You are correct. It is because he spends time going over each and every question weeks before it ever appears on the show. This is so that he may ensure correct pronunciation and also so that he may be ready with acceptable variations on answers. It is possible that before hosting the show, he was reasonably widely learned, however his knowledge has increased dramatically from the early shows, due in large part to his receiving the answers and retaining them as well as combining them with other bits of information he already possessed.
I think you replied to the wrong post. I said nothing in support of cameras. I did, in fact, say that they cost a lot of money to install and monitor and that they took police officers away from solving real crimes by sending them to prevent such things as bar fights. Kindly direct your ad hominem attacks at someone else.
Thank you. I wasn't trying to state that the tolls make things more dangerous or anything, only that there are always unintended consequences for actions, especially when they affect as many disparate people as those tolls do. It's just that usually, especially where politicians are involved, one hears only the positive, expected effects*. If an unexcpected effect is positive, one will also hear about it, but likely it will be described as something expected and even designed.
*unless the action was taken by the political opponent of the speaker, in which case only the negatives will be mentioned, intended or no.
Hmm. I would think that there would indeed be fewer accidents, but perhaps the ones that do occur would be worse. I mean, getting hit at 5kph because there's a ton of traffic is better to my mind that being hit at, say, 50kph. Or 100kph. I just think there are more sides to it than the one. Almost anything can be turned until it appears to display only the results you want. I would remind you that there are always other results, unintended or even negative, that you must also deal with. It is a very rare situation indeed which produces only benefits. However, if you listen to politicians, there are hardly any situations which produce anything OTHER than benefits. Just something to think about.
but it did break the fight up quickly causing minimum damage to both parties and involving no hospitals or courts, which is much more convenient for society.
And what, exactly, would be the detriment to society if you had simply beat the agressor up and just gone home? Really, it cost more to watch those cameras, dispatch an officer, and take him away from solving (notice I said solving and not stopping) real crime elsewhere. Yes, people get severely hurt in bar fights...but what, really, is the cost to society? One more person of the sort who starts bar fights off the streets...instead, neither of you was seriously hurt, no actual legal problems resulted (even though the police were paid to dispatch to your location) and there is no real deterrent to either of you exhibiting this behaviour once again. Had you soundly thrashed the wanker, he might have refrained from starting trouble in the future. Ah well, let's ignore most of the variables and just say it is better this way. After all, why not be comforted by the large, warm hand of government gently encircling your neck. It's to protect you, of course.
There is no way that an external hard drive is equivalent to a laptop. This thing doesn't have a keyboard or screen. What are you going to do on the plane, show it off to the other passengers? Viable alternative. mutter.
Did you mean irrespective or regardless? Irregardless would mean 'not regardless' if it was a real word, and I don't think that's what you wanted to say, based on context.
Yes, those errors are annoying too. (as are to and too, for that matter) I was merely responding to the error I saw, however, as I believe in choosing my battles. I doubt I'll have any effect (not affect) but it doesn't cost me much to whip out a slashdot post.
...somebody please tell that 8th grader the difference between "its" and "it's"
Please. This is such a serious problem, my local community college contains the same error on its terms of usage desktop background. Promulgating incorrect word usage on every PC on campus is bad enough, but no one even cares about fixing it. It's a fucking college, for fuck's sake. Please people, please, please take a little more pride in your expression. All you have to do is ask yourself, "If I replace "it's" with "it is," does the sentence still make sense?" If not, don't put the apostrophe. How much easier could it be?
