Looks like a room or building size Faraday Cage (a foil hat the size of your house!) might be the only defence...
This is actually easier to do than you might imagine. My old house was essentially a Faraday Cage. You could NOT get a wireless signal more then 1 foot outside it. Why? Aluminum Siding. Add in aluminum powder tinted windows (triple layer UV and thermal glass) and the only leakage was straight up through the roof.
So you could get an OK cell-phone signal on the second floor (2 bars), but almost nothing on the first floor. Walk out the front door, 4 bars. Same with WiFi. Full strength "g" signal anywhere inside, walk outside and the connection drops.
My current home has asbestos siding (bleah!) that does nothing to attenuate the Wifi signal, so I actually had to encrypt my wireless for the first time ever when I moved. I can pick up my wireless signal about 2 doors away now, and it's the same wireless device I used in my old house, located in a roughly similar spot (close to the center of the house, in the basement, on a shelf near the basement rafters)
If I could I'd re-side in Aluminum again, but the costs to re-side an asbestos tile sided house are astronomical, and many places simply won't do it.
Regardless, if you really want to attenuate any wireless signals going into or out of your home, slap on some aluminum siding. You'll kill those pesky wireless signals, AND make your house look really nice at the same time.
I would repeat to you my question from my original post:
DID YOU PRE-ORDER ONE?
yes, or no?
If yes, then I will accept your somewhat heated rebuttal as coming from someone who has put their money where their mouth is. I would still disagree with you (Particularly on the point about the Big 3 automakers. They have been struggling under the weight of Unions and absurd Union pension plans for years, they are ripe for collapse.) But I would have respect for your opinion.
If not, then seriously, shut up. You can spout all the fancy performance numbers all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the Tesla Roadster is an EXPENSIVE TOY for rich people. That is a major part of my point, although you attempt to flippantly write it off.
In order for EV's to really succeed, they MUST match or beat ALL the qualities of gas cars and trucks, INCLUDING the variable price points. In other words, a 25K EV sedan must have competitive performance, durability, flexibility, quality and appointment to a 25K gas sedan. This goes the same with all other types of vehicles. It has to be an apples-apples comparison. Otherwise it's a step DOWN for people to get into them. Most of the market isn't going to do that. Period.
As I said to another poster; I LIKE EV's. I WANT them to succeed. However I just don't think the tech is mature enough. I sincerely hope that it will become so within my lifetime, but for now the tech is JUST TOO NEW. it's not ready yet, and neither is the market. it's getting there though. Perhaps in another 10-20 years, maybe less , what with all the investment into the tech. But not now. Tesla's failure is evidence of an immature technology and an immature market.
These may be the things stopping YOU from buying an EV, but I can assure you that you do not speak for everybody.
Correct. I don't presume to speak for EVERYBODY. I would never do that. However, you can be assured that I speak for a large enough section of the market to be accurate.
Please don't get me wrong. I think the Electric concept is great. I really do hope we can have affordable, reliable, easy to use and easy to fuel EV cars and trucks in my lifetime. However, with the current state of the technology I don't suspect we will. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt I am.
If your product works, or at least appears to, and you have a sound plan for getting it to market, where it will be purchased, then SOMEONE will loan you the money. If you're a slick dot-com shop with a foosball table and free soda for everyone, and your product consists of a slick name and spiffy presentations, then not so much.
DING DING! We have a winner!
I realize that this may come as a shocker to many here at/., but the terrible truth is, there really isn't a large market for all-electrics yet. Yes, there IS a market. it's a NICHE market for high-end toys for the Hollywood rich. But the average middle-class suburbanite non-eco-hippy non-leftist (most of America) is NOT interested in buying an expensive toy. NOT ONLY can they not afford one, they wouldn't get one even if they could. They simply aren't interested.
Now, before I get a dozen responses of "Hey! You are wrong. I live in suburbia and I would buy one!" Let me ask you: DID YOU pre-order one? No? Then shut it. All you have is good intentions and fantasy. The reality is: Tesla motors is going belly-up due to a lack of a market for their car. JUST like every other major attempt at an all-electric. This will continue to happen until all-electric cars can match or exceed the complete package of a gasoline car. That includes, top speed, total range, available power and torque, the range of conditions it can reliably function in, SPEED AND EASE of refueling, TCO, and initial investment cost.
