C) Wait for the train to arrive on schedule, increasing the journey time
I think people tend to underestimate this. There is a plus/minus on the vehicles arrival. Arrive "on time" and you may well find that the vehicle arrived early and left without you, and you need to wait for the next one ( assuming there is such ). Increased waiting time. If you arrive a few minutes early to keep this from happening, you increase your waiting time. So, either take it in big blocks at random intervals as defined by probability, or in smaller blocks all the time.
D1) If you were in an individual mode of transportation, you would leave for your destination immediately on entering the vehicle. With mass transportation, on average, you will still have n/2 stops between your current position and the destination. This will add to your commute times.
Having said that, I dont understand how mass transit based on individual vehicles would be different from everyone having their own car, as now. Please explain.
What I find odd is this: I lock my machine when I leave work for the day. When I come in the next morning, XP spends about 30 seconds repainting *everything*. Why?
Ah, yes; the old "it's arrogant to think we're the only ones" argument. I personally feel the opposite is true; the fact that people continue to claim that there must be life on other planets in the complete absence of any evidence of any kind is the height of arrogance. "We're so smart, we have deduced this truth from pure reason."
Wasnt *quite* what I was trying to get across. My thinking, not well gotten across, what that it would be arrogant for us to think that God might not very well have created other races in this vast universe. Or not. Up to Him.
Now from a biblical standpoint, humans are the pinnacle of creation and the universe was created to give us some inkling of God's glory and eternal nature. It's not arrogant if it's true.
Pinnacle of creation? Where is that claim made? I agree that the universe is there to give us a view of God's glory and ability to create and his eternal nature. And I agree, it is not arrogant if true. But, refering back to the top, I dont know of anywhere in the bible where it is said that we are the only life/intelligent life in the universe, or that we are the pinnacle of life. The bible, from my reading, is silent on this subject.
I cant say that I am an expert on the matter, but as a Christian who has read the bible, I thought I would make a stab at answering your question.
I have not yet read anything that out and out talks about other planets. I have not yet read anything that leads me to think that there is something at a different or difficult level that talks about life on other planets.
I would think it would be a bit arrogant for us, believers or not, to assume that the universe was created ( whoever, whatever ) just for us.
I dont think that life itself would ( or should ) cause much grief for any of the sides in the "discussion".
Civilization, on the other hand, would have ramifications. I think the ramifications would be that if we found an alien civilization, and they had religious structures similiar to what we Christians espose, that that would, while not being "proof", would add credibility to our beliefs. Similiarly, should an alien civilization be found that did not have such structures or beliefs, that that fact would reduce the credibility of our beliefs ( I would think that reduction would be slight, one can argue a parallel case to animals on Earth )
I cant recollect where in the bible it says the Christ is coming back in 2000 years.
I dont think it says that, the only thing I can bring to mind is the scripture that says that "only the father knows" the times and days of the end times.
Perhaps you could reread, and point out the section where it says that for me?
I think you need to start being vocal about what you dont like *now*. Voting time may be too late. ( I.E. the herd votes what it has always voted, because they are uncognizant, or dont see a choice to really make ) Also, look at inserting yourself as a candidate to the board ( give them that choice ).
Yeah. In the case where I was pulled over, they claimed that one of the license plate illuminating lights was out. It wasnt.
I started moving around to keep warm after they asked me to step out of the car, one of the officers asked me if I was nervous. "No, officer, just cold". They eventually let me go, but I think they called in my license and plate numbers to see if there was anything I was wanted for.
I'm just glad that that did not happen ( as it did to you ) on a regular basis. Most officers have been OK, but....
First, those in "authority" need to recognize where that "authority" ultimately derives from ( the people ). ( course, the argument that "the people" need to recognize that they have granted that authority has validity.. )
Second, limits need to be known and enforced. I have been in several situations where police have abused the authority granted them. Once was being pulled over in my car because I had long hair, and I had not stopped in a gas station ( I had pulled in, thinking they were open, then kept moving after I got close enough to realize that they were not, apparently, suspicious behaviour ), the other was having a friend of mine thrown against a wall by a police officer for asking the office ( very politely ) what the officer was trying to accomplish, and on what grounds he was doing so.
Summary: authorities have authority, that authority should be limited. You as an individual have authority in the collective, and it should be limited as well.