Ahh. Yes, there are those who would be offended by that. Also, there are people who are offended by even stupider shit everywhere these days. Hopefully you'll catch some. Carry on, good sir. Pardon the interruption.:)
Yes. Similarly, I saw a lady flying a sign in front of a grocery store a while back. She had a cute kid, dressed in rags with a dirty face, playing in the dirt while her mother solicited donations. My heart went out to her, and I decided that while I was shopping I'd pick up some basics and donate them to her. However, when I came out of the store, she was carrying her child around to the back of the store. I lived down that road, so I figured I'd catch up with her and give her the bag of groceries I got for her. Then I saw her strap that kid into a Mercedes behind the store, take her purse out of the trunk, grab her makeup kit out of it and start applying makeup. Then she drove away. I was in my 1979 Chevy Nova at the time. I ended up giving that bag of groceries to a food bank instead. Another time, we needed another person to help us dig some ditches and put up a fence. We asked about ten of those guys with the 'will work for food signs' if they wanted to work for $8/hr instead of food (this was in the late 80s). Without exception, they turned us down. One guys even said 'Hell no! I make way more than that just sitting here.' My mother, a single mom most of my life, raised us out of abject poverty with no governmental assistance. In my house, we didn't take charity unless we couldn't possibly do for ourselves. Even though things were tough, we never took charity. We had a black and white TV, which was given to us by my grandparents. We did not have cable, an AC, any sort of computer (ok, so it was the mid-70s, early 80s, that wasn't unusual). The point is that if you are sufficiently motivated, you will work three jobs and have no luxuries to survive. You will take the job cleaning restrooms or flipping burgers or whatever else it takes to feed your children. If you are physically disabled, that's one thing. If you are of the opinion that you are owed a living by society or the government, you're wrong. I do not feel that I have any moral obligation to provide a living for people who simply don't care to take care of themselves. I do feel that I have a moral obligation to help where I can, and where people actually *need* the help. However, I don't feel that the Federal government has the right to forcibly extort money from me to pay for other people to own xboxes or computers or even food. TANSTAAFL and anyone who thinks there is should be removed from the gene pool. I'm not talking about being forcibly removed, but in a normal environment, they would either be forced to adapt (read 'get a job') or they would die. Again, while I believe that *i* have a responsibility to help those who truly cannot help themselves, I do not believe that money should be extracted from me under threat to help not only those who are helpless, but also those who are shiftless as well. Even if most of every dollar that the welfare program collected went to a person who truly needed it, I still would not support it being paid for by legalized theft.
Man. I long for the good old days of rexec-ing wall or xclock set to the screen resolution or stuff like that on clueless co-workers' boxes. Of course, it requires you to know more than an IP addy... Of course, for old-school windows fun, putting various bat->2->com'd files in the config.sys file was always fun. My favorite was the one that would display "Starting Windows, please wait" eternally. Of course, in those days it could take a long time to discover the ruse...
irq sharing is common, and often intentional. even when using the two devices simultaneously, it is rare that there is a problem. this applied during the 386/486 era as well. some devices had problems with it, true. however, configured properly, the vast majority did not. I did see hundreds of incorrectly configured machines, however. when I was consulting, I'd move the modem to com2 if possible. I preferred it because you could avoid even the possibility of a conflict. again, though, for the most part it was fine. most problems that people attribute to hardware are in fact improperly configured hardware/software.
What I am saying is that very few modem/mouse combinations have problems *unless* you are putting both the modem and the mouse on the exact same com port. if the mouse is on com1, and the modem is on com3, there is no problem, even though both use irq 4. this is because the base port address is different. i have personally set up hundreds of such systems, as i used to work for a computer store and that's how we built our machines. very, very seldom did we have any problems at all, unless someone set com1 and com3 to the same base port address, or just put both devices on com1. we *did* see a problem sometimes where windows would put the wrong base port address in by default occasionally, but that was very easily fixed. I am speaking of 386/486 machines running windows 3/3.1/3.11
The issue with really fast systems is really bad and bloated software is allowed.
So true. It seems like Office takes about the same amount of time (if not a little longer) to open up now as it did under win 3.1 on a 386 Why bother having a faster chip and more RAM if you're going to get progressively lazier with the coding? Sigh. The idea seems to be, "We now have more processor speed and RAM, so there's no need for optimization. After all, why would anyone want to use more than one program at a time?"
Here's my favorite site for Anti-Bloatware products and funny writeups of bloatware:
Com1/Com2 default IRQ4/3 respectivly Internal modem com3/com4 default irq4/3 Mouse not working when you go online, well who needs it anyway. AOL not working because your internal modem set to a diffrent IRQ, not their fault!
