Yes, but are you *really* awake that whole time? I somehow doubt it. Not saying that it is impossible, but just unlikely.
It is more common to have frequently interrupted sleep, and never acheive the deeper stages of sleep that are more useful for human bodies and minds.
All that said, you may be one of the.001% of the population that really can't sleep very well. In which case you should try the things I suggested--less caffiene, more exercise, and no food for about 1 hour before bed.
Unlikely that you are correct. The sleep experts that I know say this: if you are a good sleeper, then you will correctly estimate the time it takes you to go to sleep.
However, most of us who are poor sleepers seriously overestimate the length of time it takes to really fall asleep--claims of >20 minutes are rarely factual, and people claiming them are likely to be asleep in 5-10 minutes when they are in a sleep lab (to see why they don't sleep well). I would recommend just being a little more relaxed.
BTW--you aren't drinking a lot of caffiene are you? If so, try cutting back, especially right before you go to bed. Also, if you don't get much exercise, that would help too.
Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving Strayer DL, Drews FA, Johnston WA JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED 9 (1): 23-32 MAR 2003
Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone Strayer DL, Johnston WA PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 12 (6): 462-466 NOV 2001
The effect of cell phone type on drivers subjective workload during concurrent driving and conversing Matthews R, Legg S, Charlton S ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION 35 (4): 451-457 JUL 2003
Gaze-eccentricity effects on road position and steering Readinger WO, Chatziastros A, Cunningham DW, Bulthoff HH, Cutting JE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED 8 (4): 247-258 DEC 2002
: As for the last one, you may consider this a rebuttal of your position that looking at a laptop will not impair your driving. Yes I looked at your link, and his thesis looks interesting. What else did he find? I simply don't have time to look through the entire book, but simply put, there are a lot of factors involved in driving, and as someone else mentioned, there is more to it than lane maintenance.
Allow me to ask something--do you know anything about Clemson's graduate applied psychology program--especially as compared to some others? It is quite good. Clemson is an engineering school, true, but in some ways that helps in doing psychology.
yes, but like most human traits, IQ seems to be fitted to a normal curve, which means that mean, median, and mode are all the same (in this case 100).
There are other issues at hand, however, and IQ is probably not the best indicator of driving ability. Spatial reasoning would be better, and it is not as heavily tied to IQ as one might think.
As a bit of information, like I posted previously, the parent to your post is correct. His research for the USAF may or may not have been real (who can tell?), but his information is accurate. Try looking it up in a respectable psych journal (try journal of applied psychology, or something similar), and see what you find.
Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, while there are others who very obviously know what they are saying. I think we are all wondering where you get your information.
Remember--anecdotal evidence is worthless compared to statistics, even though it is much more fun.
I have to say that I don't believe that you know much about the mental processes that are actually involved in driving. Have you ever studied it? Here's the first clue: if it was really so easy, why do people who are intoxicated have such a hard time with it?
Also, when you say "a rather simple mental process", what, exactly, are you comparing it to?
Let me put this another way: if driving is so simple, why can't robots do it as well as humans? Sure, racing games exist, and computers do well, but the data is very different.
Driving is quite complicated, and it is getting more so every time you add a gadget to your car. As a note, reading a book while you are driving is EXTREMELY stupid, but reading a computer screen is equally so.
So, while no offense to you "diablobynight" is meant, I respectfully disagree with everything you have said in this post, except that I too see lots of people reading in their cars. It should be banned too.
As a note, one of my professors has extensively studied the use of cell phones in cars (he has a driving simulator here at clemson), and guess what? It is a bad idea--a very bad idea. Now, I would guess that looking at a laptop (for mapquest or what have you) is more complicated than that.
I think it comes from the assumption that computers are used for games, and games are fantasy. Being a geek I don't buy it either, but that's no big deal.
To be honest, the difference is that Tolkien's work is what I term GOOD fantasy, and what David Eddings so nicely calls high fantasy. There is a HUGE difference between this and something like PERN, or even some of the stranger fantasy novels I've read (Simon R Green comes to mind). Personally I prefer the more sober style, but with some humor. If you read Andre Norton and compare her work with, say Tad Williams (who IMHO is closer to JRRT than most), you will see a glaring difference. Williams is far better.
