I dont think it is that, I think it is that corporate developers dont have a lot of choice in answering to the corporation. And the corporation has a large set of inputs that are not customer oriented.
Smokers do have choices as well. They can chose not to smoke during their stay in a bar or restarant. They can chose to quit smoking entirely. They *can* chose to go the civil disobedience route and smoke where they ought not. Smokers can chose to figure out how to smoke without offending others. ( Big plastic bubble over the smoker's head, I dont know ).
And you are correct, but unbanned is discriminatory against non-smokers. And since it is the smoker's choice, it seems more reasonable to ban if it is a problem. And it was a problem before the ban.
As I said, I would agree that the laws go a bit too far. Some number of bars and restarants should be allowed to establish themselves as smoking environments.
I saw no evidence ( admittedly anecdotal ) that restarants or bars were catering to the non-smoking crowd. They had them locked in, the non-smokers had little choice.
As far as getting govt out of this, I'd be fine with trying that, but if restarants all go back to smoking models, I would be for reimposing a ban. I am fine with some catering to smokers and some ( most, really, a smoker can stop for a short while, it is harder for a non-smoker to not be impacted when a smoker decides to smoke ) not.
There were a substantial number of people who smoked, and just did not give a darn about who they affected. I recall politely asking people not to smoke and getting either ignored or a somewhat hostile reaction. I expect that they laws are backlash from this ( I am sure I am not the only one who experienced such ).
I agree that some bars and restarants should be allowed to establish themselves as smoking environments and operate as such.
No, what we need to do is make some kind of spray that smokers find noxious and non-smokers cant smell at all.
See, that is the problem with smokers, they dont smell the smoke like a non-smoker does. They have aclimatized themselves to it, and they have chosen the behaviour. It doesnt bother them. Some seem to think that because they cant smell it, that you cant either. They dont know how offinsive the smoke is. This way, they can feel the pain themselves.
I am all for smokers smoking. Just dont make me have to deal with it. Put a smoke impermiable sack over your heads and go to it.
Smokers choose their habit, those around them do not, why should they have to put up with it? There are laws in some areas against playing a car radio too loud. Why? Because it affects others that havent chosen the behaviour.
Now, I would agree that some businesses should be able to petition to operate a bar or restaraunt where smoking is allowed ( as long as we dont end up back in the old days of *everything* is smoking, and the smoke does not end up bothering others ).
Figure out a way to smoke where no one else is bothered by it. Then, go to town, smoke your lungs out.
I dont know the VAX instruction set, but I learned on a PDP 11, and that was very nice. I would imagine the VAX instruction set would be similiar. The Sparc assembly was not too bad. Never did 68k, but I have heard good things about that....
Dont take this too harshly, but you seem to be thinking of universities as trade schools. x86 would definitly be the most applyable and lucrative assembly language to learn.
If you are trying to get to the underlying ideas and concepts, there is too much cruft in the way of learning concepts in x86 assembly. Having to remember to push EDX before multiplying, that ECX is used for such and so if you execute instruction "blah", and will be decremented until zero, etc, etc.
1 register you can use that isnt used by something else ( ax ) ( bx was used for something, cx was used in some "counting" instructions, dx would have the most significant 16 bits of a multiplication ( ax would have the lower, now that I think of it.... dx:ax would be the full 32 bit result ). So, ax that, 0 registers you can use that arent used by something else.
Addressing ( "long" ). 20 bit addressing bus, 16 bit system. So, you load a register with a 16 bit value, and wink wink, it gets shifted 4 places left. 20 bits it is now. Then, load another register with another 16 bit value, which is added to the other you just did, viola, a 20 bit address. Dont ask me how the two registers you just loaded related to each other, I am trying to repress that.
I suppose that depends on how you define "doing the job they are employed to do".
I do agree with crime and punishment assessment you made. What happened to "personal responsiblity"?
I would make one addition. 100% document retention of everything. No "opps, we deleted those". I have in mind that stock broker person who send the "remember the document retention policy" email, Frank something. Quatronne? That and the "oh, they want that? Delete it quick" methodology allegedly used by Microsoft in some of their suits.
It's news because here in San Diego, the machines were sent home (sleepovers, I think they called them ) with people just before the voting was to take place. People involved with the voting process, but still unmonitored.
As far as I know, there was no "auditing" of the machines either before nor after. ( nothing I have read about it leads me to suspect that this they were audited, that would be part of the response from the voting officials, I would hope, in defending their actions ).
So, this seems like a big deal to me.