Actually, I have to take issue with your statement here. You can easily set up a mouse on com1, irq 4. then you can set up an internal modem on com3, irq 4. Then you can happily use both at the same time forever with no problems (assuming you don't introduce any) I had much more trouble trying to make com3 use a different inturrupt request back in the old days. Also, if you used a winmodem (who else just shuddered?) it would sometimes come up with things like: com 12, irq 7. Now, your printer port and your modem don't share irqs too well. However the com1/com2/com3/com4 system was designed so that 1/3 and 2/4 shared irqs. It worked just fine. Now, trying to set up com1, irq4, 3F8H and com3, irq4, 3F8H, you had trouble. (3F8H was com1's base port address, com3 was 3E8H by default)
not really. it's not just the fact that the price is less than some arbitrary number. it's that $6000 seems to morons like a lot more than $5999. This is because they are processing only the first number in the price, which is why it is *vital* to change that first number. Examples: $30.00 - no getting around it, it's thirty bucks. $29.99 - seems like ~$20 to morons, still thirty bucks though, especially after tax $5000 - five thousand - ouch! $4999 - *under* $5000 - seems like ~$4000 to morons - now you're saving a whole grand! etc. in contrast, $6001 - six thousand - $6000.99 - still six thousand, even to morons. hope this helps you.
Yes. I imagine it wouldn't be suspicious at all when inventory time came 'round. I find it far more likely that they were using the time-honored method of dropping the dollar (or cent, as is even more likely) to put their product 'under' a certain price point. This has been mentioned before ITT but it's worth noting again. Also, most people spending more than $20 or so want receipts, which you must wait for. It is very doubtful that many people would simply throw down six grr and then just walk away with no receipt. Perhaps your theory would work in places where most things were inexpensive, but then the smaller the transaction, the less likely embezzling is to be detected. Also, you theory is flawed in another area. An employee familiar with the pricing scheme can easily remember common totals, and even give change properly, and not actually ring it up. Obviously, if you can see the cash register screen and you are paying attention, this is not likely, but then do you *always* look at your total? I assert that many people only look when the total they're given verbally sounds wrong, or when the screen is prominently displayed. Sure, some people pore over every item with a microscope; most of us don't bother.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. It is because he spends time going over each and every question weeks before it ever appears on the show. This is so that he may ensure correct pronunciation and also so that he may be ready with acceptable variations on answers. It is possible that before hosting the show, he was reasonably widely learned, however his knowledge has increased dramatically from the early shows, due in large part to his receiving the answers and retaining them as well as combining them with other bits of information he already possessed.
have you every studied proofreading at any level whatsoever?
I think you replied to the wrong post. I said nothing in support of cameras. I did, in fact, say that they cost a lot of money to install and monitor and that they took police officers away from solving real crimes by sending them to prevent such things as bar fights. Kindly direct your ad hominem attacks at someone else.
Thank you. I wasn't trying to state that the tolls make things more dangerous or anything, only that there are always unintended consequences for actions, especially when they affect as many disparate people as those tolls do. It's just that usually, especially where politicians are involved, one hears only the positive, expected effects*. If an unexcpected effect is positive, one will also hear about it, but likely it will be described as something expected and even designed.
*unless the action was taken by the political opponent of the speaker, in which case only the negatives will be mentioned, intended or no.
Fewer cars = less pollution and fewer accidents.
Hmm. I would think that there would indeed be fewer accidents, but perhaps the ones that do occur would be worse. I mean, getting hit at 5kph because there's a ton of traffic is better to my mind that being hit at, say, 50kph. Or 100kph. I just think there are more sides to it than the one. Almost anything can be turned until it appears to display only the results you want. I would remind you that there are always other results, unintended or even negative, that you must also deal with. It is a very rare situation indeed which produces only benefits. However, if you listen to politicians, there are hardly any situations which produce anything OTHER than benefits. Just something to think about.
but it did break the fight up quickly causing minimum damage to both parties and involving no hospitals or courts, which is much more convenient for society.
And what, exactly, would be the detriment to society if you had simply beat the agressor up and just gone home? Really, it cost more to watch those cameras, dispatch an officer, and take him away from solving (notice I said solving and not stopping) real crime elsewhere. Yes, people get severely hurt in bar fights...but what, really, is the cost to society? One more person of the sort who starts bar fights off the streets...instead, neither of you was seriously hurt, no actual legal problems resulted (even though the police were paid to dispatch to your location) and there is no real deterrent to either of you exhibiting this behaviour once again. Had you soundly thrashed the wanker, he might have refrained from starting trouble in the future. Ah well, let's ignore most of the variables and just say it is better this way. After all, why not be comforted by the large, warm hand of government gently encircling your neck. It's to protect you, of course.
There is no way that an external hard drive is equivalent to a laptop. This thing doesn't have a keyboard or screen. What are you going to do on the plane, show it off to the other passengers? Viable alternative. mutter.
