Did anybody else read the subject line as 'Ricer PVRs To Hit Russia' and get visions of set top boxes with oversized wings and a large aluminum exhause pipe coming out of the back with way too many decals plastered all over it?
Nope. I had an image of flaming, glowing PVRs reigning down from the sky onto unsuspecting Russians, and some evil mutated whale with a piece of Mir's reactor in its head laughing insanely.
followed by computer generated Holy-Grams who popped up and said things like, 'Why not try [WALL OF SCIENCE], 'cause it's my favorite!'
Sorry for the OT, but Holly(of Red Dwarf) is by far the "most awesomest"(in his/her own words) ship's computer. That stuck up bitch of a computer on Enterprise never said to Picard, "Look, I'm a tenth-generation AI hologrammic computer. I'm not your mum."
Then again, it also never dropped to an IQ of 30 accidentally, never had a sex change operation(or two), never developed multiple-personality-disorder(its other personality tried to kill it) etc:-)
The problem is, most textbooks are not designed to convey an understanding of the subject, but to squeeze in all the 'facts' required by state law.
The problem is, most textbooks are designed to be companion references, with all the 'facts' squeezed in so the teacher can spend time helping everyone understand the concepts etc. The two work together.
Simple answer is, you need to take adult education classes. I left college barely half-way through, and ended up taking night classes- intro to calculus was one; another was an intensive Economics class. I found them worthwhile; I probably would have enjoyed the class more if I wasn't young enough to be most of the other student's kid(you would fit in FAR better, from the sounds of it.)
Without the classes, you don't get the benefits of peer learning, in-class interaction("Did everybody get that?" [blank stares] "Heh, ok, let me explain it a different way...") the discipline that testing creates, nor the resource of having a Really Smart Person(professor) to go to when you need help. There are also other benefits- making friends(you're probably all in similar 'boats' so to speak, so people socialize pretty readily), and networking. My old boss decided to do part-time classes for an MBA, and got a lot of networking out of it(granted, those were business classes, more prone to networking activities, but you get the idea).
I'm broke, so free is good. Paying more to go to school is bad.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch."
Maybe this is just my gut reaction, but maybe colleges should be spending their time working on EDUCATION and not SELLING MUSIC. Leave that to the music companies, stores, etc.
Stuff like this is symptomatic of a (youth) obsession with music. Personally, I'm completely sick of hearing about music[companies,sharing,piracy], and I think that both the music companies and media(inc. slashdot) continuously overstate the significance/importance of music. You can rape 'em at the voting booth(if they even show up), you can make it nearly impossible for 'em to travel without the government massively invading their privacy(on the assumption hijackers will use real names, birthdays, etc)...and they won't even lift an eyebrow. Tell 'em they can't "share" their music, and they get absolutely RIPSHIT.
God forbid we should worry about the important things, like who is going to pay for our parent's medical care, our environment, our rights as individual citizens, our massively corrupt politicians, overpopulation, corporate greed...
And now for your entertainment tonight, the obnoxious nitpicking Slashdot comment reply!
A lit match works for hydrogen detection as well as many gas hydrocarbons.
Actually, Hydrogen requires a higher fuel to air ratio than gasoline. It also disperses nearly instantly(well, except in confined/sealed areas of course)- whereas gasoline etc sink and pool(which is why your natural gas/propane water heater has that nice little picture of a gasoline can etc).
Oh, and since it's still not known enough- the Hindenburg burned because it was painted with the chemical equivalent of rocket fuel(the chemical composition of the paint etc is very close to solid rocket fuel)- not because it was full of Hydrogen, which, by itself, doesn't burn.
When it DOES burn, it burns a)instantly b)practically invisibly, c)with no smoke. Watch those films of the hindenburg, and note the a)slow b)bright yellow c)sooty fire.
It's interesting to note that hydrogen's qualities make it much safer should there be, say, an accident with a truck carrying it. It dissipates as it leaks, versus the major fire hazard/toxic waste problem created by a gasoline spill.
"If someone in senior management gets spammed," Mr. Lewis said, "it could take 20 or 30 hours of everyone's time, up and down the chain."
That's not the fault of spam- that's the fault of whiny executives. Execs are always whining about efficiency, "making the sacrifice", cutting the fat...yet they're responsible for more productivity loss for most IT departments than other employees combined.
