See, I don't do that, because it'll flag me as interesting. I mean, I'm still coming from the same IP; if they wanted to run a correlation, they could.
If I have need to do sneakyness, I go somewhere else and use a secure setup, but otherwise I pretend to be clueless and make sure not to search for anything I don't want found.
Don't you see this stuff all the time? I used to get dragged to Zaxby's a lot, so I've seen their problem: They're slow as hell! It costs them business. If I have 20 minutes for lunch, I go by Wendys, or some other place where the drive through line doesn't stretch twice around the building.
So what's the solution? Obviously it can be done...Other fast food places manage it without going the McDonalds "All parts of your food were assembled in Malasia" route. But they've got a decent sized business, and they're heavily vested in their corporate culture...The damn counter people will spout it at you at the 30 minute mark, when you're starting to go a little crazy, so they must stress it a lot.
Why change? Why not throw some money at it instead? Your CEO gets a nice dinner and a bj from some sales consultant, and suddenly thinks it's a great idea, despite the fact that there are bound to be significant problems. It's a done deal.
The problem, as always, is getting it to understand things that can't be pulled from regularly compiled statistics.
A meat manager can look at the hostage standoff going on a block away, and realize that he's going to need to call someone in, as hungry cops, reporters, and rubberneckers will certainly be filling the place up. The same thing applies to anything that breaks the day/week/month/year pattern. There is contruction on the other side of the street, so you get twice as much traffic because no one can get to your competition, or vice versa, there is construction on your side and you bring in a lunch rush crew and you get no customers.
Inventory is another interesting point, because who checks the food that comes in to make sure it's in good condition? Minimum wage fry cook? That's probably a bad idea.
Interesting experiment. I'll be interested to see if it does anything, and, since there are like three (slow as hell) Zaxbys in this town, I'll be able to watch it unfold. Man. And I promised myself I'd never go back there...Scientific...curiosity...wars...with...hat red...of...Zaxbys...
Ever actually been to a Zaxby's? There's nothing fast about it. Don't go there if you're hungry, because you'll be ready to kill and eat the counter girl before they get your food ready.
To me this just screams corporate snafu. I can hear the boardroom conversation right now:
"Holy cow Bob, we're getting zillions of complaints about our extremely slow food process, should we tell the workers it's okay to put a little extra chicken in the fryer during lunch rush?"
"WHAT?!? Our customers depend on our promise to never ever ever start making any piece of food before they order it!"
"But...Bob, that's what everyone is complain..."
"No no, what we need is a huge computer system. And hookers."
Ha! Someone who has been there! How about a computer that'll give 'em an electric shock if it takes them more than 20 minutes to make my goddamn chicken sandwich? THAT would be worthwhile! Their little motto is "Zaxby's is not fast food" which they intend to be a statment of superior quality, because, you know, they take their time and do it right.
WTF? How right can you do a goddamn chicken salad!? It's SALAD okay? Throw some chicken on some goddamn greens and give it to me. But no, when salad becomes zalad, it takes 20 minutes longer to produce. Doesn't taste any different, unless your palate has matured in the time that's passed since you ordered it.
Zaxby's + efficiency is hilarious. Two things I never throught I'd see together in a sentence.
Yea, packets only ever arrive/depart one at a time, unless you've got multiple independant interfaces enabled. That's just tcp/ip. If this thing could change that well that would be something. Maybe some kind of quantum dynamics? Or magic packets where an outgoing packet could travel through an inbound packet. Trippy.
Wow, yea, that's a good idea! I've got a handful of secure proxys set up that could use a little boost. Reminds me of something I heard about people trying to take advantage of all the processing power in the newer graphics cards, to speed up server-side number crunching.
It's always been my understanding that the bigger bottlenecks are upstream of your NIC. I mean, my home network set up goes gigabit from my desktop to my hardware router, gigabit from my router to my gateway firewall, then gigabit (minus a few MTU) to my DSL modem, and after that the speed gets massively reduced and there's nothing I can do about it. My lan latency is practically non-existant.