I'm not used to the either of the tools you mention, I am a long time Windows ( longer term Unix, just jumped into the Linux pool ) user, and I, too, like to know what I am getting in the download. I will not use autoupdate. I also want to know *when* things are updated. If I know that updates have occured, I can check out the basic functionality right after and ensure that I dont get a frantic call from the wife screaming about how she absolutely has to have functionality X, but doesnt. I do the updates by hand, then, on the wife's machine, I check out the apps that she uses (-: nominally and usually...:-). If there is a problem, I can correct it, or make sure she doesnt need that app until I can fix it.
In fact, refusing to hold up your end of the contract when the other party refuses to hold up theirs only makes sense
That was my context, sorry for being confusing.
So, even when 3rd parties to the contract, that have no real ability to affect the behaviour of the parties to the contract, will be harmed, you have the "right" ( for lack of a better word just now ) to refuse to hold up your end of the contract?
I was intending to enter into a question of legal / illegal, I was looking into it as a right / wrong, immoral / moral, ethical / unethical kind of question.
Obviously the same problem happens when artifacts are under public-administration - as evidenced by the charges against Ary's
This is not, I think, commonplace. I know in the cases of many public air museums, there are websites where I can see what they have. And the aircraft are on display. Private collections? No such luck. I know there is a discussion going on in the cases of warbirds, public ownership generally means that they are not flown. Private owners have a choice, some do and some dont. But with those who do, there are a number of accidents with the aircraft each year. This means fewer and fewer for coming generations to see.
Note that you have only responded tangentally to the point. If the collection is dispersed amount 100 individuals, you have 0 chance to see them all together, and very little chance to even know where the item are. Yes, there are abuses of public ownership. I dont think we throw the whole concept out because of it.
Arguably, LESS accountability. If some article of mine is stolen, I'm going to pursue it vigrously
So, *you* pursue it vigorously. That still doesnt mean that *I* will ever be able to see it.
What happens when a state musuem sells off paintings because they cant meet budget? Same thing as a private collector selling it privately.
Technically true, but there is a higher probability of a private collector selling it privately ( and untraceably to the general public ). The private owner may find something they want more, they might get bored with it, they might find themselves strapped for cash, etc, etc. And it is true that some of these things may happed in a public collection, but you stand a chance of knowing where the item(s) went in the public case.
Millitary surplus is sold off every day, so where is the problem with publicly-paid items being sold to private individuals? There is no problem, so long as there is accountability on the public side of the finances involved.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? The question is for a valueable item, aquired at public cost, why should one individual be able to dictate that a price should be charged for the viewing? In this case an individual is being enriched for no other good reason than that they had sufficient liquidity to purchase the item. And that assumes that they even decide to make it publicly available. I have a friend who purchased the cockpit area of an A-7 Corsair II. He has yet to charge me for viewing it. Why? No large intrinsic value or historic value. I think you can see that that is a different case than the artifacts that have survived the Apollo era. Which was the point I was trying to make, perhaps I should have stated that more clearly... No, I have no problem with private ownership of things of little historical significance. I do think that public ownership of items of high historic significance is better ( in general ) than private. Should we auction off the declaration of independance? I do think there is a place for some private ownership in this realm, dont get me wrong, but I dont think it works well for all items, and I think it requires case by case consideration.
Course, the warbirds from the 40's were once in that category ( only more so... ). That has changed. ( No, I would not nessesarily argue that those warbirds should be removed from their custody, but it is still a shame when one of them crashes because the person that owned it did not take proper care of it. ( not to mention, that they will usually modify them to make them pass inspection, making them less historically interesting... ) ).
Ancient manuscripts, the famous paintings of europe they have survived for centuries primarily because they were in the hands of private collectors. Certainly there were no 'public museums' in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s - p
I have a better chance of accessing it retained by private hands than would in "public-adminstered" hand
Really? You do? How would you even know who had the articles in the first place? What if the articles are dispersed amoung 100 individuals? And what if the individuals in question do not allow you to see it? What happens when the articles are sold to other private collectors? And what happens if they decide to charge for access? Should something aquired using public tax money be allowed to enrich one person? And how will these items be cared for? Will they last for coming generations? I think public institutions are better equiped to answer these questions, but that is me.
The fact that Microsoft is financially successfull does not mean that they are the best at programming. It does mean that it is generally "good enough", but that is not the same as "excellent quality".
Having had the ability to read some MS code ( MFC, the code is provided, and you can step thru it, and I have had occasion to do so... ), what I have read was not excellent. It was OK, but not excellent. An example. There was a UI related function I needed to step thru. The function wrapped a win32 UI call. There was some setup code, then the win32 call. The win32 function returned a success indicator. *That* return code should have been returned by the wrapping function. The wrapping function returned TRUE, instead, leaving any callers with no way to know if the underlying task had been accomplished. It got the job done ( good enough ) for the billions of programmers out there that dont check return codes, or care if things have gone to heck, but it was not good form.
