Also, it's a well-known fact that people are much less inhibited on the 'net. Admitting such things to anonymous strangers is much easier than admitting faults to people you know.
I'm halfway down through the comments, and I've not seen a single obnoxious joke about tapping your "device" against a poster in public. Not even "I know a few slashdot posters I'D like to tap my device against".
Hoepfully, this inane post will help me find my way back to the right dimension.
If there's no slack in there, though, then when you push down hard on the mouse in a fit of "oh shit gotta dodge that" it'll grind against the top and stop, so it can't be designed that way.
Well, there's a certain amout of "learn to calm down and use your tool correctly" in that case. If a soldier panics when he sees an enemy and un-safeties and fires his pistol into his leg before he clears the holster, you really can't blame the pistol.
I do love Logitech mice though. They were the first (and only?) to get scroll wheels right. And, it's easy to find a nice, simple, non-"ergonomic" (i.e., 'my hand is shaped like a freakish alien') design.
Sorry, but you're either trolling, got fed bullshit, or are spewing bullshit.
Personally, I think it's a troll. In case it's not: The fuels that fuelcells use are not that dangerous, and they are used in small quantities. People carry around plastic lighters full of butane all the time and no-one was evere killed when they dropped it.
I was trying to imply running the satellite to a single box (router) and then branching out ethernet from there. So, I was asking if the reason that wasn't offered as a solution is because the runs are too long for ethernet. I assume there may be weird routing issues too, but I don't know. It just seems like a simple idea that *should* work, so I wondered why it wasn't suggested.
a "fare" is what you pay to take a ride (bus, taxi, etc.)
"fair" is even-handed. (or a get-together, like a county fair).
just a little fyi. you might want to check out Merriam Webster's Word of the Day email list. They'll email you a word definition every day. Just takes a minute to scan, and you increase your vocablulary (and spelling) a bit at a time! www.m-w.com
Only on slashdot would somebody completely ignore the subject noun of a sentence, make a snide comment about how a lot of his peers suck but he's Joe Cool with a brain, and get modded up for it.
The grandparent said "kids". That means children. NOT college-age adults. Even if it IS common to have children up until 3am at a wedding party in Iraq, the parent completely ignored the point of the grandparent. It should have been modded alright, but as OFF TOPIC.
Am I the only one who remembers that we're in a war here?
No, but, like many others, you're confused about how many wars we're in. It's 2. (Although the US's Bush administration likes to put them in a blender together and feed the results to the public.)
The first is the war on terrorism (that is, Al Quaeda [man, i really need to learn to spell that]). It's still going on, but we hear nothing about it.
Instead, we hear about the second war: the war with Iraq. Even though they say "terrorism" all the time, don't be confused. It has NOTHING to do with terrorism. Yes, we were *told* it was terrorism. We were told that Iraq was nearing completion of nuclear and biological agents and would be striking the US just as soon as they were ready. But now that they found no proof whatsoever (as expected), they're using the "he was a bad bad man" argument (which, ironically, happens to directly contradict Bush's "no nation building" stance during election). Of course, they still SAY "terrorism" all the time. And the fact that we've drawn Al Quaeda like flies over to Iraq to get some hits in on Americans, makes it easier to blur the line.
However, the Iraqi people are NOT trying to take over the wold; and the ones fighting are using every method at their disposal to repel what they see as invaders. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I agree with their tactics. I'm just pointing out that WE are in THEIR country without any provication. If you think we need to attack the homeland of Al Quaeda, then we should still be in Afghanistan and should be attacking Saudi Arabia (where all but 1 of the 9/11 terrorists came from). THAT is where the war on terrorism lies, NOT in Iraq.
Umm, well, PAYING for it, maybe? That's what my cable bill is for. That's why the television companies are allowed to use the public EM spectrum for their own profit.
And, let's even say that I want to loan a tape of a cable-tv show to a friend that doesn't pay for cable. Should I be allowed?
Should I be allowed to buy one copy of a book and let a friend read it?
Should libraries exist? Or are we hurting somebody's business model? Maybe kids writing book reports should have to pay a fee to quote a passage from a book?
Guess what? FUCK 'EM! There's too much legislation the effect of which is to keep buggy whip manufacturers in business now that everyone is driving a car. This kind of behavior / legislation is due to creative accounting that assumes that every person you lend a copy of a show to (not even a 2nd copy, so that you both have one to keep) would have instead went out and bought the movie for $30 and/or the series on DVD for $60. It's an attempt to create profits that aren't there, and it's taking away my right to do as I please with what I've paid for. This will not stop large-scale copyright infringers from making and selling bootlegs, and there are laws to prosecute them. This is affecting the everyday use of content by everyday people. Providers are not going to see the rise in profits they expect from this. They're just working their way toward a system that requires you to pay every time you use something.
