony over the world. Some would say that global stability with two superpowers is far easier to achieve than with one, and I think we will see this proven true if the attitude of the Bush administration persists after he is out of office.
You are perfectly right that there is far too much corporate influence on our international politics. This should have the citizens outrage, but it isn't so. Why? Which mass media corporation is going to take the fall for getting the word out that our government has sold the safety of its citizens for the lobbying dollars of some corporations? In a sense, your logic makes the same move that mine has. I say, "Don't fight the symptoms of anti-American hatred, but rather the international policies that spawn such hatred." You say, "Don't fight the international policies, but rather the lobbying corporations that fuel those policies." Part and parcel of the same solution, I hope.
Ultimately, I will be voting for a President who views America's role in the world as the judge rather than the jury. It is unreasonable to deny our role as the executor of force and therefore justice (however it may be defined today), but we cannot afford to also convict whomever we like. Those whom we disenfranchise will be attacking with pipebombs and knives rather than aircraft carriers and warplanes. This nation is probably the most susceptible to covert terrorist attacks as a result of our liberty loving and largely anonymous society. This should necessitate that we use our might in accordance with international approval and remain sensitive to the fact that we have become The Empire to our enemies. Instead, we have policies that change the identity of America while perpetuating and in some sense justifying anti-American rage around the world. We must reflect upon our condition and ask ourselves, "For whom has this been a victory?"
Of course the ACLU is going to run these ads near an election. When should they run them, during the Iowa State Fair? They are trying to bring a political issue to the people, and if you think they should NOT do this before an election, but rather after, don't you think it would defeat the entire purpose?
What type of point can a person make while saying, "These political advertisements are POLITICAL! How are they supposed to help us?" They're supposed to help you by raising awareness in the voting public about these issues and garner support for a political dialogue among your candidates.
One of the most vital portions of the first ammendment is the right to dissent. Never was this nation intended to elect a king and his cronies for four year! To those people who would diminish the rights of American citizens to dissent with the government, do realize that this is a fundamentally anti-American act and an attack on the principles that have held back the power of a tyranical federal government. Of course, the historical record is not spotless, however we have come this far in no small part specifically because the right of every citizen to stand up and say, "What the government has done is wrong."
Thanks for that post. I too was wondering why fingerprinting gun barrels was an unpopular suggestion. It seemed to me, on the surface, to be a pretty good idea, but I can certainly understand the objections to it now.
I know you got modded offtopic, and in truth it was, but I wanted to just toss this out anyway.
The business desktop PC has, for many people, transformed from a tool that is used in business, like the telephone or typewriter of old, into the all-encompassing business tool around which our jobs rotate. I, for example, spend all of my productive time in front of a computer, and almost 90% of my work day staring at it. If my computer crashes, my work is impossible. If we buy upgraded software, my work is potentially more productive and I am worth more as an employee.
The ubiquitous computing initiative is aimed at changing this role of computation back into a tool used by the individual. If you haven't read the article, they're talking about whiteboard sized wall screens, 8.5"x11 or 13" tablet screens, and small wallplate sized screens. They want laser pointers, handwriting recognition, and incredible networking. The computers themselves would never be seen.
The computer, rather than being a personalized unit on everyone's desk, would be more like the computer in Star Trek. All of your data, preferences, etc., would be available from any access point (with reasonable security, of course) and transferable between any of the devices. Write some code on your tablet, view the results on your wall while a coworker takes a peek from his office on the next floor.
Some might think it's a bunch of junk, but hey, who knows? Anyway, I think it is a very interesting project and I'd love to know more. I'm not sure if this would be addressed by an HCI program at a Tech University or not, hence my question.
Good post. I think a very pressing issue in the future will be whether future administrations follow Bush's tendency to view the entire planet as the Holy American Empire or not. Being the last remaining superpower implies many things, but I don't believe it requires ruling over every other government. It does necessitate a certain amount of cooperation and benevolence, both of which seem to be completely absent from Bush's agenda.