And Brian Bilbray ( google him for news of the above ) was sworn in to district 50 ( "Duke" Cunningham's old seat ) *before* the results were official. IIRC, before all the votes where counted. So the law suit about the above was rejected, as this issue was out of that court's jurisdiction.
It *might* be that all is on the up and up, but I have yet to read anything that makes it look anything less than a big fat mess. What I dont understand is why this is not huge news.
The corporatocracy has us by the balls, and the two-party system leaves us choosing only which teste we cling to.
So, get corporations out of politics. No money to be given by corporations to politicians under any curcumstances. No lobbying by corporations, or by corporate officers.
And to any "but that limits free speech" comments, corporations are not persons, are not citizens, they dont need any speech. The corporation owners are already represented in the "normal" voting system.
I know... It has a snowball's chance of getting enacted, but it seems to me that it would do the trick. Until the money bags figure out another end run around it, anyway.
That's the kind of thinking that is holding it back.
If you want to do critical stuff, there are options for you. Dedicated lines, for instance. My car is not a submarine, nor is it an airplane. It is a car. It is not "held back" by me considering it as a car, and not as a submarine, nor an airplane.
Also, consider, at a level of complexity above a swiss army knife, how many things get better with additional intrisic complexity? After a certain level, additional requirements make things less efficent at their core job.
No one has to pay for anything.
No, they can either pay or go out of business. Or create their own communication infrastructure. Good set of options.
That is not inefficient, that is simply how money works - nothing is free
No, nothing is free. That is my point. The more involved entities the more each layer expects ( rightly ) to be able to take from the involved transactions, the more it costs when it gets to the payor. I'd call it ineffiecient when more entities than needed are involved. The carriers can raise their rates to pay for this, if they think it is nessesary. Simple, direct, efficient, *and* it allows the market to do its job.
Slashdot Mirror
What does it say about things that your investors are the fire-breathing dragon you need to be wary of?
No, they are committed to Intel.
Cause only THX1138 referes to it that way.
I dont think it is that, I think it is that corporate developers
dont have a lot of choice in answering to the corporation. And
the corporation has a large set of inputs that are not customer
oriented.
Would you hit it?
Enough gravity, and you may not have a choice.
You say this as if there were something wrong.
OK, yes, technically you are correct.
Functionally, the reverse was true.
And smokers, by and large, where not courteous
or respectfull of others in this matter.
There are choices, and there are choices.
Smokers do have choices as well. They can chose
not to smoke during their stay in a bar or
restarant. They can chose to quit smoking
entirely. They *can* chose to go the civil
disobedience route and smoke where they
ought not. Smokers can chose to figure out
how to smoke without offending others.
( Big plastic bubble over the smoker's head, I dont know ).
And you are correct, but unbanned is discriminatory against non-smokers.
And since it is the smoker's choice, it seems more reasonable to ban
if it is a problem. And it was a problem before the ban.
As I said, I would agree that the laws go a bit too far. Some number
of bars and restarants should be allowed to establish themselves
as smoking environments.
I saw no evidence ( admittedly anecdotal ) that restarants or bars were catering
to the non-smoking crowd. They had them locked in, the non-smokers had little
choice.
As far as getting govt out of this, I'd be fine with trying that, but if restarants
all go back to smoking models, I would be for reimposing a ban. I am fine with
some catering to smokers and some ( most, really, a smoker can stop for a short
while, it is harder for a non-smoker to not be impacted when a smoker decides to
smoke ) not.
Homework2007
I hear some students saying that Homework2007 may
not be released until early 2008, missing the
critical Christmas shopping season.
I grew up in the era before the smoking bans.
There were a substantial number of people who smoked,
and just did not give a darn about who they affected.
I recall politely asking people not to smoke and getting
either ignored or a somewhat hostile reaction. I expect
that they laws are backlash from this ( I am sure I am
not the only one who experienced such ).
I agree that some bars and restarants should be allowed to
establish themselves as smoking environments and operate
as such.
No, what we need to do is make some kind of spray that smokers
find noxious and non-smokers cant smell at all.
See, that is the problem with smokers, they dont smell the smoke
like a non-smoker does. They have aclimatized themselves to it,
and they have chosen the behaviour. It doesnt bother them.
Some seem to think that because they cant smell it, that you cant
either. They dont know how offinsive the smoke is. This way,
they can feel the pain themselves.
I am all for smokers smoking. Just dont make me have to deal
with it. Put a smoke impermiable sack over your heads and
go to it.
Even outdoors that smoke goes somewhere.
Smokers choose their habit, those around them do not, why
should they have to put up with it? There are laws in some
areas against playing a car radio too loud. Why? Because
it affects others that havent chosen the behaviour.