The thing is, I wouldn't mind paying a few cents for every show or movie I watch (instead of, say, a cable bill), as long as I can do so whenever and wherever I please. But they're charging ~$6 to watch a movie (according to the available download-and-watch solutions I've heard of). You do get to watch it something like 3 times, but it expires in a few days. Forget it. Once I've paid for something, I get to decide who, what, when, where, how much. Not them. Unless I have those freedoms I will not be happy, and I will only pay for such a product on very rare occasion (dramatically reducing the me-to-them cashflow significantly).
Our systems are already bought. The "USA" isn't willing to spend billions in Iraq. A very few at the top are. Even lower-level government elected employees are afraid to say anything against such actions because of the backlash and smear campaigning they'll get.
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense (you're internally inconsistant). Right after you say that, you say they will find ways to pay you back for the favors you do for them. If they don't, they aren't your friend and you need to stop pretending they are. So you think that you shouldn't charge your friends money, you should just *expect* that they'll return a favor. All you're doing then, is bartering. Except now you have this "I owe John one favor that takes 4 hours of hard work" hanging over your head, and you're trading for an 'as yet unnamed player' (i.e., you don't know what you'll get in return). Paying them money lets the deal be closed so you don't have to worry about who owes who what. In a real friendship it doesn't matter which method you chose. As long as you're fair to eachother, the friendship is pure.
Take the example of my dad needing a deck built. He couldn't do it himself due to lack of tools, expertise, and manpower. His friend, who does that sort of stuff for a living, ended up helping him. My dad insisted on paying him because it was a non-trivial job that he would have ended paying a contractor through the nose for. So, dad saved a few grand, the friend made a few hundred bucks, and they enjoyed eachothers' company for the weekend (or however long it took). Also, there's no "I owe a big favor" hanging around; which would be especially problematic because my dad has few skills that would be useful to his friend under normal circumstances. The "favor" is the fact that the friend did work on his time off, and for a price well below normal rates. But this does not preclude money from changing hands. In this case, the money changed a big favor into a small one, the kind that friends trade all the time without thinking of it, and mitigated any tension that would arise by having a big favor hanging on one side of the friendship scale.
I know where you're coming from and talking about, though.
However, realize that there *are* people here talking about fixing the computers of their *friends*. Not fixing them to *get* a friend. Fixing it because they *are* a friend.
The last two paragraphs are what I typed before I thought of the next statement, which really sums things up well: Unless they'd ask and you'd say OK to mowing their lawn for free, they shouldn't ask and you shouldn't say OK to fixing their computer for free.
[I'm leaving the paragraphs because I took all that time to write them and I don't want to erase that effort; even though the continuity is broken by the abover interjection.] But, even then, you have an excellent point that they are giving away valuable services for a 6-pack of beer. I know that if I'm *good* friends with somebody, we'll help eachother for hours at a project (say, a carpenter friend helping design and build something) with no more payment than a 6-pack. But, only because we know the favor will be reciprocated in the future. If the giving goes too far in one direction, or the project is large, then *real* payment is made.
The problem is that a lot of people have no qualms about asking a professional acquaintance to do a lot of work for free. I think they teach doctors how to give a cursory look when people say "will you look at this mole?" or "does this rash look important?" and then direct them to a medical appointment if it's worth checking out. They don't try to do a diagnosis right there. Sounds like a lot of these computer fixers need to learn to do the same thing. Say, "yeah, sounds like you have a virus", or "yeah, I can get rid of your popups", and hand the people a card and tell them that the first 15 minutes is free, but you'll have to charge 1/2 increments after that. Heck, put that right on the card so it will be up front. Say, "here's my number. call me if you want me to look at it", and hand them your card with your prices. You're doing *work*. Providing a *service*.
I've seen one CUSA rep give bad advice on numerous occasions. The one I remember most clearly is the customer asking if the 2.4GHz wireless setup he was looking at would interfere with his 2.4GHz phone. The rep said, "No, of course not!" and said something about them talking differently.
I've heard him talk out of his ass about monitors and USB drives too, but I forget the details. But, I'll also admit that a couple of the guys there *do* know what they're talking about.