If he meant need he was wrong. The wage they NEED is subsistence level
And what is subsistence level? Doesnt that depend on the cost of goods in the area? If the wage offered is lower than that level, then there is a need, yes?
Which of course, begs the question of should we all live at subsistence level? If you argue yes, then, shouldnt we adopt a different form of economy? Capitalism is all about rewarding extra productivity with disparity in economic level, it cannot work if we are all to be at subsistence level. If not, then what?
All the examples you give of why we NEED a certain wage are easily refuted. Rent split between 6 roommates is cheap, but who wants to live with 6 roommates. The bus is a viable, if extremely distasteful method of transport for most Americans. The fact that these alternatives suck doesn't matter, only that they get the job done.
Theoretically, yes, but have you ever tried to rent a place with 6 roommates? I doubt you will get anywhere with that in the US. Finding a landlord that will allow it is impossible in the main ( yes, some small number of people may manage it, but *for the vast majority*, it is a non-starter. Also, you may bring up buying the house. Find a lender that will want to deal with that many parties involved. Good luck. Once the economy has gone to pot, then lenders and landlords may have no choice, and they will accept, but here and now, no way. ). And have you ridden the bus to get to work? Walk to the stop, an investment of some time. You have to show up early, you waste time waiting for the bus, the ride takes longer. Getting off work? Well, unless your work is exceptionally well timed, more time spent waiting, another long ride, then the walk home. Loads of economically wastefull time. Cheap, environmentally friendly, yes. Effective? No. Boss tell you you need to stay late? Gotta figure out if you can, the busses stop running after a certain time. And you better make *sure* you make that last one, or you are stuck there overnight.
Or, maybe, we should all go back to the old "company store" kind of setup. We all go a bit more backward in what we owe the company each pay period ( we rent the house, get our food, etc, etc from the company.. look it up ).
It is my belief that you are thinking on entirely too theoretical a level. Perhaps you should try it for a while, and let us know how it goes.:-)
Probably just exposing myself as an idiot, but I would like to see more men like Carter in politics. Yeah, he got eaten by the republicans, but, in my eyes, it was the republicans that I would like to see out.
War does not have to mean WWIII. There are many levels of conflict, unfortunately, and when resources like food become short people will fight over them. That warfare may be internal or regional.
I agree that war does not solve problems, excepting population pressures. Note that I dont like the equation.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he is trying to train his kids to use "good security pratices" as he sees them.
Then the real world will not be a suprise for them.
I think people tend to underestimate this. There is a plus/minus on the vehicles arrival. Arrive "on time" and you may well find that the vehicle arrived early and left without you, and you need to wait for the next one ( assuming there is such ). Increased waiting time. If you arrive a few minutes early to keep this from happening, you increase your waiting time. So, either take it in big blocks at random intervals as defined by probability, or in smaller blocks all the time.
D1) If you were in an individual mode of transportation, you would leave for your destination immediately on entering the vehicle. With mass transportation, on average, you will still have n/2 stops between your current position and the destination. This will add to your commute times.
Having said that, I dont understand how mass transit based on individual vehicles would be different from everyone having their own car, as now. Please explain.
What I find odd is this: I lock my machine when I leave work for the day. When I come in the next morning, XP spends about 30 seconds repainting *everything*. Why?
Oh, soon, we are working on the decor.
Why wait?
Wasnt *quite* what I was trying to get across. My thinking, not well gotten across, what that it would be arrogant for us to think that God might not very well have created other races in this vast universe. Or not. Up to Him.
Pinnacle of creation? Where is that claim made? I agree that the universe is there to give us a view of God's glory and ability to create and his eternal nature. And I agree, it is not arrogant if true. But, refering back to the top, I dont know of anywhere in the bible where it is said that we are the only life/intelligent life in the universe, or that we are the pinnacle of life. The bible, from my reading, is silent on this subject.
I cant say that I am an expert on the matter, but as a Christian who has read the bible, I thought I would make a stab at answering your question.
I have not yet read anything that out and out talks about other planets. I have not yet read anything that leads me to think that there is something at a different or difficult level that talks about life on other planets.
I would think it would be a bit arrogant for us, believers or not, to assume that the universe was created ( whoever, whatever ) just for us.
I dont think that life itself would ( or should ) cause much grief for any of the sides in the "discussion".