While we can obliterate training camps and oust dictators, we're never going to subject every man who hates us to such abject poverty that he can't buy a box cutter and a plane ticket. Fighting the signs and symptoms of terrorism may even be more damaging than taking no action at all in the long run. Who will be left? The most hardened and determined? Do we really want to galvanize the will of our enemies and force them further into desperation?
It cannot be to America's future benefit to regard the nations of the world as its subjects. Sadly, I doubt Bush even has the wit to realize that he is doing so. I sincerely hope our future President will be some sort of diplomat rather than a caricature of a Texan cowboy.
Hi,
You seem to not be aware that the United States is hardly monolithic. Our commander in chief was barely elected, in fact. Many of us disagree with the intentions of the Bush administration, and many of us would be just as critical of the IP regulation as the NYT. Some of us want the federal government to compensate Native Americans for the genocide that was comitted during the American expansion west.
Will we ever "quit blathering" about our founding fathers? Only when we've all conceded that we're going to Hell in a handbasket. Until then, we'll argue, disagree, and some of us will try to preserve the noble grounds on which the nation was founded. Just don't expect an immediate about face from one of the most ethnically, philosophically, religiously, and politically diverse nations on the planet. We tend to disagree like it's going out of style, a trait that seems to be missed by the rest of the world.
I'm applying to Virginia Tech's grad school in computer science, and they have a HCI program. I'm not really interested in software design, but stuff more along the lines of ubiquitous computing and other projects that break the "computer is the tool and master" notion. Is this the type of thing that is addressed in HCI programs, or are they more of a sophisticated study of where the "Ok" button should go and how to magnify the screen for vision impaired people? Both? Neither?
I think your point is correct with regards to a closed document standard, but not so in other instances.
Take.mp3 players, for example. The entire arena is known by the fileTYPE. There are plenty of freely distributable players which all provide the same basic abilities. One could argue that none of them have made groundbreaking innovations, but they do succeed in a meaningful level of differentiation while allowing users to switch between them with a minimal of difficulty. If it were only so with office suites, the (geeky computer software) world would be much better.
Instead, we have a de facto imposed standard of a proprietary closed document. Anyone who wishes to compete in the office suite market must pay an investment to Microsoft, in the form of development time, developers, support, or possibly cash (could a developer buy the documentation?) This is a cost imposed on the competitors that Microsoft doesn't pay, and they can even raise that price with new versions. Price competition in this market would surely impede the R&D of competitors while Microsoft plunges ahead unhindered.
I don't pretend to be an economics expert, and there are undoubtedly more forces at play, but to dismiss the benefits of competition in software by definition is too zealous, I think. When everyone is building a competing tool for a level playing field, then R&D is an investment with an extremely substantial return - differentiation and innovation. When some competitors are forced to struggle to maintain compatibility with a monopolist, the returns for that are magnified and differentiation, innovation, and R&D, are minimized.
Hi, I just wanted to take a moment to point out that you have really failed to be effective in this dialogue in any way.
You made a limp-wristed attempt to change the topic from IE's bent-over-ass-up security failings with Flash and Real Audio. A for effort. You may or may not be aware that neither of these technologies are integral to using the internet. In fact, in all my life, I have never once subjected myself to the travesty that is Real Audio, and I can't say that I'm worse off for it.
You mention that you believe that IE is the standard. That's fine, you can also believe that rocks fall faster than paper clips if you like. You have made more than a few comments that have implied a serious disdain for a competitive market, privacy for individual citizens, and limiting the powers of corporations and advertisers. You have every right to believe these things, however your right to dissent (assuming you are American) exists only because those who built this nation disagreed with you and felt it necessary to preserve that right.
You are quite wrong that nobody is out to get you, or rather, you misinterpret the meaning of that. Nobody is out to get you, but someone is certainly out to get the millions of people that are just like you. If you think that the mass media delivered to your eyeballs through cable TV tells you anything remotely close to the truth in issues of international relations, then you have already been had. You have made it clear that you trust unfailingly in the benevolence of billion dollar corporations. The suspension of good sense that is necessary to do so is staggering. No one has ever made billions of dollars by being benevolent, and the fact that a corporation has billions of dollars is a testament to their lack of benevolence. Despite this, you trust that they don't have any plans to extort more of your financial livelihood for their profit and your bad luck.