Can you really reprioritize your packets coming from your desktop in such a way that you make a significant gain after it hits your ISP? Or is this just cyberpenis enlargement? Seems to me that, unless you're hosting a bunch of internet spyware or network-heavy background processes, you're not going to be making much of a gain.
Great, now yell, "You damn kids get off my lawn!" and your journey to Curmudgeonhood will be complete.
Our society has enough points of suckitude, and enough ridiculous rules. Sure, sometimes it's annoying, sure, sometimes we take an ill-aimed blast of water in the ear canal, but that's life, and most of us already take ourselves too seriously. Hell, there are people in the US that'd probably sue for getting squirted.
I don't know, I'm a pretty serious game buyer, and I've been affliced with a serious case of "meh" when looking at the new release section. There is certainly nothing out there right now that I feel like throwing money at.
The industry is always quick to yell "Piracy!" whenever something doesn't sell as well as their market research suggests it ought to be selling, but they haven't really gotten it with games yet. They think like the MPAA..."This game is like that game, and that game sold x million copies so if this one isn't selling x million copies...PIRATES!" People are much less likely to impulse buy a crappy game as opposed to a crappy movie. You've got to give your market a good product. A lot of people have mentioned Galactic Civ II. Excellent game, no copy protection, excellent sales. If piracy was that much of a scourge, you'd be seeing the worst effects of it on games like that, and yet they don't seem to be there.
Yea, the real key to self-regenerating bodies is to figure out the chemical signals we need to send/block to tell the body to regenerate itself. Little machines could never do that good a job.
Got to remember that, evolutionarily speaking, death is an advantage. If we never died, we'd never evolve. Every generation would be far more similar to past generations through back-breeding, and there would be much stronger forces maintaining the genetic status quo. Just a mess.
Their absurd pricing has already sent them out of the market...I actually threw away a decent computer because the cost of getting more RAM was too high a percentage of what getting a better computer would have cost. Rambus was always so expensive, that it was installed in such small quantities...All the computers I've ever used with rambus seemed crappy because they generally had half the ram of their non-rambus peers.
This is just icing on the cake 'o suck they baked for themselves with their crappy behavior.
If that can be proven, that's one thing, but I find the accusation of it to be shady. What cop in his right mind tells a reporter that they're going to be raiding someone? That makes no sense at all.
In my experience, a cop won't tell you that there's a fire at the police station if you're both standing there with marshmellows, watching it burn, and if they did tell a reporter, or any other private citizen, it should be the fault of the officer who improperly leaked the information to the public, not the fault of the public for dealing with the information afterward. Not that I don't find Judith Miller to be appalling...Passing information like this to the target of a police investigation is completely plausible when you know she is the one accused.
How does giving a reporter a ticket impinge on freedom of the press? Stuff getting in the way of a story is so amazingly commonplace in the news industry, you can't even imagine. Sometimes you'll get situations where reporters know the story for months or years before they can get enough people willing to confirm it on the record, for it to be printed. By your logic, it'd be lawful for them to torture people until they confirmed the story, because they have some kind of right to it.
On the other hand, by forcing them to divulge all sources of information whenever there is a suspicion of wrong doing, you're basically making it impossible to have anonymous sources. Now, I've got less problem with this for TV, because I always get the feeling that when they say "anonymous sources" they mean "some hobo I was talking to when I was snorking coke in the bathroom", but when you look at a story like the Watergate story, where the whole thing was broken by an anonymous source, and confirmed by non-anonymous sources, you have to think that story would never have been broken if the government had the right to subpoena phone records, and use illegal wiretaps to determine the identity of the source.
You need to draw a distinction between "The Press" and "Television Media".
There are plenty of newspapers and news websites out there that really try to do a good job, break a lot of ground, and do the sort of reporting that holds the government in check.
I agreee with you about TV though. God they suck. They ALL suck. I firmly believe that the goddamn Daily Show is the best news on television, and that is so very, very sad.
Not sure what laws you think don't apply to journalists...There is no license you need to be a journalist. There is no law against starting your own news paper/channel/website. They are just regular people.