Electrics are nice, but they just can't match gas cars on all those points simultaneously. The technology isn't mature enough. hopefully it will be someday soon. But it isn't yet. Thus all-electric car companies will continue to fail.
Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue.
I wish it was that easy.
While I will agree, there is more than enough blame to go around, we must also look at this from a factual standpoint. Yes, Republicans are partly to blame. However, the blame that rests with Republicans is largely one of inaction. IE: they sat there like a bunch of facking idiots with their thumbs up their asses. Let me tell you NOBODY is more pissed off about that than I. Fortunately, many of those inactive RINO's (for those wondering, RINO = Republican In Name Only. Leftist GOP members.) got booted out of office in 2006. Interestingly, Many of the RINO's were replaced with "Blue Dog" Democrats (Rightist Dems).
For the Democrats from that era though, the problem is more serious. Many of them, including Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, were ACTIVELY blocking ANY reform of the banking system. There are ethical issues as well, as it turns out Barney Frank was actually DATING the head of Fannie and Freddie during that time. Chris Dodd, the head of the House Banking committee, received more money than anyone other than Barack Obama from Fannie and Freddie. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have DEEP ethical and corruption problems surrounding the financial meltdown. This is NOT a partisan issue, but an Ethics and Legal one. That transcends party loyalties. Or, at least, it SHOULD.
Unfortunately, it appears that, rather than honestly accept responsibility for their active blocking of needed reform, many of the Democrats are playing the CYA game, and trying to shift responsibility to the Republicans. Not only is this disingenuous, it belies the factual history of the meltdown. This is what gets so many Conservatives up in arms. Yes, Republicans should have done more, but the Democrats were the ones actually BLOCKING a fix. A fix proposed and supported by none other than John McCain.
This is why I'm voting for McCain. He saw this problem coming, and tried to stop it. Prescience is a quality we need in a President.
How did I get a -1 Troll mod?? I thought my post was at least civil. It's not like I was insulting the OP or anything. Now, if you want to give me a -1 offtopic mod, ok; Then that would at least be correct.
If you are going to mod, please mod properly. Otherwise, what's the point?
Look, I know this is offtopic and all, but the expression is "That's the BREAKS". NOT BRAKES!
Brake(s) 1. a device for slowing or stopping a vehicle or other moving mechanism by the absorption or transfer of the energy of momentum, usually by means of friction. 2. brakes, the drums, shoes, tubes, levers, etc., making up such a device on a vehicle.
Break(s) 1. Informal. a. an opportunity or stroke of fortune, esp. a lucky one: That's a lucky break! b. a chance to improve one's lot, esp. one unlooked for or undeserved: Thanks for giving me this break. 2. the breaks, Informal. the way things happen; fate: Sorry to hear about your bad luck, but I guess those are the breaks.
Sorry to go offtopic, but I see that misuse is so many otherwise intelligent arguments. The worst part about it is that it utterly ruins the argument because it makes the person writing the argument appear ignorant.
I'm not sure if I should be impressed that our aircraft are so advanced that they can be flown with commodity consumer interface tools, or frightened silly.
Either way, I thought that all modern aircraft were "hardened" against interference from these devices, and that the UL listing on these devices specified that they cannot create interference? Methinks someone is trying to CYA by passing the buck to a mouse.
If you want that kind of resolution a drone aircraft is much cheaper, more flexible and less prone to weather-related blackouts...
But MORE prone to mechanical failure, bird strike, weather grounding, SAMs, and human error both in servicing the vehicle, and in remote operation. In addition, drones suffer from range and flight-time limitations that satellites do not.
Each is useful, but not always for the same things.
Re:Within a single device...
on
DMCA Exemption Time
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So is it currently illegal for anyone to sell the means to circumvent DRM for those 6 cases listed in the article?
Bingo.
Sell, or give away. At least within US Jurisdiction. Thankfully, the Internet is global.
My own personal addition would be:
"Sales or gifts of software designed to aid in the decryption of protected works where that decryption is performed for uses defined under Fair Use principles."