Palladium's developers, Microsoft security experts, garment industry sweatshops, the World Bank which extorts developing nations, Enron, Tyco, Firestone Tires, the makers of the Chevrolet Corvair, Thalidomide's inventors, Phillip Morris, Little Debbie, fashion magazines, oil companies, and more are glad that you hold your beliefs close to your heart. None of these groups were out to get you, but rather millions of people just like you. They have all been wildly successful. Paranoid? No. Critical? Absolutely, and that attitude is overwhelmingly justified by history and the millions of people who have suffered horribly for someone else's dollar. But maybe it's just me. Maybe you happily drive your SUV on Firestones, smoke like a chimney, cram your face with Twinkies, shovel your money off to sweatshop profits, ingest drugs that cause widespread birth defects, invest your life savings with criminals, and trust Microsoft to do you a favor. Way to play, Ace, I guess I'm the one who's crazy...
You really ought to paint concentric red and white circles on your head.
Third party add-ons are a one shot deal that compensate for the utter failures of the original program to deliver an acceptable product. That Ad-aware has a need to exist is a testament to the corporate-minded, user abusing design that went into IE.
I am quite interested in your information regarding Mozilla and the ability to render DHTML and CSS standards. Can you provide a link? Implicit in this request is that you provide a link describing how IE does conform to these standards.
"Rights and privacy, get a grip, blah blah." Yes, thank you, it is clear that we are different species. I am a critical thinker, a freedom and privacy loving American, a voter, and a citizen. You are a marketing recipient, a consumer, and a revenue source. IE fits your species perfectly, and more glory to you! By distracting the corporate greed, I am marginalized, made into a minority, and able to slip by in a niche market of similar society. Am I wrong to be concerned with these issues, as you imply? Perhaps, but I strongly suggest that the United States would not have documents such as the Bill of Rights if my concerns were not integral to the identity of this country.
Jeeze, that got much more response than I had expected...
No, I don't go to www.microsoft.com. Yes, that was obviously a statement based on my perception. Be that as it may, I have never stumbled upon a website that Mozilla didn't like. I don't doubt that they exist.
I'm quite certain that AOL will not include the java popup disable that is present in the true Mozilla. They are, however, boosting the Mozilla project, and the Mozilla project includes such a feature. Therefore, AOL is indirectly promoting browsers that have this feature, and this facilitates a potential future avenue for AOL users to upgrade to the real Mozilla.
Slashdot Mirror
I was using Windows many months ago and Outlook bombed on me. The solution? Restart my computer. I mean really, who has fixed this problem? I was using Cakewalk Pro 9 and it caused a GPF for no apparent reason. I had to reboot and lose all my recent work. Why hasn't someone fixed this yet? Just today I was debugging a VBA Macro in Excel, and in step-through mode I tried to view code in a separate module. The result: Excel closed my workbook, the VBA editor closed my file, no prompts about saving, it was all gone. What a horror story! Who is going to fix this?
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but rather want to point out that the computing community has a VERY laid back attitude about Windows errors. We always remember the time that linux screwed up the monitor by 50 pixels or how it took 2 hours to get a samba share configured the first time, but objectively, this really pales in comparison to the volume of glitches we face in Windows (ignoring severity or nature). "It's just Windows, it's gonna do that from time to time." Honestly, if IE shuts down because "memory could not be "read"" again today, I'll go nuts. (And WHY does the message put quotes around "read"? It's doubly frustrating; the implication is the IE doesn't even know what it was trying to do when it screwed up. Don't ask me! I was just "trying" to "read" from this "memory" stuff!)
I had a soundcard with drivers that simply would not work right under Windows. I tried everything - updates, drivers from slightly different models, old versions, you name it. Eventually I formatted the drive and installed the drivers on a new Windows installation and they worked fine. Guess what, that blows. A Windows drive filled with cruft requires a format to install new soundcard drivers - but surely we say, "Ha ha, that's just Microsoft, at least you didn't have to edit a configuration file!! "
Secondly, what would Slashdot gain from showing parity between MS and linux issues? The site is by and for people involved in fringe or non-mainstream operating systems and the history of the industry is smeared with zealotry. The competition calls the GPL a "viral license" and slings all the mud it can. The media refer to linux as a "hacker's tool" and imply that it is for criminals. It seems to me that a little righteous indignation is exactly what is called for. I'll surely agree that the cheerleading from the readers is a bit much, but most of the articles are reasonably objective, in my opinion.