When 2-3 execs moved into the office I was supporting, they were a massive drain, killing my productivity- because any time even the slightest thing was wrong, we had to drop what we were doing, and rush to make the Big Baby happy.
Executives, hear this. One sure fire way to enhance the productivity of your IT staff is to learn how to use your #$!@ing email program, not complain when your desktop is the wrong color, learn how to back up your data, and don't make us run in circles on your bloody little pet projects. Don't even get me started about personal printers/fax machines.
Well, the obvious solution is to get rid of all the Windows machines on the network. Presto, problem solved!
No. The obvious solution is to do what everyone else does- fix the problems, and re-present to the reviewiers. If you fixed 'em, the reviewers go "whoa!" Remember, this is the power of open source. Don't whine about the problems Zdnet found; help the samba team, or whoever might be working on a network browser for linux, etc...to make things right.
That also means that instead of developers of applications mentioned in the review going "phhbt, windbloze luzers didn't tweak the shwingding, any idiot knows to do that"...they should STOP, realize that these are USERS talking here, and like customers- users are (almost) always right.
If they're not doing what you expect them to do, then you need to either adjust to the way they ARE doing things, or make it clearer to them the path you want them to take. As a developer, you should NEVER just dismiss user observations. At one software company I worked at, the engineers collectively had a Marblehead Moment when they realized that they had been spending a lot of time working on features etc THEY thought was cool. They immediately reprioritized, spending a lot of time listening to the users- any feedback through sales channels, mailing lists, conferences, tradeshows- was snapped up. It was rather successful. Note the variety of sources, too- if you only listen to the 50 guys on your mailing list, you're not listening to your user base, I can virtually guarantee.
There's also one key difference between open-source developers and commercial companies- most commercial companies are constantly looking for ways to expand their userbase, because they have to. Open source developers are more interested in keeping current users happy...
Think about it: a photographer can be on a scene of a newsworthy event, and over the hours of attending, the publisher could already be printing/posting the photographer's pics before he removes the camera strap from his neck!
Think about it- 802.11b doesn't have that kind of range; even in the open, it's 300 feet tops, unless you get antennas to focus the signal, and that's not practical unless you know where the photographer is going to be.
This sounds much more like a toy for studio photography, cutting the downtime by transferring pictures in the background. The only other option is Firewire(which most true pro cameras have; prosumer digital SLRs for the most part don't). Even the microdrives, which are some of the fastest compactflash devices around, are pretty sluggish, compared to the camera directly sending the file over firewire(without even storing it, save in temporary high speed memory).
I can see this being a potential hit with the 'event' photography market- ie, like guys who set up at a kids sports games and offer portrait services. They like anything that reduces their clutter/setup time or gets the photo to their servers(for printing) faster. I didn't see the specs on the camera, but if it's cheap enough, they might bite(the event photography people don't usually invest in the several-thousand-dollar cameras, because it's not necessary).
I'm reposting this because apparently, there are a lot of moderators modding down as "troll" anyone who posts anything that even smells like "SETI is stupid". Despite getting one "interesting" mod, my post is now buried. So, here I go again. THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I've made a statement(SETI is pointless) and I'm backing it up with a lot of reasons why. Seems like good discussion material to me.
The whole thing is pointless. Here's why.
* Chance of physically intercepting the signal is next to nothing. They don't get much radio time, and they can't cover much of the sky.
* Now chances of actually recognizing the signal as intelligent life are unknown. They've got some great theories. Who knows if they're right?
* Ok, maybe you see it and you recognize it. Can you decode it?
* Alright, so who cares if you decode it, you FOUND INTELLIGENT LIFE that existed at least several hundred of years ago
* Ok, so you send a reply. You figure out where that source planet will be when the signal finally reaches it.
* "The aliens get it" requires the same hurdles. Mainly, they have a SETI program, they've got their ears pointed in the right direction, they identify the reply as intelligent life, etc. Hell, it assumes they haven't nuked themselves into extinction like we're on the steady path towards.
* Now, lets say they decide to reply(ie, they're not xenophobic, they don't think it's pointless, etc). It takes another couple hundred years to get back to earth, assuming they aim right etc.
* Now you're assuming someone here on earth actually is still listening. In a couple hundred years, is anyone going to remember SETI? We have trouble keeping languages around!
* Great, someone's actually listening and gets the signal. You've just had the century-long equivalent of the 20 second bar conversation. "Hi". "Hi". "So, uh, send radio signals often?"