Let's just get the Copyright office to gut the law this time around.
In my opinion, every county should have a place where you are required to go within 30 days of registering a new vehicle, and make every driver insured to drive that car go through a vehicle handling course to learn how to handle it properly. This small expense ($20 per driver sounds fair), would mean the ability to lower insurance rates, and far fewer accidents.
THIS!
Great idea, BTW. Far too many people have no idea how to control their own vehicles. Frankly, I would take your idea a step further, requiring a FULL road test every 10 years to prove your driving proficiency. You pass, you keep your license (no extra credit for being able to do the expected.) You fail, You lose your license.
Indeed. I LIVE IN BUFFALO (Well, actually a nearby suburb of Buffalo, but downtown is just 10 minutes away. Close enough.) and I can tell you for a FACT that not only does no-one here use chains in the winter, but chains and "studded tires" (tires with small metal bumps embedded in the rubber) are Illegal in New York State.
What do we drive? Well, pretty much what everybody else in the country drives. Only we have a heavier mix of SUV's with full 4 wheel drive than you might see in, say, California. Although we actually have a justification for having them, as the roads are impassable without 4 Wheel Drive on several occasions throughout the winter here.
Not to say that it's like living in the Rockies during the winter, but "Lake Effect" snow can be a real bitch to deal with in a small car. Let's all be honest here: Your boss isn't going to take the excuse that you can't get to work because your Pious (I mean, Prius) can't get out of the driveway because of 6 inches of snow. Those vehicles are all fine and well for areas with sunshine all year round, but since some of us live in areas with actual weather, we can't afford to drive a matchbox car, even if we wanted.
I drive a Jeep Liberty. No, not the most fuel efficient vehicle on the road, but not a monster either. It has full 4 wheel drive when I need it, and fair fuel economy to boot. (Better than my old '98 Bonneville, that's for sure!) And no Buffalo Winter is ever going to keep me from getting where I need to go. Frankly, the only change I would make is if I could have gotten the Diesel version, so I could make my own Bio-Diesel. What can I say? I'm cheap.
By the time he stirs his soy latte, brings out his iPhone ostentatiously, and makes sure someone's noticed the logo on the lid, that's 15 seconds right there.
Now now, let's be nice here. While I will admit, Apple DOES have a reputation as an Elitist's machine, Apple has been making inroads into other markets for some time.
When my father quit his old job and started his own company, he asked me what laptop he should buy. I unequivocally told him to buy a Mac. He bought himself a Powerbook Pro, and hasn't looked back since. He can do everything he used to be able to do on a Windows machine, and I almost never have to hand-hold him through it. He's almost 60 years old, and he loves his Mac. he loves it so much in fact, that he bought my mom one of her own. She's got a regular powerbook, and thinks it's great!
Now I just need to get Grandpa set up on an Ubuntu box, and I shall complete the geek trifecta!
A simple format might not remove it, as a simple format just wipes the tables, and not the entire drive. But a utility like KillDisk would absolutely wipe it, and you can get KillDisk for free with the Ultimate Boot CD.
Somehow I doubt the computrace software would survive being overwritten 12 times with random ones and zeros.
Indeed, with the exception of AIDS babies (Infants born with AIDS because their mothers had it, or caught it during pregnancy) and those very rare cases of transfusion-borne AIDS (almost impossible these days), AIDS is a disease that is ENTIRELY related to your behavior.
IE: If both you and your partner were virgins until your first sexual encounter with each other, and have a lifelong, drug-free relationship until both of your natural (or accidental) deaths, the chance of either of you contracting AIDS is statistically zero.
On the other hand, if you engage in sex with multiple partners, live a homosexual lifestyle, or engage in intravenous drug use, you stand a very high chance of AIDS infection. Please keep in mind, AIDS has an incubation period of up to 8 years, during which tests cannot detect the inactive infection. Thus you can NEVER be 100% certain of someone's AIDS infection status. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something, or is a moron.
In addition, homosexual males can have up to 10 times more sex partners than heterosexuals of both sexes. (Lesbians somewhat less, although still higher than heterosexuals, on average.) As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, Anal sex is particularly dangerous in regards to the chances of infection from AIDS. There is a reason why AIDS was known as the homosexual's disease, it has always been most rampant in that community, and still is.