And please don't think I'm cheerleading myself. I'm certainly no linux expert and I've had my fair share of challenges running it. I think it is a big deal when decent font support happens, and I think it is a big deal when Windows assaults me with advertising. Alternatively, it is a challenge when my config files are screwed up but it is impossible to fix a blue screen.
Who, in any field, in any time, has become "worth looking up to" by overemphasizing anything? By the very definition of overemphasizing, they are not presenting a well balanced form of their art. Who has truly cashed in on this strategy? Pee Wee Herman? Vanilla Ice? MC Hammer? RATT? All of these overemphasized some aspect of their art.
Taking this one step further, which you have avoided, what musical group is revered for its musical contributions yet overemphasized a lack of talent? The Sex Pistols? That's a joke. Nobody ever says, "This piece has a real 'Anarchy in the UK' influence." The SNL skit where a Martin Backpack guitar and a Casio keyboard are used to perform a minimalist song is funny because it embraces the same idea as the Pistols. They can't play, they can't write, but they can perform (for laughs or cheers). How is this any better than people who can play, can't write, but can perform? It's just as annoying and tedious. The crucial factor is whether or not a person can write. Those are the legends.
Dylan can play pretty well, but you'd never know it from most of his recordings or performances. He emphasizes his writing. Where has that gotten him? Oh yeah, everywhere. The same with Page/Jones of Zeppelin. Jones wrote the arrangements and Page had the skill to make the music immortal. And like it or not (here's my two cent predition) in 30 years people will still listen to Marilyn Manson, not because of the controversy, not because of the media circus, not because he had fake boobs, but because he's one of the very few people who made interesting albums in the 90s. The writing was good, that music will last. In the same vein as David Bowie making Ziggy Stardust, Antichrist Superstar will be a niche classic for quite awhile.
What else? The Velvet Underground had some very capable musicians. Did they overemphasize their skills? No, because they had phenomenal compositions that incorporated their skills into beautiful arrangements. In the absence of that writing, I'm sure they would have sounded like a book of musical exercises, just like Steve Vai does.
The crucial factor is not whether or not a musician has incredible skill. It is the writing which makes the difference. Some have it, some don't. To avoid an overemphasis of technical skills is just as damning as embracing an overemphasis of its absence. Either is equally superfluous to legendary music. Music lovers will be listening to Page's guitar sing on "Since I've Been Loving You" as well as Muddy Water's guitar growl and snarl through "Rolling Stone" for years to come, in neither case because of the technical skill but rather because of the song writing. Technique is cheap; inspiration is golden.
You've got that backwards. Every time I take a negative karma hit, a kitten dies. Mwa ha ha!
I just can't believe they said "wood-like or fleshy." It's thinly veiled one-liner after thinly veiled one-liner.
Of course, with a Soviet educational system in the shambles that you represent and an economic model doomed to cataclysmic failure, the West became the sure winner as early as the mid 1950s. Unfortunately for the Soviet people, it took another 35 years for the ill-conceived revolution to sputter to a halt, robbing an entire generation of their livelihood before realizing that the rest of the world had left them in dusty history.
In short, the West was massively more effective than anything the Soviets ever did except sacrificing its own people for fascism and depriving them of reading comprehension skills. In the future, if you'd like a slightly more complimentary commentary out of me, show the tiniest glint of decency.
Or Israel?
Exceptions to this often exist when an individual has behavior that increases his likelihood of high costs. Motorcycle stunt riders, lifetime smokers, and lion tamers should expect to pay more, since their behavior places them at higher risk of burdensome medical costs.
If we assess these high fees based on a person's identity, for example, skin color or genome content, it is no different than saying that "black people are likely to commit crimes, so round them up first when looking for a suspect." While you might actually catch a lot of criminals this way, it is hardly ethical or just.