I found this myself a while back, and love it. The great thing is that it's also GPL'd and runs great under linux (if you can get all the deps sorted out using RPM's). As a note, it is also in portage for gentoo, so you can just emerge it.
Yes, the game rocks, although I have had some problems with stability under windows.
Yeah I agree that wireless is a poor choice for end distribution, which is one of the reasons I didn't go into the business. Personally I see a great future for apartment builders who want to incorporate internet access into the infrastructure, and have that as a feature of the apartment (FREE! Internet access when you rent from Bob's Apartments! Limited space available! Hurry! Act Now! If you wait, you'll miss this offer!) and so on.
I would love to see high speed wireless connects to the apartments, followed by hard gigabit wiring withing the complex. Of course, security would be an issue (as in LOTS of wiring--can't let people on the network see the computers near them, or you would have serious problems with hackers).
So, while I would love to build this and operate it (and get the money off it), the start up costs are tremendous. The upshot is that if you could convince an existing complex to allow you to wire the apartments, and offered 5Mbs connections to the residents for, say $40 a month, you would quickly fill the apartments with geeks and nerds of the most dire sorts. In a complex with 300 people (assuming 100% fill) that means you make $12,000 a month for one complex. Assuming typical rollout costs, you won't make your money back for several months (which isn't bad--some companies don't expect black for several years). Operating costs would further slow this down. Realistically, you could expect 18-24 months before profit is realized (and that is being optimistic, which is a big no-no in startups).
If anyone knows more about this, I'm still curious. Unfortunately, I am currently in grad school studying industrial psychology (see siop.org for a description), and have quite a bit of time left.
It's amusing, really. I've heard these same arguments numerous times.
The neat part about having a living prophet is that it is possible to recieve guidance that is relevant to the current times. There are times when things are no longer important, and then it is possible for a prophet to recieve divine guidance (this is providing you accept the idea that there is a prophet).
As for Dr. Quinn's story--there are numerous others, and I have read them. I am still firm in my belief, and will remain so.
Allow me to make one other thing clear--no living prophet in my lifetime has condoned polygamy--yours either (unless you are well over 100 years old).
Oh that's great. Quote Mormon Doctrine. Sorry bud, but that is not an authoritative work.
As far as a woman being sealed to more than one man, you are technically correct, but actually wrong. Young widows are free to remarry, and though they cannot be "sealed", it is believed that such arrangements will be straightened out after this life.
As for myself, I find this doubly amusing, because you are overlooking the fact that it is possible for a sealing to be cancelled (most common equivalent would be annullment in Catholic doctrine). I know this because my wife was previously sealed to a loser husband. She had this sealing cancelled, and we are now sealed. I suppose that under the right conditions, a young widow could have her sealing to her first husband cancelled if she wanted (though I am not certain).
I have known many men who have married young widows, without being sealed. They do so under the belief that it will all be straightened out later.
As for "Mormon Doctrine", again, it is not considered authoritative, though some inside the church make the mistake of using it that way--and it annoys me to no end. Bruce R. McKonkie (sp?) was a very intelligent man, but he was not commissioned by the church to write that book, nor has it ever been officially sanctioned. Compare that to, say Jesus the Christ, by James E. Talmage, and you will find quite a difference in how it is handled. Church leaders rarely, if ever, quote McKonkie on doctrine. Talmage's work, however, is frequently quoted (and is was commissioned by the Church president at the time).
I hate to tell you, but I've heard all the arguments against the church (numerous times). Yes, polygamy is a difficult spot, since as you say a man may be sealed to multiple wives, but not at the same time. A man may not, at this time, be sealed to more than one living woman. Period. If she is dead, then what do you care?
If you aren't a believer, then our doctrine of sealing and eternal families shouldn't bother you, since you don't believe that anyone is married to anyone after death. The LDS church is the ONLY church that teaches the doctrine of continued marriage after death. Personally, I find the idea to be very wonderful. I love my wife, and to be able to spend eternity with her would be a blessing beyond measure.
As a side note, don't post AC, even on these topics. It really hampers responsibility. I try to avoid it at all costs, even when it means saying something that might hurt me, or cause me to be labeled as a troll.
Actually no. ANYONE, as I said earlier, who practices polygamy is out of the church. They may identify themselves as believing some of the same tenets, but they are so far off on some things that it is laughable for anyone to call them Mormons.