Really. You going to do all that Mars rock collection and hole digging here from Earth? I wonder how much robots can get done in 20 years. Funny thing is, they don't NEED sacks full of rocks. A little digging and some core samples would probably be really nice, but that's stuff a robot could do just fine also. Until it's cheaper to send humans, they're going to send robots, so it's kinda hard for the humans to catch up on "work done on Mars" when only robots are there. (Personally, I don't see humans getting to Mars for 20-50 years; unless there's a serious teraforming proposition, there's no reason to go, and if there is teraforming, it will take a few hundred years to have an impact).
As for the suits: You obviously don't know what it takes to get something certified for a mission critical application. You don't use the latest and greatest. You use what you KNOW works, especially when it comes to human survivability. If they are actually working toward a manned flight to Mars within 10 years, the time to start designing and TESTING is NOW. Waiting 8 years and telling NASA, "sorry, we were hoping for a miracle material to be developed, we've got nothing" is stupid. Even telling them, "yup, they just developed this material. now, just give us 5 more years to do sufficient study and testing" is not acceptable.
Damn insane moderators. I swear this place should be called Sheepdot.
Though you may think it clever to demand of me an outline of my problems to back up my original post, it by no means follows.
The "Please go right ahead" is an implied "yes". So, yes it does follow (well, it should to any native English speaker).
Also, if it's not true that you hold those beliefs, then you should put a disclaimer to avoid confusion. Alternatively, instead of saying in your reply that a logical assumption and request does not follow one of your statements, you should simply point out that you didn't mean to imply such and that you hold no such beliefs, because logical expectation and causation is on his side here.
An aside: Something I've found is that people with "radical" ideas who nitpick phrases and continually force arguments over semantics and tangental topics usually don't actually have ANY argument. Not simply a bad one, but NONE. You just CAN'T get them to tell you their theories.
He's either saying that you can't really argue whether evolution exists because there's too much proof now that it does, or he's being sarcastic and saying that maybe evolution hasn't produced very good results (us). It's not too clear, but I don't thinks it's a knock against evolution.
He's only right if you accept his assertions. He feels that security is more important than a GUI. Obviously, if you don't rate features at the same importance level as him, you're probably going to come to a different conclusion. The question you have to start with is, better at what?
However, the last sentence and a half of your post is what really intreagues me. I find it interesting that you'd disagree with somebody who's been studying and teaching microkernel architecture for 20 years. If a well-known and respected champion of a cause is willing to admit to a significant performance hit, you really need to post more evidence than "I believe". (the way things get moderated here at/. never cease to amaze me) Checking your web site, I see that you have thought about and posted a couple articles about programming (although I found them incomplete and disagreed with some things), but I get the feeling that you don't have the expertise to argue such things with a well-respected expert (Tanenbaum, not me!).
As far as QNX being slow, do you have a monolithic QNX kernel to compare it to? If not, then how do you know that it's not running 20% slower than a comprable monolithic kernel? That's Tanenbaums's point of the 20% performance loss being moot; if you're running at a speed that you're happy with (2.4GHz), then why worry about any performance cost (i.e., vs. 3GHz)?
Damn, electricity is blinking. forgive any errors, can't proofread!
Slashdot Mirror
Also, it's a well-known fact that people are much less inhibited on the 'net. Admitting such things to anonymous strangers is much easier than admitting faults to people you know.
Actually, the cursing version came after (and was a direct result of) the "bang yourself in the head with a board" Hardcore Gregorian Chanting.
My god man! Did I wake up in Bizarro world today?
I'm halfway down through the comments, and I've not seen a single obnoxious joke about tapping your "device" against a poster in public. Not even "I know a few slashdot posters I'D like to tap my device against".
Hoepfully, this inane post will help me find my way back to the right dimension.
Shit. I'm not sure I wanted to do that....
If there's no slack in there, though, then when you push down hard on the mouse in a fit of "oh shit gotta dodge that" it'll grind against the top and stop, so it can't be designed that way.
Well, there's a certain amout of "learn to calm down and use your tool correctly" in that case. If a soldier panics when he sees an enemy and un-safeties and fires his pistol into his leg before he clears the holster, you really can't blame the pistol.
I do love Logitech mice though. They were the first (and only?) to get scroll wheels right. And, it's easy to find a nice, simple, non-"ergonomic" (i.e., 'my hand is shaped like a freakish alien') design.
Sorry, but you're either trolling, got fed bullshit, or are spewing bullshit.