In health insurance, unlike policing the citizenry, if you raise fees based on a person's identity rather than their behavior, they are likely to quit participating in the system, which decreases the combined financial pool, which increases the burden on you to pay for your medical costs. As long as a person can say, "If I quit smoking, I'll save money," they're far more likely to cough up the cash.
Group health care is a very interesting and finnicky instance of philosophy and economics. There are many things you cannot do in health care that is perfectly permissible in other areas due to the artificial communism that makes health care work.
I work in a plant that manufactures turbine components. We have some land based rings that are so massive (approx. 23 sections per ring, 250 lbs per section) and reach such high RPMs that I'm told it takes over 12 hours for them to come to rest once the fuel is cut off. That's a lot of horsepower. These are used for power generation as well as naval engines. I'm not sure if the marine applications turn generators or a drive shaft, though. With proper gearing, I would think that it would be similar to turbines that drive helicoptor rotors.
"You really really really really really really really are a dumbass."
Don't they teach you anything about adverbs where you go to school? Now I'll move on to what I sometimes call the "super ultra extreme complicated level".
You have apparently written this reply to someone who wants to see the federal government compensate the "freaking INDIANS", however you mistakenly addressed it to me. While it is painfully obvious to children with a second grade reading ability that in no way did I imply that it would be right or just for the federal government to do so, not for an instant did foolish notions like wit, reason, sense, or intelligence taint your hand-in-the-pants urgency to post some half intelligible key mashing. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't care one whit. What makes your post different from normal is that you have demonstrated that a turtle inhaling gasoline fumes would outsmart and outperform you at a game of Simon, all the while attempting to call me a "dumbass".
That is pure comic gold.
By the way, when you say I'm a winner and a retard, that implies that you're a loser and a retard. That's an odd way of insulting someone, but to each his own.
Yes, college educated middle class men have committed terrorist attacks on the US. You get a gold star for that observation. Now explain to me how the American military might is going to prevent this from happening in the future. How many missles does it take to stop 1 anonymous crazy man from sneaking a jagged piece of metal onto an airplane and crashing it? Oh that's right, 0 missles, because no matter how poor a man is, how poorly educated a man is, how many aircraft carriers the US has, and how many nuclear weapons we have, it only takes one crazy man, one plane ticket, and one sharp piece of metal to pull this off.
So, continue to "love the insightfulness of slashdot". I'll continue to love "reading comprehension". Guess we'll continue to live in conflict, but that's alright by me.
In the past, this would have been opposed by the nuclear force of the Soviet Union. Today, we live in American hegemony over the world. Some would say that global stability with two superpowers is far easier to achieve than with one, and I think we will see this proven true if the attitude of the Bush administration persists after he is out of office.
You are perfectly right that there is far too much corporate influence on our international politics. This should have the citizens outrage, but it isn't so. Why? Which mass media corporation is going to take the fall for getting the word out that our government has sold the safety of its citizens for the lobbying dollars of some corporations? In a sense, your logic makes the same move that mine has. I say, "Don't fight the symptoms of anti-American hatred, but rather the international policies that spawn such hatred." You say, "Don't fight the international policies, but rather the lobbying corporations that fuel those policies." Part and parcel of the same solution, I hope.
Ultimately, I will be voting for a President who views America's role in the world as the judge rather than the jury. It is unreasonable to deny our role as the executor of force and therefore justice (however it may be defined today), but we cannot afford to also convict whomever we like. Those whom we disenfranchise will be attacking with pipebombs and knives rather than aircraft carriers and warplanes. This nation is probably the most susceptible to covert terrorist attacks as a result of our liberty loving and largely anonymous society. This should necessitate that we use our might in accordance with international approval and remain sensitive to the fact that we have become The Empire to our enemies. Instead, we have policies that change the identity of America while perpetuating and in some sense justifying anti-American rage around the world. We must reflect upon our condition and ask ourselves, "For whom has this been a victory?"
What type of point can a person make while saying, "These political advertisements are POLITICAL! How are they supposed to help us?" They're supposed to help you by raising awareness in the voting public about these issues and garner support for a political dialogue among your candidates.
