Yawn. You take a situation where people on both sides broke the law and you use it as an example against government services? Try again.
These things are run by politicians, not business people. And it's not their money.
Yeah, Dennis Kozlowski, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Andy Fastow, the Adelphia guys, the bond traders in NYC, the NYSE, Halliburton.. they all proved that businesspeople always do best, even when it's not their money, right?
As for java on PC, I can't even get Yahoo games to work on my nice new Dell at work. I've narrowed it down to two possibilities: 1) Windows sucks or 2)Bill Gates sucks. It requires further study.
A major contributing factor to the growth of blogs in political discourse has been liberal hegemony over the traditional press.
Of course, this theory conveniently ignores the fact that many large political blogs are liberal, and that a liberal candidate (Dr. Dean) was at the forefront of the whole 'blogging' movement. It also ignores the 90s. You know, that whole thing where the press dutifully followed GOP with the idea that Clinton's transgressions were a big deal? Oh, right, the nation didn't give a shit and still gave Clinton huge approval numbers, while the Senate acquitted him.
To paraphrase Condi Rice, "The New York Times and Washington posts are still outposts of yellow journalism", however. I guess you mean them when you say 'real journalists'.
Suffice to say, we have vastly different opinions of Dr. Rice and the validity of her opinions. When she said to Sen. Boxer (paraphrase), "Do not impugne my integrity," I said in response "What integrity?"
I recall Wikipedia addressing the ten commandments and claiming that "Thou shall not kill" would be more accurately translated as "Thou shall not murder".
IMO, this "explanation" was created by apologists to justify starting wars, the death penalty, etc. Of course, it is also conveniently used to justify anti-abortion positions.
If it really was meant to be "Thou shalt not murder" you'd think it would have been corrected at least by the KJV..
However, before all this, there had to be ONE thing to be "first". Occam's razor requires that that one infinitely improbable thing that was "first" be the thing most able to account for everything else. And I am convinced that the best account for this is a single, personal God.
Occam's razor doesn't "require" anything. It's not a law, or theory, or anything. It's just a guideline that states in the absence of any other data, the most simple explanation is likely the correct one. From the wiki article: "It is important to note that [Occam's] is a heuristic argument that does not necessarily give correct answers; it is a loose guide to choosing the scientific hypothesis which (currently) contains the least number of unproven assumptions. Often, several hypotheses are equally "simple" and Occam's Razor does not express any preference in such cases."
Hire a real architecht with serious artistic chops to oversee the design and implementation of cell towers, and you spend a lot less money fighting hostile communities. Not hard to figure out.
Except that architects aren't engineers. You'll end up with a nice looking pole that does nothing and costs 10x as much. It's more cost-effective to spend that money fighting.
Someone spends years writing some code which X company
Except that should read "Someone spends years writing code and releases it under a licence which allows anybody to modify and distribute said code, given that any modifications are returned to the original author..."
Also, according to Weird Al's Behind the Music, IIRC, Weird Al paid Coolio royalties, even though he did not have to. As expected, Coolio calmed down after this development.
I would argue that your father came to that conclusion prematurely. Either that or your post omits crucial details.
Why would one refuse to ride in a plane that uses vacuum tubes and wood? Planes have been built with wood for a very long time, so I believe it can be said that wood, while not the best material, has certainly proven that it is worthy of use in aircraft. As for vacuum tubes, the same reasoning applies. Vacuum tubes were good enough in the 50s, but using them now (or 20 years ago) means that they are magically unsafe?
The firewall also serves as a wireless access point/router/NAT. In fact, those are its main functions. The firewall functionality is merely an added bonus, and with NAT is really just icing on the cake.
Also, here's what I said: "I am not willing to pay for such a system." Where 'such a system' was a system of licensing computers and/or operators. However, I'm sure you knew this, so fuck off already.
Oops! Someone hasn't noticed the number of trains and ships running Windows. No danger of a virus killing anyone there, then.
Red herring. Give me one example of a fully operational system (read: not that 7 year-old Navy test that everyone parrots) that has had a problem. In any case, Windows is a desktop OS and should not be used in these situations to begin with.
Perhaps he thinks firewalls were a gift from unknown stellar travellers and spam filters require no effort to create and update.
Well, my firewall is pretty much a gift from aliens. It's a little box i bought at the store and stuck inbetween my computer and cable modem. Wow, lots of work there!