All discussions of morality aside, there is a legitimate question to ask regarding the public financing of AIDS drugs being given out to most AIDS infectees. With the exceptions I listed at the beginning of this thread, the vast majority of AIDS infectees are 100% responsible for their own condition. They consciously engaged in behavior they knew was dangerous, why should the public pay for it? if we were talking about people with cancer from smoking, I doubt anyone here would raise an eyebrow if the suggestion were make to never use public funds for their treatment. But if it's AIDS, suddenly there is some kind of right? that makes no sense.
Ultimately, the "I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want and don't ever tell me not to" attitude of many people has to stop. We simply can't afford it anymore. The responsible people in society end up having to foot the bill so irresponsible morons who make excuses like "I'm not predisposed to monogamy" and can't keep it in their pants and go around making babies, wrecking lives, causing trouble, getting AIDS and then expecting the rest of society to just pay for their waste of a life.
There has to be a choice: Live responsibly, and society will reward you. Live a life of dissipation, and you are on your own.
And of course the catch 22 is that costs will remain high if production isn't ramped up and production won't be ramped up unless there is demand for it and there won't be demand unless the price goes down.
Except that as demand dwindles, and retailers are stuck with lots of Bluray stuff on their shelves, the price WILL go down. That's why it's called the "Law of SUPPLY and Demand" not "The Law of PRODUCTION and Demand". Production responds to BOTH supply and demand, not the other way around.
Retailers are not going to want to be stuck with unsaleable or slow-selling stock on their shelves. That inventory cost them money and they are going to want to move that stuff off the shelves to make room for stuff people will buy. What you are going to see over the next 6 months to year (particularly if the global economy tanks) is a quick and drastic price reduction, until the price reaches a point people will be willing to pay. I suspect that the cost for a Bluray Disc/Bluray player will be JUST above the cost for a regular DVD/DVD Player (no more than 10% more) and it will stabilize there.
Once it reaches that price point, adoption levels will rise, and demand will rise. There will be price fluctuations, but as production ramps up to keep up with demand the price will remain stable at around that same price point, eventually dropping down to the price point of current DVDs once DVDs are phased out entirely.
Of course, I am not an Economist, and I have NO idea what the production, transportation and wholesale costs of these discs/units are, but my best guess is that it's not anything like the price differential we are seeing at the retail end of the spectrum.
While the United States of America is located WITHIN the continent of North America, (which it gets it's name from) the PROPER term for people from the U.S.A. is "Americans". It is the short form of "Citizens of the United States of America". People from Canada (also part of North America) would take exception to being called "Americans". Not because they necessarily dislike America or because they think Canada is on a different continent, but because it is INCORRECT. Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Canada are called "Canadians".
Also, Mexico is part of the continent of Central America. These people would ALSO take exception to being called Americans, they are "Mexicans". In case you cared, We also have "Colombians", "Peruvians", "Brazilians", "Argentinians", and many others, NONE of which think they should be referred to as "Americans". That appellation belongs solely to citizens of the United States of America.
Intentionally using incorrect terminology in an attempt to lessen the prestige of a country by removing the continent name from which the country name is derived is INSULTING and a rather juvenile attempt at belittling citizens of that country. It makes you look petty, small, and stupid.
Frankly, there are 3 issues with the Border (and airport) Security as now implemented:
1) There is a VERY fine line regarding border and airport searches that requires excellent training and care to avoid violating a US Citizen's Constitutionally guaranteed rights. (Sorry non-US citizens, the Constitution and it's amendments only apply to US Citizens, no matter how much some people may want them to apply to the world.)
2) The Border guards AND airport security people are under trained, under staffed, and with a low standard for hiring.
3) They are Unionized. (Oh, the employees suck? Too bad, they are Unionized. We can't fire them!)
These three issues combined result in the fiasco we have now.
Had I my way, Unionization of ANY government employees would be strictly outlawed. At the very least, we could start flushing out the lazy bums, raise the hiring standard and get some quality people in there. That would go a long way towards fixing crappy border crossing experiences.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I suspect he means one of the following;
1)Nips - racist language used to describe people of Japanese/Asian descent
2)Nips - Nipples. I hope I don't need to explain that one.