One of the most vital portions of the first ammendment is the right to dissent. Never was this nation intended to elect a king and his cronies for four year! To those people who would diminish the rights of American citizens to dissent with the government, do realize that this is a fundamentally anti-American act and an attack on the principles that have held back the power of a tyranical federal government. Of course, the historical record is not spotless, however we have come this far in no small part specifically because the right of every citizen to stand up and say, "What the government has done is wrong."
Thanks for that post. I too was wondering why fingerprinting gun barrels was an unpopular suggestion. It seemed to me, on the surface, to be a pretty good idea, but I can certainly understand the objections to it now.
The business desktop PC has, for many people, transformed from a tool that is used in business, like the telephone or typewriter of old, into the all-encompassing business tool around which our jobs rotate. I, for example, spend all of my productive time in front of a computer, and almost 90% of my work day staring at it. If my computer crashes, my work is impossible. If we buy upgraded software, my work is potentially more productive and I am worth more as an employee.
The ubiquitous computing initiative is aimed at changing this role of computation back into a tool used by the individual. If you haven't read the article, they're talking about whiteboard sized wall screens, 8.5"x11 or 13" tablet screens, and small wallplate sized screens. They want laser pointers, handwriting recognition, and incredible networking. The computers themselves would never be seen.
The computer, rather than being a personalized unit on everyone's desk, would be more like the computer in Star Trek. All of your data, preferences, etc., would be available from any access point (with reasonable security, of course) and transferable between any of the devices. Write some code on your tablet, view the results on your wall while a coworker takes a peek from his office on the next floor.
Some might think it's a bunch of junk, but hey, who knows? Anyway, I think it is a very interesting project and I'd love to know more. I'm not sure if this would be addressed by an HCI program at a Tech University or not, hence my question.
While we can obliterate training camps and oust dictators, we're never going to subject every man who hates us to such abject poverty that he can't buy a box cutter and a plane ticket. Fighting the signs and symptoms of terrorism may even be more damaging than taking no action at all in the long run. Who will be left? The most hardened and determined? Do we really want to galvanize the will of our enemies and force them further into desperation?
It cannot be to America's future benefit to regard the nations of the world as its subjects. Sadly, I doubt Bush even has the wit to realize that he is doing so. I sincerely hope our future President will be some sort of diplomat rather than a caricature of a Texan cowboy.
Will we ever "quit blathering" about our founding fathers? Only when we've all conceded that we're going to Hell in a handbasket. Until then, we'll argue, disagree, and some of us will try to preserve the noble grounds on which the nation was founded. Just don't expect an immediate about face from one of the most ethnically, philosophically, religiously, and politically diverse nations on the planet. We tend to disagree like it's going out of style, a trait that seems to be missed by the rest of the world.
Thanks for your time.
So how many Carnegie Mellon grad students does it take to figure out what a middle finger means?
I'm applying to Virginia Tech's grad school in computer science, and they have a HCI program. I'm not really interested in software design, but stuff more along the lines of ubiquitous computing and other projects that break the "computer is the tool and master" notion. Is this the type of thing that is addressed in HCI programs, or are they more of a sophisticated study of where the "Ok" button should go and how to magnify the screen for vision impaired people? Both? Neither?
Take .mp3 players, for example. The entire arena is known by the fileTYPE. There are plenty of freely distributable players which all provide the same basic abilities. One could argue that none of them have made groundbreaking innovations, but they do succeed in a meaningful level of differentiation while allowing users to switch between them with a minimal of difficulty. If it were only so with office suites, the (geeky computer software) world would be much better.
Instead, we have a de facto imposed standard of a proprietary closed document. Anyone who wishes to compete in the office suite market must pay an investment to Microsoft, in the form of development time, developers, support, or possibly cash (could a developer buy the documentation?) This is a cost imposed on the competitors that Microsoft doesn't pay, and they can even raise that price with new versions. Price competition in this market would surely impede the R&D of competitors while Microsoft plunges ahead unhindered.
I don't pretend to be an economics expert, and there are undoubtedly more forces at play, but to dismiss the benefits of competition in software by definition is too zealous, I think. When everyone is building a competing tool for a level playing field, then R&D is an investment with an extremely substantial return - differentiation and innovation. When some competitors are forced to struggle to maintain compatibility with a monopolist, the returns for that are magnified and differentiation, innovation, and R&D, are minimized.