SETI people conveniently ignore almost all of these obvious problems that make the entire search pointless.
Just a shout-out to those rated my post "troll". It's NOT a troll. It's a position, justified at length- and SOME people liked it, because it did get some "interesting" mod points.
I'm not out to troll for replies. I'm out to raise the (unpopular among scifi dreamers) opinion that these people are NOT scientists working on a legitimate project.
I really get tired of moderators who "troll" opinions they don't like.
But there really isn't anything wrong with trying.
Except that it'd be pointless, even if they did get a signal. It'd be a signal hundreds or thousands of years old.
Besides, Seti@home really helped to bring about this idea of 'distributed computing' to the world.
Pardon the pun, but what planet are you from? SETI was NOT the first, Distributed.net's RC5 challenge significantly predates the SETI@home client and was enormously popular. At least Distributed.net's ruler thing will be USEFUL.
Oh, and interesting to note that when SETI@home first started up, they ran out of data to process. So you know what they did? They just fed the same data back to clients, over and over and over again, without telling people- acting like they still had new data to process. A lot of people were furious, when someone realized it. The SETI@home project people wasted a lot of resources(power) for the sake of avoiding embarassment. Sorry, I don't have much respect for people who pull that kind of crap.
You know what? These people are a disgrace. They're little more than cultists, and to quote Contact, "Yep, looking for little green men".
Here's why.
Chance of physically intercepting the signal is next to nothing. They don't get much radio time, and they can't cover much of the sky.
Now chances of actually recognizing the signal as intelligent life are unknown. They've got some great theories. Who knows if they're right?
Ok, maybe you see it and you recognize it. Can you decode it?
Alright, so who cares if you decode it, you FOUND INTELLIGENT LIFE that existed at least several hundred of years ago
Ok, so you send a reply. You figure out where that source planet will be when the signal finally reaches it.
"The aliens get it" requires the same hurdles. Mainly, they have a SETI program, they've got their ears pointed in the right direction, they identify the reply as intelligent life, etc. Hell, it assumes they haven't nuked themselves into extinction like we're on the steady path towards.
Now, lets say they decide to reply(ie, they're not xenophobic, they don't think it's pointless, etc). It takes another couple hundred years to get back to earth, assuming they aim right etc.
Now you're assuming someone here on earth actually is still listening. In a couple hundred years, is anyone going to remember SETI? We have trouble keeping languages around!
Great, someone's actually listening and gets the signal. You've just had the century-long equivalent of the 20 second bar conversation. "Hi". "Hi". "So, uh, send radio signals often?"
SETI people conveniently ignore almost all of these obvious problems that make the entire search pointless.
You're aware that rejecting mail based on HELO violates RFC 1123?
...which is why a)it's not turned on by default and b)the docs(including the docs in the config file) warn you as to such. The docs are very specific about WHICH of the checks violate the RFCs and which don't.
What RFCs does qmail not comply with?
Based on a very quick google search(so thus some of this might be outdated or simply wrong), pipelining, for one. RFC-2821 for another. RFC 2821 and RFC 1123 for two more.
The difference is that while Postfix CAN reject based on HELO etc...qmail seems to do so by DEFAULT.
Also, take a look at djbdns some time- it violates RFC's left and right.
qmail is completely free and folks that claim it isn't are just trolls.
Qmail is NOT FREE. Last I looked it was distributed without a license; now apparently it has a license, but one with oddball restrictions. If you don't believe me, do a google search with the keywords "qmail debian legal" and spend 30 minutes or so going through the various discussions.
This is a common attitude, but from several years of working on an ambulance and speaking with ER docs, I believe it to be wrong. The only time your organs can be harvested is if you have zero chance of recovery (brain missing, etc..) or in rare circumstances when you have a living will which authorized the termination of life support.
Okay. Explain why at least one study showed organ doners had poorer survival rates in ERs? Hmm?
A doctor here in MA left a patient OPEN on the operating room table so he could run to the bank to cash a check. Doctors regularly take freebies from drug companies. I've personally witnessed a doctor(with a full waiting room) spent 15 minutes talking to a drug company rep(who came to hand out notepads etc.) All this stuff about doctors being so moral is a bunch of complete and utter bullshit, and I'm personally not willing to take the chance that a donor card will mean I'm not leaving the ER alive.
