I used to drive really fast (90 MPH) pretty much all the time; exceptions were I didn't pass people going more than 10 MPH faster than they were, but on open road I'd go as fast as the road allowed. You need to have the right equipment, especially tires, to do this, but if you do, there's no reason not to drive fast.
The fact of the matter is, driving 100 MPH on the expressway is usually safe. By safe, I mean it is less hazardous than, say, driving 30 MPH through an intersection. This is not to say that driving 85 or 70 MPH may not be SAFER than driving 100 MPH, but if you're willing to accept the hazards of driving around town, there's no reason not to accept (on a hazard basis) driving fast on the expressway.
But, I don't drive fast nowadays, for two reasons:
First, driving fast is HARD. Driving at 100 MPH requires processing nearly twice as much information with half the time to act on it. You've got to put 100% of your mental entergy into what you're doing. Compare this with driving 70 MPH, where I can 'comfortably' let my mind wander and basically auto-pilot follow the car in front of me. (I actually think, for me, driving 70 MPH is less safe since I find it tough to put 100% of my attention on driving, but driving slower is definitely easier.)
Second, driving fast is expensive - that includes gas, and tickets and insurance. Whether driving fast is ACTUALLY safe or not, the laws of society deem it to not be, and to be entirely fair, there are lots of expressway circumstances where driving 65 MPH is the limit of safety, and I know I don't trust all drivers to make their own decision on what the current safe speed is, so in order to have safe roads (from drivers with poor judgement) we just need a hard limit, even if that impacts people who COULD drive faster safely.
For those mentioning 40 car pileups, research how many 40 car pilups happen in inclement weather. You'll find that most occur in foggy or similar low-visibility conditions, where some cars slow to 20 MPH and some slow to 40 MPH and the 40 MPH people don't see the 20 MPH people soon enough to keep from rearending them, and then when those cars stop, everybody behind them runs into them too.
Expressway accidents are exceedingly rare, and most result from weather.
Government can probably spend money on things like military, law enforcement, and highway development more efficiently. It can probably make things like parks and due process (via courts) more equally available. To imply that anytime the government spends money is worse than the government not spending that money is just silly.
That's not to say there arn't plenty of things the government spends money on that are entirely inefficient. Tax breaks (not collecting money is the same as not spending it) to particular industries are wasteful. Subsidies are wasteful. Certain research expendatures are at best questionable. Government-run healthcare is almost certainily wasteful (but healthcare may be a place where government subsidy is appropriate, as it may take government intervention to force people to properly provide for their own healthcare.)
The Bakersfield, Ca courtroom is making the state a ton of money. The day I was in court, there were about 45 people in there, all charged with exceeding 100mph. I would imagine that they are one of the largest contributors to Bakersfield's economy.
You sure it's not the people driving over 100 MPH that are making the state a lot of money? Not to mention the insurance companies...
I married someone I met online. I also met her in person a couple days after the online introduction (as I think "dating" on a computer is downright stupid.) She had one of those 'too good to be true' pictures. I also dated online pretty extensively for a couple years (as well as people I met in real life). MOST people on the major dating services, including the women, are actual, legitimate people. Some of them I even recognized just from seeing by chance in daily interaction.
There are definitely also fakes and people trying to scam you on dating sites. Most of them are really, really, really obvious if you're not an idiot. But there are also people who will scam you in "real life" dating - and those scams can cost you a lot more than a few bucks, and can be a lot less obvious. It's not like it's unheard of for women to meet men who scam them out of their entire bank account. You just have to excercise some judgement - people who have extensively filled out their profiles and have something SPECIFIC to say are almost certainly real; people with very generic 'please most people' profiles or photos that were taken on a set are probably not.
Some people DESPERATELY want to be 'loved' and will do almost ANYTHING to do that. No amount of legislation is going to make these people not be suckers. All legislation will do is make things harder for the legitimate people.
Why does Slashdot continue to even acknowledge 'studies' performed by the Yankee Group?
Well, you wouldn't get all worked up and keep looking for new comments on the article if they just had articles that were not fragrantly biased against prevailing Slashdot opinion now, would you?