The truth of the matter is this: polygamy has been practiced by a wide range of religions, including many Christian faiths (one of which is extremely quick to condemn the Mormons for it would be the Baptists--a little known fact is that at the time Joseph Smith introduced polygamy to church doctrine, it was quite common among numerous other churches). Church literature on the matter is quite clear--it is NOT to be practiced.
As for those who claim that it was changed only due to the legal pressure, you are, indeed partially correct. There was, however, a number of years between the time when polygamy was made illegal, and when the church officially ended the practice. However, to say that this is inconsistent is missing some of the bigger picture, since the church clearly states that subjection to, and obedience of, national governments is part of the religion.
The church has a lot of "baggage", as one poster put it, but compared to that of other religions, it is small. The Catholic church, for example, has much more to answer for. Because while polygamy is legally banned in the US, and the concept makes people uncomfortable now (personally I think having multiple wives would drive me insane--one is enough, even though I love her dearly), certain other churches have baggage like condoned murder, witch trials, and widespread child abuse to deal with.
So while it is fun to poke at the Mormon church, remember that if you are religious, then your own church probably has its own baggage (and strange doctrines) to deal with. It is a part of religion, since humans would really like to make everyone believe exactly what they do.
Oh, and before some genius decides to make a crack about the Mormons wanting everyone to believe what they do, one of the basic tenets is that we believe everyone should be allowed to worship how, where or WHAT they may. That is not incompatible with the idea that information regarding our beliefs should be spread as widely as possible.
For those who think they know more about the subject than a Mormon, I politely suggest to you that you are wrong. We start learning about our church history (all of it) at a very early age. Many of us have served in leadership positions, and we all have a vested interest in knowing all the arguments against the church. I can probably come up with more of the common criticisms than 90% of people outside the church.
I wish you all a good night--gotta finish this paper I'm writing (Organizational predictors of workplace aggression). Yuck.
I don't know as much as I should, but since my brother is in the business, I feel I need to comment. Most of your Microwave links are fairly hardened against weather. Yeah, it cuts down range, but you would build two towers at the extreme end of the range.
The upshot of this is that you might consider towers every 40 mi, which is still respectable, but then it leaves you with the rather serious problem of how to connect this to the people on the ground. It sounds to me like a way to shoot data across a large distance, and then distribute. The sad part about this is that they are using 802.11b. The slow speeds make it less than ideal for large numbers of users.
Instead, why not use one of the more powerful antennas available from Proxim (the Tsunami does like 430 Mbps (full duplex) at 5 miles), and if you need greater range, there are antennas that can handle that (although they are slower)), or a similar company. Many of their antennas are license exempt, but still operate outside th 2.4GHz band (5.8GHz, typically). The only one that is licensed operates at 23 GHz (wow!).
At one point I was looking into starting a WISP, but decided that the rollout was a little too high initially. Instead I went back to school.
you know, it is actually amusing, despite being so far wrong that its pathetic. The LDS church hasn't allowed its members to practice polygamy for over 100 years, and currently excommunicates anyone who tries it.
yeah, but if you go the OTHER direction, there is essentially NOTHING to see. at all. West of the mountains next to SLC, there is nothing but dry barren dirt (well, okay a big salty lake, but hey).
yes, and that's nice that the solution is so well documented. The problem is that it the default settings are insecure. 90% or more of the population never change these.
I can't say I've had the same experience. I used Outlook for quite a while, until one day I tried the Mozilla Client.
Let me point out the differences: First, Mozilla allows reasonably easy backup and restore of email. It even imports Outlook's email flawlessly. To this date, I have not found a reliable method of backing up Outlook and being able to retrieve it in a usable format.
Second, there is the handling of spam and junk mail. Outlook is pretty darn worthless, even with filtering enabled, it pretty much ignores your settings, and let's everything through. Mozilla (and thunderbird), however, does not. It eats spam and reliably catches about 90% or more of the junk I get daily. And since it learns, it gets better. It's a no brainer really.
Third, I probably don't need to go into the annoying tendency Outlook has of opening mails to allow a virus to get in. That is so well documented as to make its iteration here inane. Mozilla on the other hand, is secure by defualt, and I understand that Thunderbird is better (although, since I prefer linux, it doesn't make that much difference).