The question you should be asking, is, why are regular people not accorded this protection? The answer has been (until recently) that you are unless those records are opened by a court subpoena, due to the fact that you are suspected of committing a crime.
The problem in this case is that the reporters aren't committing a crime. You see the difference? The government is forcing records out of regular citizens to use in witchhunts against whistleblowers and suspected lawbreakers. There is no part of that that is in any way cool.
Mind you, I think Judith Miller should be clubbed to death like a baby seal, but you can't stand up for freedoms only for people you like.
The problem with freedom, is that there are always going to be people who use it in ways you don't approve of.
There are two ways to deal with this: 1) Remove the freedom 2) Understand that freedom doesn't just apply to things you approve of.
Now, option 1 is real popular these days, but I myself prefer option 2, especially when it comes to rights touched on in the First Amendment.
I hear people sneering about the First all the damn time. The "Hippie" amendment right? Right to pornography? Right for those press jackals to pry into your life?
The First amendment contains nearly every single right essential to democracy. Assembly, Speech, Press, Redress of Greviances, and Freedom of Religion/Prohibition of State sponsored religion. This fricking government has made inroads against every single part of this amendment, and I have no doubt they'd love to see it weakened.
So don't let your disdain for Fox news blind you on this one. Whenever the government starts imposing penalties against people for publishing true statements, its everybodys problem.
The only reason a NYT reporter gets more consideration than some random blogger, is because the NYT reporter has a team of specialist lawyers funded by a large news organization behind them.
It's the same as any other setup where you've got a regular citizen compared to a regular citizen with financially unlimited legal backing. If you've got a problem with that, blame the legal system that is swayed by wealth.
If you really think that, what methods do you use to get information about the world?
The press can suck, no doubt, but they're the best check on government we have in this country. Every law that hinders their ability to do their jobs, is a law that favors closed, tyrannical, government.
The mongols used to wear silk under their armor, because silk is resistant to puncture in just this way...Doesn't sound useful until you remember that barbed arrows were the fashion back then, so if you were wearing the silk the arrow would still penetrate, but you'd be able to pull it out with no additional damage because it would be stuck in the silk, not in your skin.
Ummm...If you're talking about a poster in this thread, all the other posters agreed with me. There is no "debunking" here. Bullets go through plain kevlar armor. Not all the time, but it certainly happens...This is why military kevlar is backed by heavy ceramic plates in the first place: to stop bullets that make it through the kevlar. You don't really think that islamic fundamentalists have got a steady supply of teflon bullets for their AK-47s, do you?
Modern military rifles fire the exact sort of high velocity/low mass bullets that have excellent penetrating power against kevlar. This new armor is great, and if it lives up to it's promise, it will replace plain kevlar very quickly.
No, it's not the same thing. Kevlar is just fabric. Bullets go through it because it's individual filaments are not strong enough to resist a kinetic impact from a bullet. It is used because, as a material, it has a very high tensile strength, but even so, kevlar body armor consists of many layers, and is designed to stop the bullet eventually hopefully before penetrating to the person, but not always.
This is why it's useful in tires, not because it "resists punctures". Tell me how well your tire resists punctures next time you run over a nail! No, kevlar is in tires for the same reason they used to use steel mesh...and for the same reason we use rebar in concrete: as additional support and reinforcement.
Next time, think about it for a second before you start spouting marketing terms at me...Or at least check out the damn video of the armor test, which shows, very clearly, a bullet passing through kevlar.
No no, didn't you read the grandparent? When the bullet hits your nuts, your nuts punch back with twice the force of impact doubling the energy of the equation, which means the bullet flies off at between 4600 and 6000fps with no deflection (of course), so it's almost certain to blow a hole the size of (conservatively) a bowling ball in the unlucky terrorist who decided unwisely to try and take on your nuts.
Unfortunately the doubled energy of the equation causes your nuts to collapse into a singularity which is at least as bad as getting shot in the nuts with no armor, and maybe even worse.//Not sure what it is about people and Newtonian physics...Your post made me laugh out loud.
Slashdot Mirror
See, I don't do that, because it'll flag me as interesting. I mean, I'm still coming from the same IP; if they wanted to run a correlation, they could.