How's your power supply? I have a wierd hanging problem with HL2 if I have my graphics card plugged into the wrong plug. Switchign plugs mostly fixed it. My power supply is pretty marginal, so if oyurs is as well might want to consider a power supply upgrade.
None - but you're assuming I only work with people who live in the US. MOST of the people I work with who are not from the US don't live in the US either.
There's a reason that for any issue that two groups of americans firmly and greatly disagree on, the two american political parties will pick opposite sides. That's how they get fat campaign funds. If Republicans and Democrats agreed on issues like abortion, they'd just be giving away money.
India's problem is that it's India. Who wants to live in India?
All the talented people I've worked with who are from India (or somewhere similar) live in the US. And I think that's the problem Apple is having - the cheap labor in India is cheap for a reason: It sucks. The people in India who are talented leave. The people they work for figure they'll get more out of them if the live in the US, or they get enough money themselves to move here, or they establish their talent with education and get accepted for US masters programs and work here after that.
If you're an Indian who can do a job as well as an American can, why work for Indian wages in India when you can work for American wages in America?
Ability to feed children has nothing to do with poverty, it has to do with arable land. People with no money who have some arable land can feed themselves. We've been doing it for millions of years. And the more kids you have, the better chance you have at producing enough extra food to do something else (at least, if we westerners didn't drive down food prices so much with our nice agricultura subsidies.) Kids don't really starve in India. Kids do starve in Africa, because of widespread FAMINE, i.e., the inability to grow stuff (and in many places, warlords taking anything that does get grown.)
In most parts of the world where poor people have lots of kids, people don't have kids DESPITE not being able to afford them; they have lots of kids because they CAN'T afford NOT to have them. Procreation gets you free labor in a few years and assures there is someone to feed you when you're old. It's the poor man's social security.
If you want poor people in 3rd world countries to stop procreating all the time, give them the same agricultural subsidies we give to 1st world farmers. Then instead of having kids they'll buy tractors.
That's the funny thing about westerners - you spend a bunch of your tax dollars driving down the price of food on the world market to the point that people abroad can't make any money in agriculture, then get pissy when they find a way to do programming instead.
If you don't want to be living one mortgage payment from being out on the street, DON'T! Learn to live within your means. Put 25% of your money into your retirement account. Buy a house where you can pay your mortgage payment and then some, or rent a place you can afford. Drive a late model auto. Don't spend $4,000 a year on the latest tech toys. Bring your lunch to work instead of eating out all the time.
EXCERCISE SOME FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY! If you make $120,000 a year and are one mortgage payment away from being on the street, it's because you're being stupid with your money.
The DirecTV employees DID have authorization - they were given valid usernames and passwords to access the site.
DirecTV employees may have FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED the authorization, but they were none-the-less authorized. Snow should be suing them, or encouraging his local DA to prosecute them, for fraud (obtaining access to his system through deception).
A flight I was on in February had to be diverted because a hijacker armed with a cell phone was demanding the release of prisoners from Isreal. I can only imagine what our fate would have been if he had been able to press the power button before some other passengers and I were able to forcibly subdue him. Fortunately, once we had him under control, one of the other passengers was able to use their phone to call 911.
we had to keep a little piece of Velveeta frozen on the dorm room window sill
When I went to school, Velveeta hadn't been invented yet. We had to walk in all manner of weather conditions to the vetrinary science buildings, uphill both ways, and steal milk from the cows, which we then had to curdle in the bathroom sink. Only then could a Friday night celebration be had.
Slashdot Mirror
compared to less than $5000 is a pretty decent incentive
You're forgetting one of the main slashdot rules - never ascribe to malace what can be explained by bad editing.
(The new amount isn't $4,250, it's 4.25 million.)
Why not?
I used to drive really fast (90 MPH) pretty much all the time; exceptions were I didn't pass people going more than 10 MPH faster than they were, but on open road I'd go as fast as the road allowed. You need to have the right equipment, especially tires, to do this, but if you do, there's no reason not to drive fast.
The fact of the matter is, driving 100 MPH on the expressway is usually safe. By safe, I mean it is less hazardous than, say, driving 30 MPH through an intersection. This is not to say that driving 85 or 70 MPH may not be SAFER than driving 100 MPH, but if you're willing to accept the hazards of driving around town, there's no reason not to accept (on a hazard basis) driving fast on the expressway.