3)Nips - to leave, or go somewhere in an abrupt or rapid fashion.
I'd imagine he means #3, unless his lawyer is either Japanese, or buxom. (Maybe both. That would be nice.)
Wow. That just brings creative team griefing to a WHOLE NEW LEVEL when you split up the Portal gun modes in co-op play.
"What? You mean you don't like it that I plop your exit portal over the lava pit every time?"
>:)
This is actually easier to do than you might imagine. My old house was essentially a Faraday Cage. You could NOT get a wireless signal more then 1 foot outside it. Why? Aluminum Siding. Add in aluminum powder tinted windows (triple layer UV and thermal glass) and the only leakage was straight up through the roof.
So you could get an OK cell-phone signal on the second floor (2 bars), but almost nothing on the first floor. Walk out the front door, 4 bars. Same with WiFi. Full strength "g" signal anywhere inside, walk outside and the connection drops.
My current home has asbestos siding (bleah!) that does nothing to attenuate the Wifi signal, so I actually had to encrypt my wireless for the first time ever when I moved. I can pick up my wireless signal about 2 doors away now, and it's the same wireless device I used in my old house, located in a roughly similar spot (close to the center of the house, in the basement, on a shelf near the basement rafters)
If I could I'd re-side in Aluminum again, but the costs to re-side an asbestos tile sided house are astronomical, and many places simply won't do it.
Regardless, if you really want to attenuate any wireless signals going into or out of your home, slap on some aluminum siding. You'll kill those pesky wireless signals, AND make your house look really nice at the same time.
I would repeat to you my question from my original post:
DID YOU PRE-ORDER ONE?
yes, or no?
If yes, then I will accept your somewhat heated rebuttal as coming from someone who has put their money where their mouth is. I would still disagree with you (Particularly on the point about the Big 3 automakers. They have been struggling under the weight of Unions and absurd Union pension plans for years, they are ripe for collapse.) But I would have respect for your opinion.
If not, then seriously, shut up. You can spout all the fancy performance numbers all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the Tesla Roadster is an EXPENSIVE TOY for rich people. That is a major part of my point, although you attempt to flippantly write it off.
In order for EV's to really succeed, they MUST match or beat ALL the qualities of gas cars and trucks, INCLUDING the variable price points. In other words, a 25K EV sedan must have competitive performance, durability, flexibility, quality and appointment to a 25K gas sedan. This goes the same with all other types of vehicles. It has to be an apples-apples comparison. Otherwise it's a step DOWN for people to get into them. Most of the market isn't going to do that. Period.
As I said to another poster; I LIKE EV's. I WANT them to succeed. However I just don't think the tech is mature enough. I sincerely hope that it will become so within my lifetime, but for now the tech is JUST TOO NEW. it's not ready yet, and neither is the market. it's getting there though. Perhaps in another 10-20 years, maybe less , what with all the investment into the tech. But not now. Tesla's failure is evidence of an immature technology and an immature market.
It sucks, but it's the truth.
Correct. I don't presume to speak for EVERYBODY. I would never do that. However, you can be assured that I speak for a large enough section of the market to be accurate.
Please don't get me wrong. I think the Electric concept is great. I really do hope we can have affordable, reliable, easy to use and easy to fuel EV cars and trucks in my lifetime. However, with the current state of the technology I don't suspect we will. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt I am.
It sucks, but it's true.
DING DING! We have a winner!
I realize that this may come as a shocker to many here at /., but the terrible truth is, there really isn't a large market for all-electrics yet. Yes, there IS a market. it's a NICHE market for high-end toys for the Hollywood rich. But the average middle-class suburbanite non-eco-hippy non-leftist (most of America) is NOT interested in buying an expensive toy. NOT ONLY can they not afford one, they wouldn't get one even if they could. They simply aren't interested.