Civilization, on the other hand, would have ramifications. I think the ramifications would be that if we found an alien civilization, and they had religious structures similiar to what we Christians espose, that that would, while not being "proof", would add credibility to our beliefs. Similiarly, should an alien civilization be found that did not have such structures or beliefs, that that fact would reduce the credibility of our beliefs ( I would think that reduction would be slight, one can argue a parallel case to animals on Earth )
( );
I dont think they are so much chasing the wind as breaking it. ( Explains the methane... )
I cant recollect where in the bible it says the Christ is coming back in 2000 years.
I dont think it says that, the only thing I can bring to mind is the scripture that says that "only the father knows" the times and days of the end times.
Perhaps you could reread, and point out the section where it says that for me?
I think you need to start being vocal about what you dont like *now*. Voting time may be too late. ( I.E. the herd votes what it has always voted, because they are uncognizant, or dont see a choice to really make ) Also, look at inserting yourself as a candidate to the board ( give them that choice ).
Will Macs start to insist that "Business" not be defined as the union of an MS Operating system and MS Software?
Yeah. In the case where I was pulled over, they claimed that one of the license plate illuminating lights was out. It wasnt.
I started moving around to keep warm after they asked me to step out of the car, one of the officers asked me if I was nervous. "No, officer, just cold". They eventually let me go, but I think they called in my license and plate numbers to see if there was anything I was wanted for.
I'm just glad that that did not happen ( as it did to you ) on a regular basis. Most officers have been OK, but....
A dealership frame around your license plate is illegal in CT? Wow.
Good luck avoiding harassment.
Who is watching slashdot?
*looks over shoulder*...
You have a point, but there is more to it.
First, those in "authority" need to recognize where that "authority" ultimately derives from ( the people ). ( course, the argument that "the people" need to recognize that they have granted that authority has validity.. )
Second, limits need to be known and enforced. I have been in several situations where police have abused the authority granted them. Once was being pulled over in my car because I had long hair, and I had not stopped in a gas station ( I had pulled in, thinking they were open, then kept moving after I got close enough to realize that they were not, apparently, suspicious behaviour ), the other was having a friend of mine thrown against a wall by a police officer for asking the office ( very politely ) what the officer was trying to accomplish, and on what grounds he was doing so.
Summary: authorities have authority, that authority should be limited. You as an individual have authority in the collective, and it should be limited as well.
I'm not used to the either of the tools you mention, I am a long time Windows ( longer term Unix, just jumped into the Linux pool ) user, and I, too, like to know what I am getting in the download. I will not use autoupdate. I also want to know *when* things are updated. If I know that updates have occured, I can check out the basic functionality right after and ensure that I dont get a frantic call from the wife screaming about how she absolutely has to have functionality X, but doesnt. I do the updates by hand, then, on the wife's machine, I check out the apps that she uses (-: nominally and usually... :-). If there is a problem, I can correct it, or make sure she doesnt need that app until I can fix it.
That was my context, sorry for being confusing.
So, even when 3rd parties to the contract, that have no real ability to affect the behaviour of the parties to the contract, will be harmed, you have the "right" ( for lack of a better word just now ) to refuse to hold up your end of the contract?
I was intending to enter into a question of legal / illegal, I was looking into it as a right / wrong, immoral / moral, ethical / unethical kind of question.
Even when there will be injured parties without influence over the actions of the contract participants?
This is not, I think, commonplace. I know in the cases of many public air museums, there are websites where I can see what they have. And the aircraft are on display. Private collections? No such luck. I know there is a discussion going on in the cases of warbirds, public ownership generally means that they are not flown. Private owners have a choice, some do and some dont. But with those who do, there are a number of accidents with the aircraft each year. This means fewer and fewer for coming generations to see.
Note that you have only responded tangentally to the point. If the collection is dispersed amount 100 individuals, you have 0 chance to see them all together, and very little chance to even know where the item are. Yes, there are abuses of public ownership. I dont think we throw the whole concept out because of it.
So, *you* pursue it vigorously. That still doesnt mean that *I* will ever be able to see it.