But, I don't drive fast nowadays, for two reasons:
First, driving fast is HARD. Driving at 100 MPH requires processing nearly twice as much information with half the time to act on it. You've got to put 100% of your mental entergy into what you're doing. Compare this with driving 70 MPH, where I can 'comfortably' let my mind wander and basically auto-pilot follow the car in front of me. (I actually think, for me, driving 70 MPH is less safe since I find it tough to put 100% of my attention on driving, but driving slower is definitely easier.)
Second, driving fast is expensive - that includes gas, and tickets and insurance. Whether driving fast is ACTUALLY safe or not, the laws of society deem it to not be, and to be entirely fair, there are lots of expressway circumstances where driving 65 MPH is the limit of safety, and I know I don't trust all drivers to make their own decision on what the current safe speed is, so in order to have safe roads (from drivers with poor judgement) we just need a hard limit, even if that impacts people who COULD drive faster safely.
For those mentioning 40 car pileups, research how many 40 car pilups happen in inclement weather. You'll find that most occur in foggy or similar low-visibility conditions, where some cars slow to 20 MPH and some slow to 40 MPH and the 40 MPH people don't see the 20 MPH people soon enough to keep from rearending them, and then when those cars stop, everybody behind them runs into them too.
Expressway accidents are exceedingly rare, and most result from weather.
Government can probably spend money on things like military, law enforcement, and highway development more efficiently. It can probably make things like parks and due process (via courts) more equally available. To imply that anytime the government spends money is worse than the government not spending that money is just silly.
That's not to say there arn't plenty of things the government spends money on that are entirely inefficient. Tax breaks (not collecting money is the same as not spending it) to particular industries are wasteful. Subsidies are wasteful. Certain research expendatures are at best questionable. Government-run healthcare is almost certainily wasteful (but healthcare may be a place where government subsidy is appropriate, as it may take government intervention to force people to properly provide for their own healthcare.)
The Bakersfield, Ca courtroom is making the state a ton of money. The day I was in court, there were about 45 people in there, all charged with exceeding 100mph. I would imagine that they are one of the largest contributors to Bakersfield's economy.
You sure it's not the people driving over 100 MPH that are making the state a lot of money? Not to mention the insurance companies...
In my experience when internet dating potential partners have only two of the following three qualities: Attractive
Single
Mentally stable
Well, that's one more than the women I meet offline. ONLINE DATING HERE I COME!
How is a girl who asks for money becuase she wants money a "scam"?
Because she's not white. If she were white, she'd be a trophy girlfriend/wife.
And they would be liable, because they are providing the content for their own site.
I married someone I met online. I also met her in person a couple days after the online introduction (as I think "dating" on a computer is downright stupid.) She had one of those 'too good to be true' pictures. I also dated online pretty extensively for a couple years (as well as people I met in real life). MOST people on the major dating services, including the women, are actual, legitimate people. Some of them I even recognized just from seeing by chance in daily interaction.
There are definitely also fakes and people trying to scam you on dating sites. Most of them are really, really, really obvious if you're not an idiot. But there are also people who will scam you in "real life" dating - and those scams can cost you a lot more than a few bucks, and can be a lot less obvious. It's not like it's unheard of for women to meet men who scam them out of their entire bank account. You just have to excercise some judgement - people who have extensively filled out their profiles and have something SPECIFIC to say are almost certainly real; people with very generic 'please most people' profiles or photos that were taken on a set are probably not.
Some people DESPERATELY want to be 'loved' and will do almost ANYTHING to do that. No amount of legislation is going to make these people not be suckers. All legislation will do is make things harder for the legitimate people.
Why does Slashdot continue to even acknowledge 'studies' performed by the Yankee Group?
Well, you wouldn't get all worked up and keep looking for new comments on the article if they just had articles that were not fragrantly biased against prevailing Slashdot opinion now, would you?
Slashdot is just trolling you, and you bought it.
Depends if the storms have the same depth or not. On earth, they would, so it'd only be 4x. On a gas giant, who knows.
The summary is spot on! (Ba-dum, chink!)
Except for the whole basic math thing.