You made a limp-wristed attempt to change the topic from IE's bent-over-ass-up security failings with Flash and Real Audio. A for effort. You may or may not be aware that neither of these technologies are integral to using the internet. In fact, in all my life, I have never once subjected myself to the travesty that is Real Audio, and I can't say that I'm worse off for it.
You mention that you believe that IE is the standard. That's fine, you can also believe that rocks fall faster than paper clips if you like. You have made more than a few comments that have implied a serious disdain for a competitive market, privacy for individual citizens, and limiting the powers of corporations and advertisers. You have every right to believe these things, however your right to dissent (assuming you are American) exists only because those who built this nation disagreed with you and felt it necessary to preserve that right.
You are quite wrong that nobody is out to get you, or rather, you misinterpret the meaning of that. Nobody is out to get you, but someone is certainly out to get the millions of people that are just like you. If you think that the mass media delivered to your eyeballs through cable TV tells you anything remotely close to the truth in issues of international relations, then you have already been had. You have made it clear that you trust unfailingly in the benevolence of billion dollar corporations. The suspension of good sense that is necessary to do so is staggering. No one has ever made billions of dollars by being benevolent, and the fact that a corporation has billions of dollars is a testament to their lack of benevolence. Despite this, you trust that they don't have any plans to extort more of your financial livelihood for their profit and your bad luck.
Palladium's developers, Microsoft security experts, garment industry sweatshops, the World Bank which extorts developing nations, Enron, Tyco, Firestone Tires, the makers of the Chevrolet Corvair, Thalidomide's inventors, Phillip Morris, Little Debbie, fashion magazines, oil companies, and more are glad that you hold your beliefs close to your heart. None of these groups were out to get you, but rather millions of people just like you. They have all been wildly successful. Paranoid? No. Critical? Absolutely, and that attitude is overwhelmingly justified by history and the millions of people who have suffered horribly for someone else's dollar. But maybe it's just me. Maybe you happily drive your SUV on Firestones, smoke like a chimney, cram your face with Twinkies, shovel your money off to sweatshop profits, ingest drugs that cause widespread birth defects, invest your life savings with criminals, and trust Microsoft to do you a favor. Way to play, Ace, I guess I'm the one who's crazy...
I read the comments... everything is either off-topic or refers to the article negatively...
I'm puzzled. What's up? Could it be that I--!! QUICK! Scroll to the top again! YES! I foolishly turned off my "michael" filter!
A quick trip to my preferences prevents this mishap in the future. Now.. must turn off third person narrative... ...
Third party add-ons are a one shot deal that compensate for the utter failures of the original program to deliver an acceptable product. That Ad-aware has a need to exist is a testament to the corporate-minded, user abusing design that went into IE.
I am quite interested in your information regarding Mozilla and the ability to render DHTML and CSS standards. Can you provide a link? Implicit in this request is that you provide a link describing how IE does conform to these standards.
"Rights and privacy, get a grip, blah blah." Yes, thank you, it is clear that we are different species. I am a critical thinker, a freedom and privacy loving American, a voter, and a citizen. You are a marketing recipient, a consumer, and a revenue source. IE fits your species perfectly, and more glory to you! By distracting the corporate greed, I am marginalized, made into a minority, and able to slip by in a niche market of similar society. Am I wrong to be concerned with these issues, as you imply? Perhaps, but I strongly suggest that the United States would not have documents such as the Bill of Rights if my concerns were not integral to the identity of this country.
No, I don't go to www.microsoft.com. Yes, that was obviously a statement based on my perception. Be that as it may, I have never stumbled upon a website that Mozilla didn't like. I don't doubt that they exist.
I'm quite certain that AOL will not include the java popup disable that is present in the true Mozilla. They are, however, boosting the Mozilla project, and the Mozilla project includes such a feature. Therefore, AOL is indirectly promoting browsers that have this feature, and this facilitates a potential future avenue for AOL users to upgrade to the real Mozilla.