If I have need to do sneakyness, I go somewhere else and use a secure setup, but otherwise I pretend to be clueless and make sure not to search for anything I don't want found.
Don't you see this stuff all the time? I used to get dragged to Zaxby's a lot, so I've seen their problem: They're slow as hell! It costs them business. If I have 20 minutes for lunch, I go by Wendys, or some other place where the drive through line doesn't stretch twice around the building.
So what's the solution? Obviously it can be done...Other fast food places manage it without going the McDonalds "All parts of your food were assembled in Malasia" route. But they've got a decent sized business, and they're heavily vested in their corporate culture...The damn counter people will spout it at you at the 30 minute mark, when you're starting to go a little crazy, so they must stress it a lot.
Why change? Why not throw some money at it instead? Your CEO gets a nice dinner and a bj from some sales consultant, and suddenly thinks it's a great idea, despite the fact that there are bound to be significant problems. It's a done deal.
It's jsut corporate life. =P
The problem, as always, is getting it to understand things that can't be pulled from regularly compiled statistics.
t red...of...Zaxbys...
A meat manager can look at the hostage standoff going on a block away, and realize that he's going to need to call someone in, as hungry cops, reporters, and rubberneckers will certainly be filling the place up. The same thing applies to anything that breaks the day/week/month/year pattern. There is contruction on the other side of the street, so you get twice as much traffic because no one can get to your competition, or vice versa, there is construction on your side and you bring in a lunch rush crew and you get no customers.
Inventory is another interesting point, because who checks the food that comes in to make sure it's in good condition? Minimum wage fry cook? That's probably a bad idea.
Interesting experiment. I'll be interested to see if it does anything, and, since there are like three (slow as hell) Zaxbys in this town, I'll be able to watch it unfold. Man. And I promised myself I'd never go back there...Scientific...curiosity...wars...with...ha
Ever actually been to a Zaxby's? There's nothing fast about it. Don't go there if you're hungry, because you'll be ready to kill and eat the counter girl before they get your food ready.
To me this just screams corporate snafu. I can hear the boardroom conversation right now:
"Holy cow Bob, we're getting zillions of complaints about our extremely slow food process, should we tell the workers it's okay to put a little extra chicken in the fryer during lunch rush?"
"WHAT?!? Our customers depend on our promise to never ever ever start making any piece of food before they order it!"
"But...Bob, that's what everyone is complain..."
"No no, what we need is a huge computer system. And hookers."
Ha! Someone who has been there! How about a computer that'll give 'em an electric shock if it takes them more than 20 minutes to make my goddamn chicken sandwich? THAT would be worthwhile! Their little motto is "Zaxby's is not fast food" which they intend to be a statment of superior quality, because, you know, they take their time and do it right.
WTF? How right can you do a goddamn chicken salad!? It's SALAD okay? Throw some chicken on some goddamn greens and give it to me. But no, when salad becomes zalad, it takes 20 minutes longer to produce. Doesn't taste any different, unless your palate has matured in the time that's passed since you ordered it.
Zaxby's + efficiency is hilarious. Two things I never throught I'd see together in a sentence.
There is a 12 step program for that.
Yea, packets only ever arrive/depart one at a time, unless you've got multiple independant interfaces enabled. That's just tcp/ip. If this thing could change that well that would be something. Maybe some kind of quantum dynamics? Or magic packets where an outgoing packet could travel through an inbound packet. Trippy.
Wow, yea, that's a good idea! I've got a handful of secure proxys set up that could use a little boost. Reminds me of something I heard about people trying to take advantage of all the processing power in the newer graphics cards, to speed up server-side number crunching.
It's always been my understanding that the bigger bottlenecks are upstream of your NIC. I mean, my home network set up goes gigabit from my desktop to my hardware router, gigabit from my router to my gateway firewall, then gigabit (minus a few MTU) to my DSL modem, and after that the speed gets massively reduced and there's nothing I can do about it. My lan latency is practically non-existant.