Personally, I think it's a troll. In case it's not:
The fuels that fuelcells use are not that dangerous, and they are used in small quantities. People carry around plastic lighters full of butane all the time and no-one was evere killed when they dropped it.
I was trying to imply running the satellite to a single box (router) and then branching out ethernet from there. So, I was asking if the reason that wasn't offered as a solution is because the runs are too long for ethernet. I assume there may be weird routing issues too, but I don't know. It just seems like a simple idea that *should* work, so I wondered why it wasn't suggested.
To explain the AC a bit more:
a "fare" is what you pay to take a ride (bus, taxi, etc.)
"fair" is even-handed. (or a get-together, like a county fair).
just a little fyi. you might want to check out Merriam Webster's Word of the Day email list. They'll email you a word definition every day. Just takes a minute to scan, and you increase your vocablulary (and spelling) a bit at a time!
www.m-w.com
Only on slashdot would somebody completely ignore the subject noun of a sentence, make a snide comment about how a lot of his peers suck but he's Joe Cool with a brain, and get modded up for it.
The grandparent said "kids". That means children. NOT college-age adults. Even if it IS common to have children up until 3am at a wedding party in Iraq, the parent completely ignored the point of the grandparent. It should have been modded alright, but as OFF TOPIC.
Am I the only one who remembers that we're in a war here?
No, but, like many others, you're confused about how many wars we're in. It's 2. (Although the US's Bush administration likes to put them in a blender together and feed the results to the public.)
The first is the war on terrorism (that is, Al Quaeda [man, i really need to learn to spell that]). It's still going on, but we hear nothing about it.
Instead, we hear about the second war: the war with Iraq. Even though they say "terrorism" all the time, don't be confused. It has NOTHING to do with terrorism. Yes, we were *told* it was terrorism. We were told that Iraq was nearing completion of nuclear and biological agents and would be striking the US just as soon as they were ready. But now that they found no proof whatsoever (as expected), they're using the "he was a bad bad man" argument (which, ironically, happens to directly contradict Bush's "no nation building" stance during election). Of course, they still SAY "terrorism" all the time. And the fact that we've drawn Al Quaeda like flies over to Iraq to get some hits in on Americans, makes it easier to blur the line.
However, the Iraqi people are NOT trying to take over the wold; and the ones fighting are using every method at their disposal to repel what they see as invaders. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I agree with their tactics. I'm just pointing out that WE are in THEIR country without any provication. If you think we need to attack the homeland of Al Quaeda, then we should still be in Afghanistan and should be attacking Saudi Arabia (where all but 1 of the 9/11 terrorists came from). THAT is where the war on terrorism lies, NOT in Iraq.
so what divine rights do you have to it?
Umm, well, PAYING for it, maybe? That's what my cable bill is for. That's why the television companies are allowed to use the public EM spectrum for their own profit.
And, let's even say that I want to loan a tape of a cable-tv show to a friend that doesn't pay for cable. Should I be allowed?
Should I be allowed to buy one copy of a book and let a friend read it?
Should libraries exist? Or are we hurting somebody's business model? Maybe kids writing book reports should have to pay a fee to quote a passage from a book?
Guess what? FUCK 'EM! There's too much legislation the effect of which is to keep buggy whip manufacturers in business now that everyone is driving a car. This kind of behavior / legislation is due to creative accounting that assumes that every person you lend a copy of a show to (not even a 2nd copy, so that you both have one to keep) would have instead went out and bought the movie for $30 and/or the series on DVD for $60. It's an attempt to create profits that aren't there, and it's taking away my right to do as I please with what I've paid for. This will not stop large-scale copyright infringers from making and selling bootlegs, and there are laws to prosecute them. This is affecting the everyday use of content by everyday people. Providers are not going to see the rise in profits they expect from this. They're just working their way toward a system that requires you to pay every time you use something.
The thing is, I wouldn't mind paying a few cents for every show or movie I watch (instead of, say, a cable bill), as long as I can do so whenever and wherever I please. But they're charging ~$6 to watch a movie (according to the available download-and-watch solutions I've heard of). You do get to watch it something like 3 times, but it expires in a few days. Forget it. Once I've paid for something, I get to decide who, what, when, where, how much. Not them. Unless I have those freedoms I will not be happy, and I will only pay for such a product on very rare occasion (dramatically reducing the me-to-them cashflow significantly).
Our systems are already bought. The "USA" isn't willing to spend billions in Iraq. A very few at the top are. Even lower-level government elected employees are afraid to say anything against such actions because of the backlash and smear campaigning they'll get.