...irregardless...
Did you mean irrespective or regardless? Irregardless would mean 'not regardless' if it was a real word, and I don't think that's what you wanted to say, based on context.
Yes, those errors are annoying too. (as are to and too, for that matter) I was merely responding to the error I saw, however, as I believe in choosing my battles. I doubt I'll have any effect (not affect) but it doesn't cost me much to whip out a slashdot post.
...somebody please tell that 8th grader the difference between "its" and "it's"
Please. This is such a serious problem, my local community college contains the same error on its terms of usage desktop background. Promulgating incorrect word usage on every PC on campus is bad enough, but no one even cares about fixing it. It's a fucking college, for fuck's sake. Please people, please, please take a little more pride in your expression. All you have to do is ask yourself, "If I replace "it's" with "it is," does the sentence still make sense?" If not, don't put the apostrophe. How much easier could it be?
Sounds good to me, I believe the children are our future. Our future part shops/cheap labor.
Ahh. Yes, there are those who would be offended by that. Also, there are people who are offended by even stupider shit everywhere these days. Hopefully you'll catch some. Carry on, good sir. Pardon the interruption. :)
Why would not including us in the Midwest or the South piss us off? Have you ever been here? We don't consider ourselves part of either, either.
Yes. Similarly, I saw a lady flying a sign in front of a grocery store a while back. She had a cute kid, dressed in rags with a dirty face, playing in the dirt while her mother solicited donations. My heart went out to her, and I decided that while I was shopping I'd pick up some basics and donate them to her. However, when I came out of the store, she was carrying her child around to the back of the store. I lived down that road, so I figured I'd catch up with her and give her the bag of groceries I got for her. Then I saw her strap that kid into a Mercedes behind the store, take her purse out of the trunk, grab her makeup kit out of it and start applying makeup. Then she drove away. I was in my 1979 Chevy Nova at the time. I ended up giving that bag of groceries to a food bank instead. Another time, we needed another person to help us dig some ditches and put up a fence. We asked about ten of those guys with the 'will work for food signs' if they wanted to work for $8/hr instead of food (this was in the late 80s). Without exception, they turned us down. One guys even said 'Hell no! I make way more than that just sitting here.'
My mother, a single mom most of my life, raised us out of abject poverty with no governmental assistance. In my house, we didn't take charity unless we couldn't possibly do for ourselves. Even though things were tough, we never took charity. We had a black and white TV, which was given to us by my grandparents. We did not have cable, an AC, any sort of computer (ok, so it was the mid-70s, early 80s, that wasn't unusual). The point is that if you are sufficiently motivated, you will work three jobs and have no luxuries to survive. You will take the job cleaning restrooms or flipping burgers or whatever else it takes to feed your children. If you are physically disabled, that's one thing. If you are of the opinion that you are owed a living by society or the government, you're wrong. I do not feel that I have any moral obligation to provide a living for people who simply don't care to take care of themselves. I do feel that I have a moral obligation to help where I can, and where people actually *need* the help. However, I don't feel that the Federal government has the right to forcibly extort money from me to pay for other people to own xboxes or computers or even food. TANSTAAFL and anyone who thinks there is should be removed from the gene pool. I'm not talking about being forcibly removed, but in a normal environment, they would either be forced to adapt (read 'get a job') or they would die. Again, while I believe that *i* have a responsibility to help those who truly cannot help themselves, I do not believe that money should be extracted from me under threat to help not only those who are helpless, but also those who are shiftless as well. Even if most of every dollar that the welfare program collected went to a person who truly needed it, I still would not support it being paid for by legalized theft.
Man. I long for the good old days of rexec-ing wall or xclock set to the screen resolution or stuff like that on clueless co-workers' boxes. Of course, it requires you to know more than an IP addy...
Of course, for old-school windows fun, putting various bat->2->com'd files in the config.sys file was always fun. My favorite was the one that would display "Starting Windows, please wait" eternally. Of course, in those days it could take a long time to discover the ruse...
irq sharing is common, and often intentional. even when using the two devices simultaneously, it is rare that there is a problem. this applied during the 386/486 era as well. some devices had problems with it, true. however, configured properly, the vast majority did not. I did see hundreds of incorrectly configured machines, however. when I was consulting, I'd move the modem to com2 if possible. I preferred it because you could avoid even the possibility of a conflict. again, though, for the most part it was fine. most problems that people attribute to hardware are in fact improperly configured hardware/software.