Now, before I get a dozen responses of "Hey! You are wrong. I live in suburbia and I would buy one!" Let me ask you: DID YOU pre-order one? No? Then shut it. All you have is good intentions and fantasy. The reality is: Tesla motors is going belly-up due to a lack of a market for their car. JUST like every other major attempt at an all-electric. This will continue to happen until all-electric cars can match or exceed the complete package of a gasoline car. That includes, top speed, total range, available power and torque, the range of conditions it can reliably function in, SPEED AND EASE of refueling, TCO, and initial investment cost.
Electrics are nice, but they just can't match gas cars on all those points simultaneously. The technology isn't mature enough. hopefully it will be someday soon. But it isn't yet. Thus all-electric car companies will continue to fail.
In that case they are already too late. Site is slashdotted.
I wish it was that easy.
While I will agree, there is more than enough blame to go around, we must also look at this from a factual standpoint. Yes, Republicans are partly to blame. However, the blame that rests with Republicans is largely one of inaction. IE: they sat there like a bunch of facking idiots with their thumbs up their asses. Let me tell you NOBODY is more pissed off about that than I. Fortunately, many of those inactive RINO's (for those wondering, RINO = Republican In Name Only. Leftist GOP members.) got booted out of office in 2006. Interestingly, Many of the RINO's were replaced with "Blue Dog" Democrats (Rightist Dems).
For the Democrats from that era though, the problem is more serious. Many of them, including Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, were ACTIVELY blocking ANY reform of the banking system. There are ethical issues as well, as it turns out Barney Frank was actually DATING the head of Fannie and Freddie during that time. Chris Dodd, the head of the House Banking committee, received more money than anyone other than Barack Obama from Fannie and Freddie. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have DEEP ethical and corruption problems surrounding the financial meltdown. This is NOT a partisan issue, but an Ethics and Legal one. That transcends party loyalties. Or, at least, it SHOULD.
Unfortunately, it appears that, rather than honestly accept responsibility for their active blocking of needed reform, many of the Democrats are playing the CYA game, and trying to shift responsibility to the Republicans. Not only is this disingenuous, it belies the factual history of the meltdown. This is what gets so many Conservatives up in arms. Yes, Republicans should have done more, but the Democrats were the ones actually BLOCKING a fix. A fix proposed and supported by none other than John McCain.
This is why I'm voting for McCain. He saw this problem coming, and tried to stop it. Prescience is a quality we need in a President.
How did I get a -1 Troll mod?? I thought my post was at least civil. It's not like I was insulting the OP or anything. Now, if you want to give me a -1 offtopic mod, ok; Then that would at least be correct.
If you are going to mod, please mod properly. Otherwise, what's the point?
Look, I know this is offtopic and all, but the expression is "That's the BREAKS". NOT BRAKES!
Brake(s)
1. a device for slowing or stopping a vehicle or other moving mechanism by the absorption or transfer of the energy of momentum, usually by means of friction.
2. brakes, the drums, shoes, tubes, levers, etc., making up such a device on a vehicle.
Break(s)
1. Informal.
a. an opportunity or stroke of fortune, esp. a lucky one: That's a lucky break!
b. a chance to improve one's lot, esp. one unlooked for or undeserved: Thanks for giving me this break.
2. the breaks, Informal. the way things happen; fate: Sorry to hear about your bad luck, but I guess those are the breaks.
Sorry to go offtopic, but I see that misuse is so many otherwise intelligent arguments. The worst part about it is that it utterly ruins the argument because it makes the person writing the argument appear ignorant.
So please, get the expression right.
God, I hope not. I'm not really into Senead O'Connor look-alike women.
Although I suppose I could deal with Zhaan look-alikes. Although we would have to find the "Blue Gene" for skin as well.
I'm not sure if I should be impressed that our aircraft are so advanced that they can be flown with commodity consumer interface tools, or frightened silly.
Either way, I thought that all modern aircraft were "hardened" against interference from these devices, and that the UL listing on these devices specified that they cannot create interference? Methinks someone is trying to CYA by passing the buck to a mouse.
But MORE prone to mechanical failure, bird strike, weather grounding, SAMs, and human error both in servicing the vehicle, and in remote operation. In addition, drones suffer from range and flight-time limitations that satellites do not.
Each is useful, but not always for the same things.
Bingo.