Here's an article talking about the details of implementing a network level spam defense with Qmail
Or, you could just use Postfix, which:
is almost entirely compatible with sendmail. It's pretty much drop-in-and-go.
adheres to RFCs(and there's a warning for any configuration option which would violate said RFCs)
has builtin anti-spam tools- you can turn on, individually, any of a dozen-plus different checks, such as making sure the claimed hostname in the HELO matches the IP the connection is coming from(you can do this several ways), or that the claimed hostname matches the mail-from user@hostname(ie, if you're coming from spammer.com, you're not gonna be able to claim to be joe@yahoo.com), etc. It's also one builtin command to check an RBL.
has a really sharp cookie of an author(the guy wrote tcpwrapper), who isn't widely regarded as an obnoxious twit
is completely free
Personally, I refuse to use any software written by DJB as a matter of principle. The guy flagrantly ignores RFCs because he simply feels like it and arrogantly thinks he knows better(and further that there is benefit to ignoring said RFCs).
Before you say that bamboo is weak and easily dismembered [snip] What makes it possible to build bicycles from it is that it is stronger than steel when strained in the longitudinal direction, 17% to be exact.
Yes, but steel/aluminum won't rot, won't get eaten by bugs, are stronger in NON-logitudinal directions(ie, twisting- think about when you pump the pedals holding the handlebars, yes, you're twisting pieces of the frame!)...and when they fail, they (usually) just bend. Bamboo cracks, and then it just disintegrates.
Slashdot Mirror
(Yes, he's the guy who won an IG Nobel prize.)
Nope. I had an image of flaming, glowing PVRs reigning down from the sky onto unsuspecting Russians, and some evil mutated whale with a piece of Mir's reactor in its head laughing insanely.
How about more accurately labelling it a poison? Even the slightest amount of alcohol is poisonous.
Sorry for the OT, but Holly(of Red Dwarf) is by far the "most awesomest"(in his/her own words) ship's computer. That stuck up bitch of a computer on Enterprise never said to Picard, "Look, I'm a tenth-generation AI hologrammic computer. I'm not your mum."
Then again, it also never dropped to an IQ of 30 accidentally, never had a sex change operation(or two), never developed multiple-personality-disorder(its other personality tried to kill it) etc :-)
The problem is, most textbooks are designed to be companion references, with all the 'facts' squeezed in so the teacher can spend time helping everyone understand the concepts etc. The two work together.
Simple answer is, you need to take adult education classes. I left college barely half-way through, and ended up taking night classes- intro to calculus was one; another was an intensive Economics class. I found them worthwhile; I probably would have enjoyed the class more if I wasn't young enough to be most of the other student's kid(you would fit in FAR better, from the sounds of it.)
Without the classes, you don't get the benefits of peer learning, in-class interaction("Did everybody get that?" [blank stares] "Heh, ok, let me explain it a different way...") the discipline that testing creates, nor the resource of having a Really Smart Person(professor) to go to when you need help. There are also other benefits- making friends(you're probably all in similar 'boats' so to speak, so people socialize pretty readily), and networking. My old boss decided to do part-time classes for an MBA, and got a lot of networking out of it(granted, those were business classes, more prone to networking activities, but you get the idea).
Yeah, because after all, nobody wanted to see the pictures, right? :-)
"There is no such thing as a free lunch."
Maybe this is just my gut reaction, but maybe colleges should be spending their time working on EDUCATION and not SELLING MUSIC. Leave that to the music companies, stores, etc.
Stuff like this is symptomatic of a (youth) obsession with music. Personally, I'm completely sick of hearing about music[companies,sharing,piracy], and I think that both the music companies and media(inc. slashdot) continuously overstate the significance/importance of music. You can rape 'em at the voting booth(if they even show up), you can make it nearly impossible for 'em to travel without the government massively invading their privacy(on the assumption hijackers will use real names, birthdays, etc)...and they won't even lift an eyebrow. Tell 'em they can't "share" their music, and they get absolutely RIPSHIT.
God forbid we should worry about the important things, like who is going to pay for our parent's medical care, our environment, our rights as individual citizens, our massively corrupt politicians, overpopulation, corporate greed...
I dunno about the capsule, but their site spiralled down in flames and crashed before there was even a single comment.
How about giving a whole new meaning to the term "three finger salute"?
...is this story a blatant product placement? It reads like MarketDroid(TM) output. Nevermind that it's freakin' -enormous-...
A lit match works for hydrogen detection as well as many gas hydrocarbons.