Now, there are a few things that mozilla doesn't do well--first the calendar is lacking. Evolution seems to do pretty good with their calendar, but I don't care for some of the things that it does--such as making backup difficult (and when I mailed the folks that develop it, they never responded--guess I'm not l33t enough to deserve help, since I couldn't figure it out on my own). Another thing that thunderbird didn't have until recently (under linux) was the ability to click on links and have them open in a browser. Now if only they would fix the "mailto:" issue in firebird.
Don't get me wrong, evolution is a great prog, but I don't like everything about it, most of all its blatant spoof of the Outlook interface, which isn't really all that great (I have some friends in Human Factors studies that did some usability testing on Outlook--let's just say it didn't do too hot). Not that Mozilla/Thunderbird/Firebird is perfect, but it is better.
As for the X server screwing up mozilla, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Did you submit a bug report? Or is it not really that important?
I am curious--why are you getting japanese spam? I never get japanese spam. Does it taste better than american spam. Is it still made with fake meat? FWIW, I would barf too if I had to eat spam.
You wouldn't think so, but there are occasionally companies that do things half way just to save a buck, and their stupidity ends up breaking linux compatibility.
As an example, I have a friend with a Jaton video card based on the nVidia geForce 2 MX 400 chipset. Works great under windows--can't get the sorry thing to fire up under linux--not for anything. This is a problem with lesser known brands, and you can't ever be sure.
However, if the Lite-on stuff works, I'll give it a try. BTW, anybody know how Plextor DVD burners compare to, say, Pioneer's stuff?
I would actually suspect something similar to what you say, but with small office types using OO.org with paid support, and larger businesses (>~50 - 75) using Star Office. This model makes sense, because the small office, unlike the home user (who wouldn't likely pay for support), is likely to want the comfort factor that a supported product provides.
Slashdot Mirror
"So load up Slashdot while you're out in the forest."
/.--please mod this one up
Yes, this has to be THE funniest thing I've read in a while on
Yes, but are you *really* awake that whole time? I somehow doubt it. Not saying that it is impossible, but just unlikely.
.001% of the population that really can't sleep very well. In which case you should try the things I suggested--less caffiene, more exercise, and no food for about 1 hour before bed.
It is more common to have frequently interrupted sleep, and never acheive the deeper stages of sleep that are more useful for human bodies and minds.
All that said, you may be one of the
Unlikely that you are correct. The sleep experts that I know say this: if you are a good sleeper, then you will correctly estimate the time it takes you to go to sleep.
However, most of us who are poor sleepers seriously overestimate the length of time it takes to really fall asleep--claims of >20 minutes are rarely factual, and people claiming them are likely to be asleep in 5-10 minutes when they are in a sleep lab (to see why they don't sleep well). I would recommend just being a little more relaxed.
BTW--you aren't drinking a lot of caffiene are you? If so, try cutting back, especially right before you go to bed. Also, if you don't get much exercise, that would help too.
Look up the following articles:
Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving
Strayer DL, Drews FA, Johnston WA
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED
9 (1): 23-32 MAR 2003
Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone
Strayer DL, Johnston WA
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
12 (6): 462-466 NOV 2001
The effect of cell phone type on drivers subjective workload during concurrent driving and conversing
Matthews R, Legg S, Charlton S
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION
35 (4): 451-457 JUL 2003
Gaze-eccentricity effects on road position and steering
Readinger WO, Chatziastros A, Cunningham DW, Bulthoff HH, Cutting JE
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED
8 (4): 247-258 DEC 2002
: As for the last one, you may consider this a rebuttal of your position that looking at a laptop will not impair your driving. Yes I looked at your link, and his thesis looks interesting. What else did he find? I simply don't have time to look through the entire book, but simply put, there are a lot of factors involved in driving, and as someone else mentioned, there is more to it than lane maintenance.
Allow me to ask something--do you know anything about Clemson's graduate applied psychology program--especially as compared to some others? It is quite good. Clemson is an engineering school, true, but in some ways that helps in doing psychology.
yes, but like most human traits, IQ seems to be fitted to a normal curve, which means that mean, median, and mode are all the same (in this case 100).
There are other issues at hand, however, and IQ is probably not the best indicator of driving ability. Spatial reasoning would be better, and it is not as heavily tied to IQ as one might think.
try again, this time with sources.
as a point of interest, your sample size of 5, although neat for an illustration, falls apart completely with 100 or 1000 or 10,000 people.