What I am saying is that very few modem/mouse combinations have problems *unless* you are putting both the modem and the mouse on the exact same com port. if the mouse is on com1, and the modem is on com3, there is no problem, even though both use irq 4. this is because the base port address is different. i have personally set up hundreds of such systems, as i used to work for a computer store and that's how we built our machines. very, very seldom did we have any problems at all, unless someone set com1 and com3 to the same base port address, or just put both devices on com1. we *did* see a problem sometimes where windows would put the wrong base port address in by default occasionally, but that was very easily fixed. I am speaking of 386/486 machines running windows 3/3.1/3.11
The issue with really fast systems is really bad and bloated software is allowed.
So true. It seems like Office takes about the same amount of time (if not a little longer) to open up now as it did under win 3.1 on a 386
Why bother having a faster chip and more RAM if you're going to get progressively lazier with the coding? Sigh. The idea seems to be, "We now have more processor speed and RAM, so there's no need for optimization. After all, why would anyone want to use more than one program at a time?"
Here's my favorite site for Anti-Bloatware products and funny writeups of bloatware:
http://www.radsoft.net/
Com1/Com2 default IRQ4/3 respectivly
Internal modem com3/com4 default irq4/3
Mouse not working when you go online, well who needs it anyway. AOL not working because your internal modem set to a diffrent IRQ, not their fault!
Actually, I have to take issue with your statement here. You can easily set up a mouse on com1, irq 4. then you can set up an internal modem on com3, irq 4. Then you can happily use both at the same time forever with no problems (assuming you don't introduce any)
I had much more trouble trying to make com3 use a different inturrupt request back in the old days.
Also, if you used a winmodem (who else just shuddered?) it would sometimes come up with things like: com 12, irq 7. Now, your printer port and your modem don't share irqs too well. However the com1/com2/com3/com4 system was designed so that 1/3 and 2/4 shared irqs. It worked just fine. Now, trying to set up com1, irq4, 3F8H and com3, irq4, 3F8H, you had trouble. (3F8H was com1's base port address, com3 was 3E8H by default)
Not only that, but each new drive has been bigger than all the previous ones put together!
- Your post
Every hard drive I've bought has been bigger than every previous hard drive I've bought combined.
- Post you replied to
Hi! My name is Reading Comprehension. I see you haven't made my acquaintance. Nice to meet you.
now I have my 120 and 250 in my computer and both almost full (digital video)
Come now. This is slashdot. It's ok to simply say 'porn.'
Holy shit, I'm a pedantic fucker.
Fixed Disks, good sir. Fixed Disks.
Yes, I know some people call them 'Fixed Drives,' but not IBM.
not really. it's not just the fact that the price is less than some arbitrary number. it's that $6000 seems to morons like a lot more than $5999. This is because they are processing only the first number in the price, which is why it is *vital* to change that first number. Examples:
$30.00 - no getting around it, it's thirty bucks.
$29.99 - seems like ~$20 to morons, still thirty bucks though, especially after tax
$5000 - five thousand - ouch!
$4999 - *under* $5000 - seems like ~$4000 to morons - now you're saving a whole grand!
etc.
in contrast, $6001 - six thousand - $6000.99 - still six thousand, even to morons. hope this helps you.
Yes. I imagine it wouldn't be suspicious at all when inventory time came 'round. I find it far more likely that they were using the time-honored method of dropping the dollar (or cent, as is even more likely) to put their product 'under' a certain price point. This has been mentioned before ITT but it's worth noting again. Also, most people spending more than $20 or so want receipts, which you must wait for. It is very doubtful that many people would simply throw down six grr and then just walk away with no receipt. Perhaps your theory would work in places where most things were inexpensive, but then the smaller the transaction, the less likely embezzling is to be detected. Also, you theory is flawed in another area. An employee familiar with the pricing scheme can easily remember common totals, and even give change properly, and not actually ring it up. Obviously, if you can see the cash register screen and you are paying attention, this is not likely, but then do you *always* look at your total? I assert that many people only look when the total they're given verbally sounds wrong, or when the screen is prominently displayed. Sure, some people pore over every item with a microscope; most of us don't bother.
My favorite item on that price sheet:
Win 3.1 Free TT Fonts - $131.00
Nothing I could say would make that better.