Now, I would agree that some businesses should be able to
petition to operate a bar or restaraunt where smoking is
allowed ( as long as we dont end up back in the old days
of *everything* is smoking, and the smoke does not end
up bothering others ).
Figure out a way to smoke where no one else is bothered
by it. Then, go to town, smoke your lungs out.
I dont know the VAX instruction set, but I learned on a PDP 11,
and that was very nice. I would imagine the VAX instruction set
would be similiar. The Sparc assembly was not too bad. Never
did 68k, but I have heard good things about that....
You can have my C64 when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
C64 Heston
Goto SGI's product line.
Turn left.
Dont take this too harshly, but you seem to be thinking of
universities as trade schools. x86 would definitly be
the most applyable and lucrative assembly language to learn.
If you are trying to get to the underlying ideas and concepts,
there is too much cruft in the way of learning concepts
in x86 assembly. Having to remember to push EDX before
multiplying, that ECX is used for such and so if you execute
instruction "blah", and will be decremented until zero,
etc, etc.
I dont know... It was pretty crappy.
1 register you can use that isnt used by something
else ( ax ) ( bx was used for something, cx
was used in some "counting" instructions,
dx would have the most significant 16 bits
of a multiplication ( ax would have the lower,
now that I think of it.... dx:ax would be
the full 32 bit result ). So, ax that, 0 registers
you can use that arent used by something else.
Addressing ( "long" ). 20 bit addressing bus,
16 bit system. So, you load a register with
a 16 bit value, and wink wink, it gets shifted 4 places
left. 20 bits it is now. Then, load another
register with another 16 bit value, which is added
to the other you just did, viola, a 20 bit address.
Dont ask me how the two registers you just loaded
related to each other, I am trying to repress that.
I suppose that depends on how you define
"doing the job they are employed to do".
I do agree with crime and punishment
assessment you made. What happened to
"personal responsiblity"?
I would make one addition. 100% document
retention of everything. No "opps, we
deleted those". I have in mind that stock
broker person who send the "remember the
document retention policy" email, Frank something.
Quatronne? That and the "oh, they
want that? Delete it quick" methodology
allegedly used by Microsoft in some of their
suits.
"he distracted"?
Really? Mind control of the Republican leadership?
Do tell!
It's news because here in San Diego, the machines were
sent home (sleepovers, I think they called them )
with people just before the voting was to take place.
People involved with the voting process, but still
unmonitored.
As far as I know, there was no "auditing" of the machines
either before nor after. ( nothing I have read about it
leads me to suspect that this they were audited, that
would be part of the response from the voting officials,
I would hope, in defending their actions ).
So, this seems like a big deal to me.
And Brian Bilbray ( google him for news of the above )
was sworn in to district 50 ( "Duke" Cunningham's old seat )
*before* the results were official. IIRC, before all the
votes where counted. So the law suit about the above
was rejected, as this issue was out of that court's
jurisdiction.
It *might* be that all is on the up and up, but I have
yet to read anything that makes it look anything less
than a big fat mess. What I dont understand is why this
is not huge news.
So, get corporations out of politics. No money to be
given by corporations to politicians under any curcumstances.
No lobbying by corporations, or by corporate officers.
And to any "but that limits free speech" comments, corporations
are not persons, are not citizens, they dont need any speech.
The corporation owners are already represented in the "normal"
voting system.
I know... It has a snowball's chance of getting enacted, but
it seems to me that it would do the trick. Until the money
bags figure out another end run around it, anyway.
I have 1 C64.
3 apple II's.
1 Atari 800
1 Atari 1040st.
All working, as of last check. The C64 is in
my home "office".
Would you trust them to take home the ballot
boxes before the vote? After? If so, why?
If you want to do critical stuff, there are options for you.
Dedicated lines, for instance. My car is not a submarine, nor
is it an airplane. It is a car. It is not "held back" by
me considering it as a car, and not as a submarine, nor an
airplane.
Also, consider, at a level of complexity above a swiss army
knife, how many things get better with additional intrisic
complexity? After a certain level, additional requirements
make things less efficent at their core job.
No, they can either pay or go out of business. Or create
their own communication infrastructure. Good set of options.
No, nothing is free. That is my point. The more involved entities
the more each layer expects ( rightly ) to be able to take from
the involved transactions, the more it costs when it gets to
the payor. I'd call it ineffiecient when more entities than
needed are involved. The carriers can raise their rates to
pay for this, if they think it is nessesary. Simple, direct,
efficient, *and* it allows the market to do its job.