Spam filters? Well I get my email for free from providers like Yahoo and Google.. pretty much spam-free. If they're spending money implementing spam filters, they aren't passing the cost on to me.
Perhaps someone is a troll.
Yeah, I don't subscribe to the idea that computers and operators should be licenced.. I must be a troll.
Let me introduce you to New Jersey. We have the same shit, so I knew this counter-argument would arise.
State vehicle emission tests are done as a result of the Clean Air Act which requires the States to meet what are known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The reason some states don't have emission tests is because their air quality does not yet exceed the NAAQS.
In any case, a health argument can still be made to justify pollution reduction. While one car out of emission spec will not kill anyone, millions of cars out of spec will have a detrimental public health effect, mainly the increase of ground-level ozone, which affects asthmatics and others with respiratory problems during the summer.
You should have just stopped there. Analogies are fucking stupid. Car analogies even moreso. Just stop it.
The reason why your analogy doesn't hold? Computers with viruses can't kill people. Cars with bad brakes can.
someone should be doing checkups and flagging the offenders.
If you want to pay for it, go right ahead. I don't experience any significant negative effects from zombie machines, so I am not willing to pay for such a system.
Unless GS cleaned up its act, it's simply no match for Acrobat tools when you're seriously working with PDFs.
We have GS on all machines here, and Acrobat on three. I never use GS. It crashes, can't handle multiple page sizes (iirc), has an absolutely horrible interface (distilling ps is a nightmare for me, let alone non power-users).. in short, paying for Acrobat is worth it.
When the cable companies say so. It's their network. I imagine they'll start the push towards all digital (and of course, higher prices) soon. They're already doing it for most things. i.e., to watch any premium channels you now need to get digital on Cablevision systems. Previously, you didn't even need a cable box to get HBO.
Notes to traffic engineers (I bet there's a couple of slashdot):
-Left lanes are PASSING LANES. They are NOT on/off ramps. That's what the right lane is for. If there isn't enough room to fit the ramp on the right, maybe a ramp isn't needed there.
-Merging traffic needs time to actually merge. Two or three car lengths is NOT enough space to effectively merge into.
IANATE, but I work with them, and all I can say in response is: DUH.
You think that engineers don't know these things? There's a few problems. One is that, at least around here, many of the highways were built 50+ years ago. I should say, they were shoehorned in 50 years ago. There have been 50 years of development since, which makes most road changes a gargatuan task, if not impossible. Merge lanes of 2-3 car lengths were fine because there wasn't as much traffic and they weren't going as fast. Also, it was a choice between 2-3 car lengths, or not being able to enter the highway at that point. If you look at any new construction, you won't see merge lanes like this.
The idea "Maybe a ramp isn't needed there" is just silly. For instance, to get from I-287 South to US-22 East, you need to take a left exit. Why? Because I287, US202/206 and US22 all come together at the same point. Oh, there's also a river there, too. There just isn't the room to put the ramps in perfect places, so they comprimised. I think it's better than having no exit at all.
I'm not sure what the real answer is, unless we can get realtime updates to speed limit signs (or less foolish humans).
One of the things that the NJ Turnpike designers touted as revolutionary was exactly this. In fact, they are still used to this day, although some of the signs do not function properly anymore. The Turnpike also still uses old neon tube signs that tell you if there are construction/traffic/weather delays up ahead.
In any case, the signs on the turnpike are adjustable from the Turnpike Authority offices. I believe each sign is individually adjustable. They can be set to anything from 0-99, although for obvious reasons they only use multiples of 5. The people in charge will change the speed limit from 65 (in most places) to lower numbers for several reasons: Construction (usually 55, but can be 45 or 35 if lanes shift), Traffic (usually 45), Weather (iirc has been down to 15, depending on conditions).
One thing I've noticed with the signs: they are ignored. Why? Because speed limits are a joke in NJ, like most places. People will drive as fast as they think is safe. Of course, we all have varying definitions of safe.
Now I drive - it takes 15 minutes to get there, 15 minutes back - and costs about $1.00.
How did you calculate this cost? There are many more 'hidden' costs with driving than there are with mass transit. You're going to pay taxes for mass transit in either case, unless transit costs are derived mainly from gas taxes (this is supposed to be the case in NJ, but we don't collect enough gas tax to cover both road and rail).