Actually, Hydrogen requires a higher fuel to air ratio than gasoline. It also disperses nearly instantly(well, except in confined/sealed areas of course)- whereas gasoline etc sink and pool(which is why your natural gas/propane water heater has that nice little picture of a gasoline can etc).
Oh, and since it's still not known enough- the Hindenburg burned because it was painted with the chemical equivalent of rocket fuel(the chemical composition of the paint etc is very close to solid rocket fuel)- not because it was full of Hydrogen, which, by itself, doesn't burn.
When it DOES burn, it burns a)instantly b)practically invisibly, c)with no smoke. Watch those films of the hindenburg, and note the a)slow b)bright yellow c)sooty fire.
It's interesting to note that hydrogen's qualities make it much safer should there be, say, an accident with a truck carrying it. It dissipates as it leaks, versus the major fire hazard/toxic waste problem created by a gasoline spill.
That's not the fault of spam- that's the fault of whiny executives. Execs are always whining about efficiency, "making the sacrifice", cutting the fat...yet they're responsible for more productivity loss for most IT departments than other employees combined.
When 2-3 execs moved into the office I was supporting, they were a massive drain, killing my productivity- because any time even the slightest thing was wrong, we had to drop what we were doing, and rush to make the Big Baby happy.
Executives, hear this. One sure fire way to enhance the productivity of your IT staff is to learn how to use your #$!@ing email program, not complain when your desktop is the wrong color, learn how to back up your data, and don't make us run in circles on your bloody little pet projects. Don't even get me started about personal printers/fax machines.
No. The obvious solution is to do what everyone else does- fix the problems, and re-present to the reviewiers. If you fixed 'em, the reviewers go "whoa!" Remember, this is the power of open source. Don't whine about the problems Zdnet found; help the samba team, or whoever might be working on a network browser for linux, etc...to make things right.
That also means that instead of developers of applications mentioned in the review going "phhbt, windbloze luzers didn't tweak the shwingding, any idiot knows to do that"...they should STOP, realize that these are USERS talking here, and like customers- users are (almost) always right.
If they're not doing what you expect them to do, then you need to either adjust to the way they ARE doing things, or make it clearer to them the path you want them to take. As a developer, you should NEVER just dismiss user observations. At one software company I worked at, the engineers collectively had a Marblehead Moment when they realized that they had been spending a lot of time working on features etc THEY thought was cool. They immediately reprioritized, spending a lot of time listening to the users- any feedback through sales channels, mailing lists, conferences, tradeshows- was snapped up. It was rather successful. Note the variety of sources, too- if you only listen to the 50 guys on your mailing list, you're not listening to your user base, I can virtually guarantee.
There's also one key difference between open-source developers and commercial companies- most commercial companies are constantly looking for ways to expand their userbase, because they have to. Open source developers are more interested in keeping current users happy...
Think about it- 802.11b doesn't have that kind of range; even in the open, it's 300 feet tops, unless you get antennas to focus the signal, and that's not practical unless you know where the photographer is going to be.
This sounds much more like a toy for studio photography, cutting the downtime by transferring pictures in the background. The only other option is Firewire(which most true pro cameras have; prosumer digital SLRs for the most part don't). Even the microdrives, which are some of the fastest compactflash devices around, are pretty sluggish, compared to the camera directly sending the file over firewire(without even storing it, save in temporary high speed memory).
I can see this being a potential hit with the 'event' photography market- ie, like guys who set up at a kids sports games and offer portrait services. They like anything that reduces their clutter/setup time or gets the photo to their servers(for printing) faster. I didn't see the specs on the camera, but if it's cheap enough, they might bite(the event photography people don't usually invest in the several-thousand-dollar cameras, because it's not necessary).
I'm reposting this because apparently, there are a lot of moderators modding down as "troll" anyone who posts anything that even smells like "SETI is stupid". Despite getting one "interesting" mod, my post is now buried. So, here I go again. THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I've made a statement(SETI is pointless) and I'm backing it up with a lot of reasons why. Seems like good discussion material to me.
The whole thing is pointless. Here's why.
* Chance of physically intercepting the signal is next to nothing. They don't get much radio time, and they can't cover much of the sky.
* Now chances of actually recognizing the signal as intelligent life are unknown. They've got some great theories. Who knows if they're right?
* Ok, maybe you see it and you recognize it. Can you decode it?