Technically true, but there is a higher probability of a private collector selling it privately ( and untraceably to the general public ). The private owner may find something they want more, they might get bored with it, they might find themselves strapped for cash, etc, etc. And it is true that some of these things may happed in a public collection, but you stand a chance of knowing where the item(s) went in the public case.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? The question is for a valueable item, aquired at public cost, why should one individual be able to dictate that a price should be charged for the viewing? In this case an individual is being enriched for no other good reason than that they had sufficient liquidity to purchase the item. And that assumes that they even decide to make it publicly available. I have a friend who purchased the cockpit area of an A-7 Corsair II. He has yet to charge me for viewing it. Why? No large intrinsic value or historic value. I think you can see that that is a different case than the artifacts that have survived the Apollo era. Which was the point I was trying to make, perhaps I should have stated that more clearly... No, I have no problem with private ownership of things of little historical significance. I do think that public ownership of items of high historic significance is better ( in general ) than private. Should we auction off the declaration of independance? I do think there is a place for some private ownership in this realm, dont get me wrong, but I dont think it works well for all items, and I think it requires case by case consideration.
Course, the warbirds from the 40's were once in that category ( only more so... ). That has changed. ( No, I would not nessesarily argue that those warbirds should be removed from their custody, but it is still a shame when one of them crashes because the person that owned it did not take proper care of it. ( not to mention, that they will usually modify them to make them pass inspection, making them less historically interesting... ) ).
Really? You do? How would you even know who had the articles in the first place? What if the articles are dispersed amoung 100 individuals? And what if the individuals in question do not allow you to see it? What happens when the articles are sold to other private collectors? And what happens if they decide to charge for access? Should something aquired using public tax money be allowed to enrich one person? And how will these items be cared for? Will they last for coming generations? I think public institutions are better equiped to answer these questions, but that is me.
Yep, keeping the drive is even risky, it might be stolen.
To destroy:
Grind the entire drive using a grinder.
Collect the particles as they are removed ( hopefully, intermingle this with other grinding "results" ).
Send the particles to a reputable recycler of metals, 1/3 right away, 1/3 in a few months, the remainer sometime later.
Oh, yeah, if you want to be extra paranoid, magnetize the particles.
The fact that Microsoft is financially successfull does not mean that they are the best at programming. It does mean that it is generally "good enough", but that is not the same as "excellent quality".
Having had the ability to read some MS code ( MFC, the code is provided, and you can step thru it, and I have had occasion to do so... ), what I have read was not excellent. It was OK, but not excellent. An example. There was a UI related function I needed to step thru. The function wrapped a win32 UI call. There was some setup code, then the win32 call. The win32 function returned a success indicator. *That* return code should have been returned by the wrapping function. The wrapping function returned TRUE, instead, leaving any callers with no way to know if the underlying task had been accomplished. It got the job done ( good enough ) for the billions of programmers out there that dont check return codes, or care if things have gone to heck, but it was not good form.
And what is subsistence level? Doesnt that depend on the cost of goods in the area? If the wage offered is lower than that level, then there is a need, yes?
Which of course, begs the question of should we all live at subsistence level? If you argue yes, then, shouldnt we adopt a different form of economy? Capitalism is all about rewarding extra productivity with disparity in economic level, it cannot work if we are all to be at subsistence level. If not, then what?
Theoretically, yes, but have you ever tried to rent a place with 6 roommates? I doubt you will get anywhere with that in the US. Finding a landlord that will allow it is impossible in the main ( yes, some small number of people may manage it, but *for the vast majority*, it is a non-starter. Also, you may bring up buying the house. Find a lender that will want to deal with that many parties involved. Good luck. Once the economy has gone to pot, then lenders and landlords may have no choice, and they will accept, but here and now, no way. ). And have you ridden the bus to get to work? Walk to the stop, an investment of some time. You have to show up early, you waste time waiting for the bus, the ride takes longer. Getting off work? Well, unless your work is exceptionally well timed, more time spent waiting, another long ride, then the walk home. Loads of economically wastefull time. Cheap, environmentally friendly, yes. Effective? No. Boss tell you you need to stay late? Gotta figure out if you can, the busses stop running after a certain time. And you better make *sure* you make that last one, or you are stuck there overnight.
Or, maybe, we should all go back to the old "company store" kind of setup. We all go a bit more backward in what we owe the company each pay period ( we rent the house, get our food, etc, etc from the company.. look it up ).
It is my belief that you are thinking on entirely too theoretical a level. Perhaps you should try it for a while, and let us know how it goes.
Probably just exposing myself as an idiot, but I would like to see more men like Carter in politics. Yeah, he got eaten by the republicans, but, in my eyes, it was the republicans that I would like to see out.
D
War does not have to mean WWIII. There are many levels of conflict, unfortunately, and when resources like food become short people will fight over them. That warfare may be internal or regional.
I agree that war does not solve problems, excepting population pressures. Note that I dont like the equation.