With a car, you have the cost of the car, insurance, licence, registration, maintenance, gas, tolls, and parking. Not to mention any tickets you may receive. Since some of these costs are fixed, the more you use the car, the less you pay per mile. Of course, this encourages more auto use.
Yeah, with a horribly simplified view of how traffic flow actually works, "enhanced pathfinding" would do wonders.
However, the rest of us live in reality. The reality is that "the only time you're ever committed to a path on the road is between exits" is a joke. Not all exits are created equal. There's realistically only one way from my home to work. If there's a jam on the interstate (287), I'm in it. Sure, there are other ways home.. I can limp along US 202/206 and some other back roads.. but for almost all incidents, this will be slower than simply sitting in the traffic. Oh, and let's not forget that once there is traffic on the main road, people trying to use alternate routes will immediately saturate the local roads.
Without viable alternate routes (i.e., alternate routes that are comparable in speed and aren't saturated), all the traffic data in the world can't help you.
The big question: How much are people willing to spend to avoid sitting in traffic?
IMO, the big question is: Can this system do anything?
They put a bunch of the electronic signs on the roads here in NJ. However, it doesn't help when the sign says "Accident at Exit XYZ" on some roads. Why? Because that road is the only realistic way to get from A to B. When there aren't redundant options, or the redundant options are already saturated, having the info isn't worth a damn. You're still going to sit in traffic.
It can be construed as a violation of Resnet and the University's Acceptable Use Policy: "Users will not attempt to circumvent the ResNet firewall or any other established network services" [AUP, ResNet]. Proxying through a third party such as Marketscore does just that.
Uh, what? How exactly does using a proxy outside the university network circumvent the firewall? Do they teach some sort of alternative computer networking at OSU?
The number of monitors and/or desktops has nothing to do with multitasking knowledge or ability. They do aid in organization of multiple applications and windows, but are not at all required.
Slashdot Mirror
Yawn. You take a situation where people on both sides broke the law and you use it as an example against government services? Try again.
These things are run by politicians, not business people. And it's not their money.
Yeah, Dennis Kozlowski, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Andy Fastow, the Adelphia guys, the bond traders in NYC, the NYSE, Halliburton.. they all proved that businesspeople always do best, even when it's not their money, right?
As for java on PC, I can't even get Yahoo games to work on my nice new Dell at work. I've narrowed it down to two possibilities: 1) Windows sucks or 2)Bill Gates sucks. It requires further study.
Here.. I'll play consultant for free..
3) You suck.
People didn't really resent on Compuserve, The Source, Prodigy, GEnie and AOL that they paid to participate in the communities they were building.
But that's because there was more to the service than the forums.
A major contributing factor to the growth of blogs in political discourse has been liberal hegemony over the traditional press.
Of course, this theory conveniently ignores the fact that many large political blogs are liberal, and that a liberal candidate (Dr. Dean) was at the forefront of the whole 'blogging' movement. It also ignores the 90s. You know, that whole thing where the press dutifully followed GOP with the idea that Clinton's transgressions were a big deal? Oh, right, the nation didn't give a shit and still gave Clinton huge approval numbers, while the Senate acquitted him.
To paraphrase Condi Rice, "The New York Times and Washington posts are still outposts of yellow journalism", however. I guess you mean them when you say 'real journalists'.
Suffice to say, we have vastly different opinions of Dr. Rice and the validity of her opinions. When she said to Sen. Boxer (paraphrase), "Do not impugne my integrity," I said in response "What integrity?"
I recall Wikipedia addressing the ten commandments and claiming that "Thou shall not kill" would be more accurately translated as "Thou shall not murder".
IMO, this "explanation" was created by apologists to justify starting wars, the death penalty, etc. Of course, it is also conveniently used to justify anti-abortion positions.
If it really was meant to be "Thou shalt not murder" you'd think it would have been corrected at least by the KJV..
However, before all this, there had to be ONE thing to be "first". Occam's razor requires that that one infinitely improbable thing that was "first" be the thing most able to account for everything else. And I am convinced that the best account for this is a single, personal God.
Occam's razor doesn't "require" anything. It's not a law, or theory, or anything. It's just a guideline that states in the absence of any other data, the most simple explanation is likely the correct one. From the wiki article: "It is important to note that [Occam's] is a heuristic argument that does not necessarily give correct answers; it is a loose guide to choosing the scientific hypothesis which (currently) contains the least number of unproven assumptions. Often, several hypotheses are equally "simple" and Occam's Razor does not express any preference in such cases."