* Alright, so who cares if you decode it, you FOUND INTELLIGENT LIFE that existed at least several hundred of years ago
* Ok, so you send a reply. You figure out where that source planet will be when the signal finally reaches it.
* "The aliens get it" requires the same hurdles. Mainly, they have a SETI program, they've got their ears pointed in the right direction, they identify the reply as intelligent life, etc. Hell, it assumes they haven't nuked themselves into extinction like we're on the steady path towards.
* Now, lets say they decide to reply(ie, they're not xenophobic, they don't think it's pointless, etc). It takes another couple hundred years to get back to earth, assuming they aim right etc.
* Now you're assuming someone here on earth actually is still listening. In a couple hundred years, is anyone going to remember SETI? We have trouble keeping languages around!
* Great, someone's actually listening and gets the signal. You've just had the century-long equivalent of the 20 second bar conversation. "Hi". "Hi". "So, uh, send radio signals often?"
SETI people conveniently ignore almost all of these obvious problems that make the entire search pointless.
Just a shout-out to those rated my post "troll". It's NOT a troll. It's a position, justified at length- and SOME people liked it, because it did get some "interesting" mod points.
I'm not out to troll for replies. I'm out to raise the (unpopular among scifi dreamers) opinion that these people are NOT scientists working on a legitimate project.
I really get tired of moderators who "troll" opinions they don't like.
Except that it'd be pointless, even if they did get a signal. It'd be a signal hundreds or thousands of years old.
Besides, Seti@home really helped to bring about this idea of 'distributed computing' to the world.
Pardon the pun, but what planet are you from? SETI was NOT the first, Distributed.net's RC5 challenge significantly predates the SETI@home client and was enormously popular. At least Distributed.net's ruler thing will be USEFUL.
Oh, and interesting to note that when SETI@home first started up, they ran out of data to process. So you know what they did? They just fed the same data back to clients, over and over and over again, without telling people- acting like they still had new data to process. A lot of people were furious, when someone realized it. The SETI@home project people wasted a lot of resources(power) for the sake of avoiding embarassment. Sorry, I don't have much respect for people who pull that kind of crap.
You know what? These people are a disgrace. They're little more than cultists, and to quote Contact, "Yep, looking for little green men".
Here's why.
SETI people conveniently ignore almost all of these obvious problems that make the entire search pointless.
...which is why a)it's not turned on by default and b)the docs(including the docs in the config file) warn you as to such. The docs are very specific about WHICH of the checks violate the RFCs and which don't.
What RFCs does qmail not comply with?
Based on a very quick google search(so thus some of this might be outdated or simply wrong), pipelining, for one. RFC-2821 for another. RFC 2821 and RFC 1123 for two more.
The difference is that while Postfix CAN reject based on HELO etc...qmail seems to do so by DEFAULT.
Also, take a look at djbdns some time- it violates RFC's left and right.
Qmail is NOT FREE. Last I looked it was distributed without a license; now apparently it has a license, but one with oddball restrictions. If you don't believe me, do a google search with the keywords "qmail debian legal" and spend 30 minutes or so going through the various discussions.
Okay. Explain why at least one study showed organ doners had poorer survival rates in ERs? Hmm?
A doctor here in MA left a patient OPEN on the operating room table so he could run to the bank to cash a check. Doctors regularly take freebies from drug companies. I've personally witnessed a doctor(with a full waiting room) spent 15 minutes talking to a drug company rep(who came to hand out notepads etc.) All this stuff about doctors being so moral is a bunch of complete and utter bullshit, and I'm personally not willing to take the chance that a donor card will mean I'm not leaving the ER alive.
Or, you could just use Postfix, which:
Personally, I refuse to use any software written by DJB as a matter of principle. The guy flagrantly ignores RFCs because he simply feels like it and arrogantly thinks he knows better(and further that there is benefit to ignoring said RFCs).
Before you say that bamboo is weak and easily dismembered [snip] What makes it possible to build bicycles from it is that it is stronger than steel when strained in the longitudinal direction, 17% to be exact.
Yes, but steel/aluminum won't rot, won't get eaten by bugs, are stronger in NON-logitudinal directions(ie, twisting- think about when you pump the pedals holding the handlebars, yes, you're twisting pieces of the frame!)...and when they fail, they (usually) just bend. Bamboo cracks, and then it just disintegrates.
What, do two guys show up and try and sell you "protection" and then disappear suddenly?
Why? What's the point?
Because it's there. Jeez, pay attention!