Can you really reprioritize your packets coming from your desktop in such a way that you make a significant gain after it hits your ISP? Or is this just cyberpenis enlargement? Seems to me that, unless you're hosting a bunch of internet spyware or network-heavy background processes, you're not going to be making much of a gain.
Great, now yell, "You damn kids get off my lawn!" and your journey to Curmudgeonhood will be complete.
Our society has enough points of suckitude, and enough ridiculous rules. Sure, sometimes it's annoying, sure, sometimes we take an ill-aimed blast of water in the ear canal, but that's life, and most of us already take ourselves too seriously. Hell, there are people in the US that'd probably sue for getting squirted.
I don't know, I'm a pretty serious game buyer, and I've been affliced with a serious case of "meh" when looking at the new release section. There is certainly nothing out there right now that I feel like throwing money at.
The industry is always quick to yell "Piracy!" whenever something doesn't sell as well as their market research suggests it ought to be selling, but they haven't really gotten it with games yet. They think like the MPAA..."This game is like that game, and that game sold x million copies so if this one isn't selling x million copies...PIRATES!" People are much less likely to impulse buy a crappy game as opposed to a crappy movie. You've got to give your market a good product. A lot of people have mentioned Galactic Civ II. Excellent game, no copy protection, excellent sales. If piracy was that much of a scourge, you'd be seeing the worst effects of it on games like that, and yet they don't seem to be there.
Yea, the real key to self-regenerating bodies is to figure out the chemical signals we need to send/block to tell the body to regenerate itself. Little machines could never do that good a job.
Got to remember that, evolutionarily speaking, death is an advantage. If we never died, we'd never evolve. Every generation would be far more similar to past generations through back-breeding, and there would be much stronger forces maintaining the genetic status quo. Just a mess.
To get a half a gig of Rambus for that computer would have cost almost 600 dollars.
Their absurd pricing has already sent them out of the market...I actually threw away a decent computer because the cost of getting more RAM was too high a percentage of what getting a better computer would have cost. Rambus was always so expensive, that it was installed in such small quantities...All the computers I've ever used with rambus seemed crappy because they generally had half the ram of their non-rambus peers.
This is just icing on the cake 'o suck they baked for themselves with their crappy behavior.
If that can be proven, that's one thing, but I find the accusation of it to be shady. What cop in his right mind tells a reporter that they're going to be raiding someone? That makes no sense at all.
In my experience, a cop won't tell you that there's a fire at the police station if you're both standing there with marshmellows, watching it burn, and if they did tell a reporter, or any other private citizen, it should be the fault of the officer who improperly leaked the information to the public, not the fault of the public for dealing with the information afterward. Not that I don't find Judith Miller to be appalling...Passing information like this to the target of a police investigation is completely plausible when you know she is the one accused.
Holy red herring batman.
How does giving a reporter a ticket impinge on freedom of the press? Stuff getting in the way of a story is so amazingly commonplace in the news industry, you can't even imagine. Sometimes you'll get situations where reporters know the story for months or years before they can get enough people willing to confirm it on the record, for it to be printed. By your logic, it'd be lawful for them to torture people until they confirmed the story, because they have some kind of right to it.
On the other hand, by forcing them to divulge all sources of information whenever there is a suspicion of wrong doing, you're basically making it impossible to have anonymous sources. Now, I've got less problem with this for TV, because I always get the feeling that when they say "anonymous sources" they mean "some hobo I was talking to when I was snorking coke in the bathroom", but when you look at a story like the Watergate story, where the whole thing was broken by an anonymous source, and confirmed by non-anonymous sources, you have to think that story would never have been broken if the government had the right to subpoena phone records, and use illegal wiretaps to determine the identity of the source.
You need to draw a distinction between "The Press" and "Television Media".
There are plenty of newspapers and news websites out there that really try to do a good job, break a lot of ground, and do the sort of reporting that holds the government in check.
I agreee with you about TV though. God they suck. They ALL suck. I firmly believe that the goddamn Daily Show is the best news on television, and that is so very, very sad.
Not sure what laws you think don't apply to journalists...There is no license you need to be a journalist. There is no law against starting your own news paper/channel/website. They are just regular people.