Hire a real architecht with serious artistic chops to oversee the design and implementation of cell towers, and you spend a lot less money fighting hostile communities. Not hard to figure out.
Except that architects aren't engineers. You'll end up with a nice looking pole that does nothing and costs 10x as much. It's more cost-effective to spend that money fighting.
Someone spends years writing some code which X company
Except that should read "Someone spends years writing code and releases it under a licence which allows anybody to modify and distribute said code, given that any modifications are returned to the original author..."
Also, according to Weird Al's Behind the Music, IIRC, Weird Al paid Coolio royalties, even though he did not have to. As expected, Coolio calmed down after this development.
I would argue that your father came to that conclusion prematurely. Either that or your post omits crucial details.
Why would one refuse to ride in a plane that uses vacuum tubes and wood? Planes have been built with wood for a very long time, so I believe it can be said that wood, while not the best material, has certainly proven that it is worthy of use in aircraft. As for vacuum tubes, the same reasoning applies. Vacuum tubes were good enough in the 50s, but using them now (or 20 years ago) means that they are magically unsafe?
All taxing the wealthy does is drive economic activity out of the US.
Tell that to Bill Clinton.
yet I can't afford to buy Nike/Adidas shoes for my kid like people on wellfare can?"
Red herring. You're the one that's accepted a shitty job and/or have expensed yourself to death.
If you honestly think people are better off on welfare, why don't you quit everything and sign up?
The firewall also serves as a wireless access point/router/NAT. In fact, those are its main functions. The firewall functionality is merely an added bonus, and with NAT is really just icing on the cake.
Also, here's what I said: "I am not willing to pay for such a system." Where 'such a system' was a system of licensing computers and/or operators. However, I'm sure you knew this, so fuck off already.
Oops! Someone hasn't noticed the number of trains and ships running Windows. No danger of a virus killing anyone there, then.
Red herring. Give me one example of a fully operational system (read: not that 7 year-old Navy test that everyone parrots) that has had a problem. In any case, Windows is a desktop OS and should not be used in these situations to begin with.
Perhaps he thinks firewalls were a gift from unknown stellar travellers and spam filters require no effort to create and update.
Well, my firewall is pretty much a gift from aliens. It's a little box i bought at the store and stuck inbetween my computer and cable modem. Wow, lots of work there!
Spam filters? Well I get my email for free from providers like Yahoo and Google.. pretty much spam-free. If they're spending money implementing spam filters, they aren't passing the cost on to me.
Perhaps someone is a troll.
Yeah, I don't subscribe to the idea that computers and operators should be licenced.. I must be a troll.
Let me introduce you to New Jersey. We have the same shit, so I knew this counter-argument would arise.
State vehicle emission tests are done as a result of the Clean Air Act which requires the States to meet what are known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The reason some states don't have emission tests is because their air quality does not yet exceed the NAAQS.
In any case, a health argument can still be made to justify pollution reduction. While one car out of emission spec will not kill anyone, millions of cars out of spec will have a detrimental public health effect, mainly the increase of ground-level ozone, which affects asthmatics and others with respiratory problems during the summer.
To make an analogy,
You should have just stopped there. Analogies are fucking stupid. Car analogies even moreso. Just stop it.
The reason why your analogy doesn't hold? Computers with viruses can't kill people. Cars with bad brakes can.
someone should be doing checkups and flagging the offenders.
If you want to pay for it, go right ahead. I don't experience any significant negative effects from zombie machines, so I am not willing to pay for such a system.
Unless GS cleaned up its act, it's simply no match for Acrobat tools when you're seriously working with PDFs.
We have GS on all machines here, and Acrobat on three. I never use GS. It crashes, can't handle multiple page sizes (iirc), has an absolutely horrible interface (distilling ps is a nightmare for me, let alone non power-users).. in short, paying for Acrobat is worth it.
When does analogue cable go the way-side?
When the cable companies say so. It's their network. I imagine they'll start the push towards all digital (and of course, higher prices) soon. They're already doing it for most things. i.e., to watch any premium channels you now need to get digital on Cablevision systems. Previously, you didn't even need a cable box to get HBO.