Sell, or give away. At least within US Jurisdiction. Thankfully, the Internet is global.
My own personal addition would be:
"Sales or gifts of software designed to aid in the decryption of protected works where that decryption is performed for uses defined under Fair Use principles."
Let's just get the Copyright office to gut the law this time around.
THIS!
Great idea, BTW. Far too many people have no idea how to control their own vehicles. Frankly, I would take your idea a step further, requiring a FULL road test every 10 years to prove your driving proficiency. You pass, you keep your license (no extra credit for being able to do the expected.) You fail, You lose your license.
Sorry folks, driving is a privilege, not a right.
Indeed. I LIVE IN BUFFALO (Well, actually a nearby suburb of Buffalo, but downtown is just 10 minutes away. Close enough.) and I can tell you for a FACT that not only does no-one here use chains in the winter, but chains and "studded tires" (tires with small metal bumps embedded in the rubber) are Illegal in New York State.
What do we drive? Well, pretty much what everybody else in the country drives. Only we have a heavier mix of SUV's with full 4 wheel drive than you might see in, say, California. Although we actually have a justification for having them, as the roads are impassable without 4 Wheel Drive on several occasions throughout the winter here.
Not to say that it's like living in the Rockies during the winter, but "Lake Effect" snow can be a real bitch to deal with in a small car. Let's all be honest here: Your boss isn't going to take the excuse that you can't get to work because your Pious (I mean, Prius) can't get out of the driveway because of 6 inches of snow. Those vehicles are all fine and well for areas with sunshine all year round, but since some of us live in areas with actual weather, we can't afford to drive a matchbox car, even if we wanted.
I drive a Jeep Liberty. No, not the most fuel efficient vehicle on the road, but not a monster either. It has full 4 wheel drive when I need it, and fair fuel economy to boot. (Better than my old '98 Bonneville, that's for sure!) And no Buffalo Winter is ever going to keep me from getting where I need to go. Frankly, the only change I would make is if I could have gotten the Diesel version, so I could make my own Bio-Diesel. What can I say? I'm cheap.
Now now, let's be nice here. While I will admit, Apple DOES have a reputation as an Elitist's machine, Apple has been making inroads into other markets for some time.
When my father quit his old job and started his own company, he asked me what laptop he should buy. I unequivocally told him to buy a Mac. He bought himself a Powerbook Pro, and hasn't looked back since. He can do everything he used to be able to do on a Windows machine, and I almost never have to hand-hold him through it. He's almost 60 years old, and he loves his Mac. he loves it so much in fact, that he bought my mom one of her own. She's got a regular powerbook, and thinks it's great!
Now I just need to get Grandpa set up on an Ubuntu box, and I shall complete the geek trifecta!
*maniacal laughter*
A simple format might not remove it, as a simple format just wipes the tables, and not the entire drive. But a utility like KillDisk would absolutely wipe it, and you can get KillDisk for free with the Ultimate Boot CD.
Somehow I doubt the computrace software would survive being overwritten 12 times with random ones and zeros.
Indeed, with the exception of AIDS babies (Infants born with AIDS because their mothers had it, or caught it during pregnancy) and those very rare cases of transfusion-borne AIDS (almost impossible these days), AIDS is a disease that is ENTIRELY related to your behavior.
IE: If both you and your partner were virgins until your first sexual encounter with each other, and have a lifelong, drug-free relationship until both of your natural (or accidental) deaths, the chance of either of you contracting AIDS is statistically zero.
On the other hand, if you engage in sex with multiple partners, live a homosexual lifestyle, or engage in intravenous drug use, you stand a very high chance of AIDS infection. Please keep in mind, AIDS has an incubation period of up to 8 years, during which tests cannot detect the inactive infection. Thus you can NEVER be 100% certain of someone's AIDS infection status. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something, or is a moron.
In addition, homosexual males can have up to 10 times more sex partners than heterosexuals of both sexes. (Lesbians somewhat less, although still higher than heterosexuals, on average.) As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, Anal sex is particularly dangerous in regards to the chances of infection from AIDS. There is a reason why AIDS was known as the homosexual's disease, it has always been most rampant in that community, and still is.