The question you should be asking, is, why are regular people not accorded this protection? The answer has been (until recently) that you are unless those records are opened by a court subpoena, due to the fact that you are suspected of committing a crime.
The problem in this case is that the reporters aren't committing a crime. You see the difference? The government is forcing records out of regular citizens to use in witchhunts against whistleblowers and suspected lawbreakers. There is no part of that that is in any way cool.
Mind you, I think Judith Miller should be clubbed to death like a baby seal, but you can't stand up for freedoms only for people you like.
The problem with freedom, is that there are always going to be people who use it in ways you don't approve of.
There are two ways to deal with this:
1) Remove the freedom
2) Understand that freedom doesn't just apply to things you approve of.
Now, option 1 is real popular these days, but I myself prefer option 2, especially when it comes to rights touched on in the First Amendment.
I hear people sneering about the First all the damn time. The "Hippie" amendment right? Right to pornography? Right for those press jackals to pry into your life?
The First amendment contains nearly every single right essential to democracy. Assembly, Speech, Press, Redress of Greviances, and Freedom of Religion/Prohibition of State sponsored religion. This fricking government has made inroads against every single part of this amendment, and I have no doubt they'd love to see it weakened.
So don't let your disdain for Fox news blind you on this one. Whenever the government starts imposing penalties against people for publishing true statements, its everybodys problem.
The only reason a NYT reporter gets more consideration than some random blogger, is because the NYT reporter has a team of specialist lawyers funded by a large news organization behind them.
It's the same as any other setup where you've got a regular citizen compared to a regular citizen with financially unlimited legal backing. If you've got a problem with that, blame the legal system that is swayed by wealth.
If you really think that, what methods do you use to get information about the world?
The press can suck, no doubt, but they're the best check on government we have in this country. Every law that hinders their ability to do their jobs, is a law that favors closed, tyrannical, government.
The mongols used to wear silk under their armor, because silk is resistant to puncture in just this way...Doesn't sound useful until you remember that barbed arrows were the fashion back then, so if you were wearing the silk the arrow would still penetrate, but you'd be able to pull it out with no additional damage because it would be stuck in the silk, not in your skin.
Ummm...If you're talking about a poster in this thread, all the other posters agreed with me. There is no "debunking" here. Bullets go through plain kevlar armor. Not all the time, but it certainly happens...This is why military kevlar is backed by heavy ceramic plates in the first place: to stop bullets that make it through the kevlar. You don't really think that islamic fundamentalists have got a steady supply of teflon bullets for their AK-47s, do you?
Modern military rifles fire the exact sort of high velocity/low mass bullets that have excellent penetrating power against kevlar. This new armor is great, and if it lives up to it's promise, it will replace plain kevlar very quickly.
No, it's not the same thing. Kevlar is just fabric. Bullets go through it because it's individual filaments are not strong enough to resist a kinetic impact from a bullet. It is used because, as a material, it has a very high tensile strength, but even so, kevlar body armor consists of many layers, and is designed to stop the bullet eventually hopefully before penetrating to the person, but not always.
This is why it's useful in tires, not because it "resists punctures". Tell me how well your tire resists punctures next time you run over a nail! No, kevlar is in tires for the same reason they used to use steel mesh...and for the same reason we use rebar in concrete: as additional support and reinforcement.
Next time, think about it for a second before you start spouting marketing terms at me...Or at least check out the damn video of the armor test, which shows, very clearly, a bullet passing through kevlar.
No no, didn't you read the grandparent? When the bullet hits your nuts, your nuts punch back with twice the force of impact doubling the energy of the equation, which means the bullet flies off at between 4600 and 6000fps with no deflection (of course), so it's almost certain to blow a hole the size of (conservatively) a bowling ball in the unlucky terrorist who decided unwisely to try and take on your nuts.
//Not sure what it is about people and Newtonian physics...Your post made me laugh out loud.
Unfortunately the doubled energy of the equation causes your nuts to collapse into a singularity which is at least as bad as getting shot in the nuts with no armor, and maybe even worse.