As a bit of information, like I posted previously, the parent to your post is correct. His research for the USAF may or may not have been real (who can tell?), but his information is accurate. Try looking it up in a respectable psych journal (try journal of applied psychology, or something similar), and see what you find.
Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, while there are others who very obviously know what they are saying. I think we are all wondering where you get your information.
Remember--anecdotal evidence is worthless compared to statistics, even though it is much more fun.
WOW!
I have to say that I don't believe that you know much about the mental processes that are actually involved in driving. Have you ever studied it? Here's the first clue: if it was really so easy, why do people who are intoxicated have such a hard time with it?
Also, when you say "a rather simple mental process", what, exactly, are you comparing it to?
Let me put this another way: if driving is so simple, why can't robots do it as well as humans? Sure, racing games exist, and computers do well, but the data is very different.
Driving is quite complicated, and it is getting more so every time you add a gadget to your car. As a note, reading a book while you are driving is EXTREMELY stupid, but reading a computer screen is equally so.
So, while no offense to you "diablobynight" is meant, I respectfully disagree with everything you have said in this post, except that I too see lots of people reading in their cars. It should be banned too.
As a note, one of my professors has extensively studied the use of cell phones in cars (he has a driving simulator here at clemson), and guess what? It is a bad idea--a very bad idea. Now, I would guess that looking at a laptop (for mapquest or what have you) is more complicated than that.
I think it comes from the assumption that computers are used for games, and games are fantasy. Being a geek I don't buy it either, but that's no big deal.
To be honest, the difference is that Tolkien's work is what I term GOOD fantasy, and what David Eddings so nicely calls high fantasy. There is a HUGE difference between this and something like PERN, or even some of the stranger fantasy novels I've read (Simon R Green comes to mind). Personally I prefer the more sober style, but with some humor. If you read Andre Norton and compare her work with, say Tad Williams (who IMHO is closer to JRRT than most), you will see a glaring difference. Williams is far better.
No, because I just installed Acrobat reader recently, and I still can't see SVG in Moz.
May only in IE??
nah
You can get expiremental SVG support in Mozilla. I am not aware of any licensing issues.
here's the link
I found this myself a while back, and love it. The great thing is that it's also GPL'd and runs great under linux (if you can get all the deps sorted out using RPM's). As a note, it is also in portage for gentoo, so you can just emerge it.
Yes, the game rocks, although I have had some problems with stability under windows.
Yeah I agree that wireless is a poor choice for end distribution, which is one of the reasons I didn't go into the business. Personally I see a great future for apartment builders who want to incorporate internet access into the infrastructure, and have that as a feature of the apartment (FREE! Internet access when you rent from Bob's Apartments! Limited space available! Hurry! Act Now! If you wait, you'll miss this offer!) and so on.
I would love to see high speed wireless connects to the apartments, followed by hard gigabit wiring withing the complex. Of course, security would be an issue (as in LOTS of wiring--can't let people on the network see the computers near them, or you would have serious problems with hackers).
So, while I would love to build this and operate it (and get the money off it), the start up costs are tremendous. The upshot is that if you could convince an existing complex to allow you to wire the apartments, and offered 5Mbs connections to the residents for, say $40 a month, you would quickly fill the apartments with geeks and nerds of the most dire sorts. In a complex with 300 people (assuming 100% fill) that means you make $12,000 a month for one complex. Assuming typical rollout costs, you won't make your money back for several months (which isn't bad--some companies don't expect black for several years). Operating costs would further slow this down. Realistically, you could expect 18-24 months before profit is realized (and that is being optimistic, which is a big no-no in startups).
If anyone knows more about this, I'm still curious. Unfortunately, I am currently in grad school studying industrial psychology (see siop.org for a description), and have quite a bit of time left.
Can't remember the last time, but it does happen. It's just not something that I worry about.
It's amusing, really. I've heard these same arguments numerous times.
The neat part about having a living prophet is that it is possible to recieve guidance that is relevant to the current times. There are times when things are no longer important, and then it is possible for a prophet to recieve divine guidance (this is providing you accept the idea that there is a prophet).
As for Dr. Quinn's story--there are numerous others, and I have read them. I am still firm in my belief, and will remain so.