All discussions of morality aside, there is a legitimate question to ask regarding the public financing of AIDS drugs being given out to most AIDS infectees. With the exceptions I listed at the beginning of this thread, the vast majority of AIDS infectees are 100% responsible for their own condition. They consciously engaged in behavior they knew was dangerous, why should the public pay for it? if we were talking about people with cancer from smoking, I doubt anyone here would raise an eyebrow if the suggestion were make to never use public funds for their treatment. But if it's AIDS, suddenly there is some kind of right? that makes no sense.
Ultimately, the "I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want and don't ever tell me not to" attitude of many people has to stop. We simply can't afford it anymore. The responsible people in society end up having to foot the bill so irresponsible morons who make excuses like "I'm not predisposed to monogamy" and can't keep it in their pants and go around making babies, wrecking lives, causing trouble, getting AIDS and then expecting the rest of society to just pay for their waste of a life.
There has to be a choice: Live responsibly, and society will reward you. Live a life of dissipation, and you are on your own.
As stated by the great Adam Savage:
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"
'Nuff said.
No-ip.com.
They have a POP3 service available that can host your Domain's e-mail service for you.
See Here.
Except that as demand dwindles, and retailers are stuck with lots of Bluray stuff on their shelves, the price WILL go down. That's why it's called the "Law of SUPPLY and Demand" not "The Law of PRODUCTION and Demand". Production responds to BOTH supply and demand, not the other way around.
Retailers are not going to want to be stuck with unsaleable or slow-selling stock on their shelves. That inventory cost them money and they are going to want to move that stuff off the shelves to make room for stuff people will buy. What you are going to see over the next 6 months to year (particularly if the global economy tanks) is a quick and drastic price reduction, until the price reaches a point people will be willing to pay. I suspect that the cost for a Bluray Disc/Bluray player will be JUST above the cost for a regular DVD/DVD Player (no more than 10% more) and it will stabilize there.
Once it reaches that price point, adoption levels will rise, and demand will rise. There will be price fluctuations, but as production ramps up to keep up with demand the price will remain stable at around that same price point, eventually dropping down to the price point of current DVDs once DVDs are phased out entirely.
Of course, I am not an Economist, and I have NO idea what the production, transportation and wholesale costs of these discs/units are, but my best guess is that it's not anything like the price differential we are seeing at the retail end of the spectrum.
And the Middle-class White woman. ;)
No, it isn't. YOU are wrong, he is correct.
While the United States of America is located WITHIN the continent of North America, (which it gets it's name from) the PROPER term for people from the U.S.A. is "Americans". It is the short form of "Citizens of the United States of America". People from Canada (also part of North America) would take exception to being called "Americans". Not because they necessarily dislike America or because they think Canada is on a different continent, but because it is INCORRECT. Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Canada are called "Canadians".
Also, Mexico is part of the continent of Central America. These people would ALSO take exception to being called Americans, they are "Mexicans". In case you cared, We also have "Colombians", "Peruvians", "Brazilians", "Argentinians", and many others, NONE of which think they should be referred to as "Americans". That appellation belongs solely to citizens of the United States of America.
Intentionally using incorrect terminology in an attempt to lessen the prestige of a country by removing the continent name from which the country name is derived is INSULTING and a rather juvenile attempt at belittling citizens of that country. It makes you look petty, small, and stupid.
Mod OP up as Insightful.
Frankly, there are 3 issues with the Border (and airport) Security as now implemented:
1) There is a VERY fine line regarding border and airport searches that requires excellent training and care to avoid violating a US Citizen's Constitutionally guaranteed rights. (Sorry non-US citizens, the Constitution and it's amendments only apply to US Citizens, no matter how much some people may want them to apply to the world.)
2) The Border guards AND airport security people are under trained, under staffed, and with a low standard for hiring.
3) They are Unionized. (Oh, the employees suck? Too bad, they are Unionized. We can't fire them!)
These three issues combined result in the fiasco we have now.
Had I my way, Unionization of ANY government employees would be strictly outlawed. At the very least, we could start flushing out the lazy bums, raise the hiring standard and get some quality people in there. That would go a long way towards fixing crappy border crossing experiences.