If one object is two earths wide, and another object is one earth wide, the 2nd object is one FOURTH the size of the first, not one half.*
* Assumes objects are of the same shape and the shape is uniform in one dimension. Which should be pretty good assumptions in this case.
So what you're saying is, all the WalMart employees commute from Nevada?
How's your power supply? I have a wierd hanging problem with HL2 if I have my graphics card plugged into the wrong plug. Switchign plugs mostly fixed it. My power supply is pretty marginal, so if oyurs is as well might want to consider a power supply upgrade.
None - but you're assuming I only work with people who live in the US. MOST of the people I work with who are not from the US don't live in the US either.
Sure there are "polarizing issues"
Otherwise known as fundraising issues.
There's a reason that for any issue that two groups of americans firmly and greatly disagree on, the two american political parties will pick opposite sides. That's how they get fat campaign funds. If Republicans and Democrats agreed on issues like abortion, they'd just be giving away money.
It was like D&D for people without friends!
What's the other kind of D&D?
India's problem is that it's India. Who wants to live in India?
All the talented people I've worked with who are from India (or somewhere similar) live in the US. And I think that's the problem Apple is having - the cheap labor in India is cheap for a reason: It sucks. The people in India who are talented leave. The people they work for figure they'll get more out of them if the live in the US, or they get enough money themselves to move here, or they establish their talent with education and get accepted for US masters programs and work here after that.
If you're an Indian who can do a job as well as an American can, why work for Indian wages in India when you can work for American wages in America?
Ability to feed children has nothing to do with poverty, it has to do with arable land. People with no money who have some arable land can feed themselves. We've been doing it for millions of years. And the more kids you have, the better chance you have at producing enough extra food to do something else (at least, if we westerners didn't drive down food prices so much with our nice agricultura subsidies.) Kids don't really starve in India. Kids do starve in Africa, because of widespread FAMINE, i.e., the inability to grow stuff (and in many places, warlords taking anything that does get grown.)
In most parts of the world where poor people have lots of kids, people don't have kids DESPITE not being able to afford them; they have lots of kids because they CAN'T afford NOT to have them. Procreation gets you free labor in a few years and assures there is someone to feed you when you're old. It's the poor man's social security.
If you want poor people in 3rd world countries to stop procreating all the time, give them the same agricultural subsidies we give to 1st world farmers. Then instead of having kids they'll buy tractors.
That's the funny thing about westerners - you spend a bunch of your tax dollars driving down the price of food on the world market to the point that people abroad can't make any money in agriculture, then get pissy when they find a way to do programming instead.
...like?
Hell, you could probably move to India and NOT work. With a few month's savings you could live like a king and maybe even buy yourself a nice wife.
If you don't want to be living one mortgage payment from being out on the street, DON'T! Learn to live within your means. Put 25% of your money into your retirement account. Buy a house where you can pay your mortgage payment and then some, or rent a place you can afford. Drive a late model auto. Don't spend $4,000 a year on the latest tech toys. Bring your lunch to work instead of eating out all the time.
EXCERCISE SOME FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY! If you make $120,000 a year and are one mortgage payment away from being on the street, it's because you're being stupid with your money.
Software pirates don't have guns.
This wouldn't have happened if those network admins were armed.
The DirecTV employees DID have authorization - they were given valid usernames and passwords to access the site.
DirecTV employees may have FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED the authorization, but they were none-the-less authorized. Snow should be suing them, or encouraging his local DA to prosecute them, for fraud (obtaining access to his system through deception).
A flight I was on in February had to be diverted because a hijacker armed with a cell phone was demanding the release of prisoners from Isreal. I can only imagine what our fate would have been if he had been able to press the power button before some other passengers and I were able to forcibly subdue him. Fortunately, once we had him under control, one of the other passengers was able to use their phone to call 911.
but fight... and risk getting hurt?
You understand that this is NERDS fighting nerds, right? Nerds can't hurt anybody.
we had to keep a little piece of Velveeta frozen on the dorm room window sill
When I went to school, Velveeta hadn't been invented yet. We had to walk in all manner of weather conditions to the vetrinary science buildings, uphill both ways, and steal milk from the cows, which we then had to curdle in the bathroom sink. Only then could a Friday night celebration be had.