Allow me to make one other thing clear--no living prophet in my lifetime has condoned polygamy--yours either (unless you are well over 100 years old).
Oh that's great. Quote Mormon Doctrine. Sorry bud, but that is not an authoritative work.
As far as a woman being sealed to more than one man, you are technically correct, but actually wrong. Young widows are free to remarry, and though they cannot be "sealed", it is believed that such arrangements will be straightened out after this life.
As for myself, I find this doubly amusing, because you are overlooking the fact that it is possible for a sealing to be cancelled (most common equivalent would be annullment in Catholic doctrine). I know this because my wife was previously sealed to a loser husband. She had this sealing cancelled, and we are now sealed. I suppose that under the right conditions, a young widow could have her sealing to her first husband cancelled if she wanted (though I am not certain).
I have known many men who have married young widows, without being sealed. They do so under the belief that it will all be straightened out later.
As for "Mormon Doctrine", again, it is not considered authoritative, though some inside the church make the mistake of using it that way--and it annoys me to no end. Bruce R. McKonkie (sp?) was a very intelligent man, but he was not commissioned by the church to write that book, nor has it ever been officially sanctioned. Compare that to, say Jesus the Christ, by James E. Talmage, and you will find quite a difference in how it is handled. Church leaders rarely, if ever, quote McKonkie on doctrine. Talmage's work, however, is frequently quoted (and is was commissioned by the Church president at the time).
I hate to tell you, but I've heard all the arguments against the church (numerous times). Yes, polygamy is a difficult spot, since as you say a man may be sealed to multiple wives, but not at the same time. A man may not, at this time, be sealed to more than one living woman. Period. If she is dead, then what do you care?
If you aren't a believer, then our doctrine of sealing and eternal families shouldn't bother you, since you don't believe that anyone is married to anyone after death. The LDS church is the ONLY church that teaches the doctrine of continued marriage after death. Personally, I find the idea to be very wonderful. I love my wife, and to be able to spend eternity with her would be a blessing beyond measure.
As a side note, don't post AC, even on these topics. It really hampers responsibility. I try to avoid it at all costs, even when it means saying something that might hurt me, or cause me to be labeled as a troll.
Actually no. ANYONE, as I said earlier, who practices polygamy is out of the church. They may identify themselves as believing some of the same tenets, but they are so far off on some things that it is laughable for anyone to call them Mormons.
The truth of the matter is this: polygamy has been practiced by a wide range of religions, including many Christian faiths (one of which is extremely quick to condemn the Mormons for it would be the Baptists--a little known fact is that at the time Joseph Smith introduced polygamy to church doctrine, it was quite common among numerous other churches). Church literature on the matter is quite clear--it is NOT to be practiced.
As for those who claim that it was changed only due to the legal pressure, you are, indeed partially correct. There was, however, a number of years between the time when polygamy was made illegal, and when the church officially ended the practice. However, to say that this is inconsistent is missing some of the bigger picture, since the church clearly states that subjection to, and obedience of, national governments is part of the religion.
The church has a lot of "baggage", as one poster put it, but compared to that of other religions, it is small. The Catholic church, for example, has much more to answer for. Because while polygamy is legally banned in the US, and the concept makes people uncomfortable now (personally I think having multiple wives would drive me insane--one is enough, even though I love her dearly), certain other churches have baggage like condoned murder, witch trials, and widespread child abuse to deal with.
So while it is fun to poke at the Mormon church, remember that if you are religious, then your own church probably has its own baggage (and strange doctrines) to deal with. It is a part of religion, since humans would really like to make everyone believe exactly what they do.
Oh, and before some genius decides to make a crack about the Mormons wanting everyone to believe what they do, one of the basic tenets is that we believe everyone should be allowed to worship how, where or WHAT they may. That is not incompatible with the idea that information regarding our beliefs should be spread as widely as possible.
For those who think they know more about the subject than a Mormon, I politely suggest to you that you are wrong. We start learning about our church history (all of it) at a very early age. Many of us have served in leadership positions, and we all have a vested interest in knowing all the arguments against the church. I can probably come up with more of the common criticisms than 90% of people outside the church.
I wish you all a good night--gotta finish this paper I'm writing (Organizational predictors of workplace aggression). Yuck.