Notes to traffic engineers (I bet there's a couple of slashdot): -Left lanes are PASSING LANES. They are NOT on/off ramps. That's what the right lane is for. If there isn't enough room to fit the ramp on the right, maybe a ramp isn't needed there. -Merging traffic needs time to actually merge. Two or three car lengths is NOT enough space to effectively merge into.
IANATE, but I work with them, and all I can say in response is: DUH.
You think that engineers don't know these things? There's a few problems. One is that, at least around here, many of the highways were built 50+ years ago. I should say, they were shoehorned in 50 years ago. There have been 50 years of development since, which makes most road changes a gargatuan task, if not impossible. Merge lanes of 2-3 car lengths were fine because there wasn't as much traffic and they weren't going as fast. Also, it was a choice between 2-3 car lengths, or not being able to enter the highway at that point. If you look at any new construction, you won't see merge lanes like this.
The idea "Maybe a ramp isn't needed there" is just silly. For instance, to get from I-287 South to US-22 East, you need to take a left exit. Why? Because I287, US202/206 and US22 all come together at the same point. Oh, there's also a river there, too. There just isn't the room to put the ramps in perfect places, so they comprimised. I think it's better than having no exit at all.
I'm not sure what the real answer is, unless we can get realtime updates to speed limit signs (or less foolish humans).
One of the things that the NJ Turnpike designers touted as revolutionary was exactly this. In fact, they are still used to this day, although some of the signs do not function properly anymore. The Turnpike also still uses old neon tube signs that tell you if there are construction/traffic/weather delays up ahead.
In any case, the signs on the turnpike are adjustable from the Turnpike Authority offices. I believe each sign is individually adjustable. They can be set to anything from 0-99, although for obvious reasons they only use multiples of 5. The people in charge will change the speed limit from 65 (in most places) to lower numbers for several reasons: Construction (usually 55, but can be 45 or 35 if lanes shift), Traffic (usually 45), Weather (iirc has been down to 15, depending on conditions).
One thing I've noticed with the signs: they are ignored. Why? Because speed limits are a joke in NJ, like most places. People will drive as fast as they think is safe. Of course, we all have varying definitions of safe.
Now I drive - it takes 15 minutes to get there, 15 minutes back - and costs about $1.00.
How did you calculate this cost? There are many more 'hidden' costs with driving than there are with mass transit. You're going to pay taxes for mass transit in either case, unless transit costs are derived mainly from gas taxes (this is supposed to be the case in NJ, but we don't collect enough gas tax to cover both road and rail).
With a car, you have the cost of the car, insurance, licence, registration, maintenance, gas, tolls, and parking. Not to mention any tickets you may receive. Since some of these costs are fixed, the more you use the car, the less you pay per mile. Of course, this encourages more auto use.
Yeah, with a horribly simplified view of how traffic flow actually works, "enhanced pathfinding" would do wonders.
However, the rest of us live in reality. The reality is that "the only time you're ever committed to a path on the road is between exits" is a joke. Not all exits are created equal. There's realistically only one way from my home to work. If there's a jam on the interstate (287), I'm in it. Sure, there are other ways home.. I can limp along US 202/206 and some other back roads.. but for almost all incidents, this will be slower than simply sitting in the traffic. Oh, and let's not forget that once there is traffic on the main road, people trying to use alternate routes will immediately saturate the local roads.
Without viable alternate routes (i.e., alternate routes that are comparable in speed and aren't saturated), all the traffic data in the world can't help you.
The big question: How much are people willing to spend to avoid sitting in traffic?
IMO, the big question is: Can this system do anything?
They put a bunch of the electronic signs on the roads here in NJ. However, it doesn't help when the sign says "Accident at Exit XYZ" on some roads. Why? Because that road is the only realistic way to get from A to B. When there aren't redundant options, or the redundant options are already saturated, having the info isn't worth a damn. You're still going to sit in traffic.
It can be construed as a violation of Resnet and the University's Acceptable Use Policy: "Users will not attempt to circumvent the ResNet firewall or any other established network services" [AUP, ResNet]. Proxying through a third party such as Marketscore does just that.
Uh, what? How exactly does using a proxy outside the university network circumvent the firewall? Do they teach some sort of alternative computer networking at OSU?
Maybe you missed this part:
"I do believe you are talking out of your ass."
The number of monitors and/or desktops has nothing to do with multitasking knowledge or ability. They do aid in organization of multiple applications and windows, but are not at all required.