I don't know as much as I should, but since my brother is in the business, I feel I need to comment. Most of your Microwave links are fairly hardened against weather. Yeah, it cuts down range, but you would build two towers at the extreme end of the range.
The upshot of this is that you might consider towers every 40 mi, which is still respectable, but then it leaves you with the rather serious problem of how to connect this to the people on the ground. It sounds to me like a way to shoot data across a large distance, and then distribute. The sad part about this is that they are using 802.11b. The slow speeds make it less than ideal for large numbers of users.
Instead, why not use one of the more powerful antennas available from Proxim (the Tsunami does like 430 Mbps (full duplex) at 5 miles), and if you need greater range, there are antennas that can handle that (although they are slower)), or a similar company. Many of their antennas are license exempt, but still operate outside th 2.4GHz band (5.8GHz, typically). The only one that is licensed operates at 23 GHz (wow!).
At one point I was looking into starting a WISP, but decided that the rollout was a little too high initially. Instead I went back to school.
yada yada yada...
you know, it is actually amusing, despite being so far wrong that its pathetic. The LDS church hasn't allowed its members to practice polygamy for over 100 years, and currently excommunicates anyone who tries it.
but yeah, I see why its funny...
yeah, but if you go the OTHER direction, there is essentially NOTHING to see. at all. West of the mountains next to SLC, there is nothing but dry barren dirt (well, okay a big salty lake, but hey).
yes, and that's nice that the solution is so well documented. The problem is that it the default settings are insecure. 90% or more of the population never change these.
I can't say I've had the same experience. I used Outlook for quite a while, until one day I tried the Mozilla Client.
Let me point out the differences: First, Mozilla allows reasonably easy backup and restore of email. It even imports Outlook's email flawlessly. To this date, I have not found a reliable method of backing up Outlook and being able to retrieve it in a usable format.
Second, there is the handling of spam and junk mail. Outlook is pretty darn worthless, even with filtering enabled, it pretty much ignores your settings, and let's everything through. Mozilla (and thunderbird), however, does not. It eats spam and reliably catches about 90% or more of the junk I get daily. And since it learns, it gets better. It's a no brainer really.
Third, I probably don't need to go into the annoying tendency Outlook has of opening mails to allow a virus to get in. That is so well documented as to make its iteration here inane. Mozilla on the other hand, is secure by defualt, and I understand that Thunderbird is better (although, since I prefer linux, it doesn't make that much difference).
Now, there are a few things that mozilla doesn't do well--first the calendar is lacking. Evolution seems to do pretty good with their calendar, but I don't care for some of the things that it does--such as making backup difficult (and when I mailed the folks that develop it, they never responded--guess I'm not l33t enough to deserve help, since I couldn't figure it out on my own). Another thing that thunderbird didn't have until recently (under linux) was the ability to click on links and have them open in a browser. Now if only they would fix the "mailto:" issue in firebird.
Don't get me wrong, evolution is a great prog, but I don't like everything about it, most of all its blatant spoof of the Outlook interface, which isn't really all that great (I have some friends in Human Factors studies that did some usability testing on Outlook--let's just say it didn't do too hot). Not that Mozilla/Thunderbird/Firebird is perfect, but it is better.
As for the X server screwing up mozilla, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Did you submit a bug report? Or is it not really that important?
I am curious--why are you getting japanese spam? I never get japanese spam. Does it taste better than american spam. Is it still made with fake meat? FWIW, I would barf too if I had to eat spam.
Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say in the first place. SCO is screwed either way.
You wouldn't think so, but there are occasionally companies that do things half way just to save a buck, and their stupidity ends up breaking linux compatibility.
As an example, I have a friend with a Jaton video card based on the nVidia geForce 2 MX 400 chipset. Works great under windows--can't get the sorry thing to fire up under linux--not for anything. This is a problem with lesser known brands, and you can't ever be sure.
However, if the Lite-on stuff works, I'll give it a try. BTW, anybody know how Plextor DVD burners compare to, say, Pioneer's stuff?
I would actually suspect something similar to what you say, but with small office types using OO.org with paid support, and larger businesses (>~50 - 75) using Star Office. This model makes sense, because the small office, unlike the home user (who wouldn't likely pay for support), is likely to want the comfort factor that a supported product provides.
Just a thought.