NEVER CHARGE A FRIEND FOR WORK
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense (you're internally inconsistant). Right after you say that, you say they will find ways to pay you back for the favors you do for them. If they don't, they aren't your friend and you need to stop pretending they are. So you think that you shouldn't charge your friends money, you should just *expect* that they'll return a favor. All you're doing then, is bartering. Except now you have this "I owe John one favor that takes 4 hours of hard work" hanging over your head, and you're trading for an 'as yet unnamed player' (i.e., you don't know what you'll get in return). Paying them money lets the deal be closed so you don't have to worry about who owes who what. In a real friendship it doesn't matter which method you chose. As long as you're fair to eachother, the friendship is pure.
Take the example of my dad needing a deck built. He couldn't do it himself due to lack of tools, expertise, and manpower. His friend, who does that sort of stuff for a living, ended up helping him. My dad insisted on paying him because it was a non-trivial job that he would have ended paying a contractor through the nose for. So, dad saved a few grand, the friend made a few hundred bucks, and they enjoyed eachothers' company for the weekend (or however long it took). Also, there's no "I owe a big favor" hanging around; which would be especially problematic because my dad has few skills that would be useful to his friend under normal circumstances. The "favor" is the fact that the friend did work on his time off, and for a price well below normal rates. But this does not preclude money from changing hands. In this case, the money changed a big favor into a small one, the kind that friends trade all the time without thinking of it, and mitigated any tension that would arise by having a big favor hanging on one side of the friendship scale.
Yeah, you perfectly clear moment will be, "Fuck! I got SCREWED!" :)
By your description, it sounds as if barter *is* legal. What's illegal is not paying taxes on the value of your trade.
Whoa dude, you got some anger issues :)
I know where you're coming from and talking about, though.
However, realize that there *are* people here talking about fixing the computers of their *friends*. Not fixing them to *get* a friend. Fixing it because they *are* a friend.
The last two paragraphs are what I typed before I thought of the next statement, which really sums things up well:
Unless they'd ask and you'd say OK to mowing their lawn for free, they shouldn't ask and you shouldn't say OK to fixing their computer for free.
[I'm leaving the paragraphs because I took all that time to write them and I don't want to erase that effort; even though the continuity is broken by the abover interjection.]
But, even then, you have an excellent point that they are giving away valuable services for a 6-pack of beer. I know that if I'm *good* friends with somebody, we'll help eachother for hours at a project (say, a carpenter friend helping design and build something) with no more payment than a 6-pack. But, only because we know the favor will be reciprocated in the future. If the giving goes too far in one direction, or the project is large, then *real* payment is made.
The problem is that a lot of people have no qualms about asking a professional acquaintance to do a lot of work for free. I think they teach doctors how to give a cursory look when people say "will you look at this mole?" or "does this rash look important?" and then direct them to a medical appointment if it's worth checking out. They don't try to do a diagnosis right there. Sounds like a lot of these computer fixers need to learn to do the same thing. Say, "yeah, sounds like you have a virus", or "yeah, I can get rid of your popups", and hand the people a card and tell them that the first 15 minutes is free, but you'll have to charge 1/2 increments after that. Heck, put that right on the card so it will be up front. Say, "here's my number. call me if you want me to look at it", and hand them your card with your prices. You're doing *work*. Providing a *service*.
Heh, this thread is making me think that for our next Installfest, all of the LUG people should wear one of those shirts :)
I've seen one CUSA rep give bad advice on numerous occasions. The one I remember most clearly is the customer asking if the 2.4GHz wireless setup he was looking at would interfere with his 2.4GHz phone. The rep said, "No, of course not!" and said something about them talking differently.
I've heard him talk out of his ass about monitors and USB drives too, but I forget the details. But, I'll also admit that a couple of the guys there *do* know what they're talking about.
Really. You going to do all that Mars rock collection and hole digging here from Earth? I wonder how much robots can get done in 20 years. Funny thing is, they don't NEED sacks full of rocks. A little digging and some core samples would probably be really nice, but that's stuff a robot could do just fine also. Until it's cheaper to send humans, they're going to send robots, so it's kinda hard for the humans to catch up on "work done on Mars" when only robots are there.
(Personally, I don't see humans getting to Mars for 20-50 years; unless there's a serious teraforming proposition, there's no reason to go, and if there is teraforming, it will take a few hundred years to have an impact).
As for the suits: You obviously don't know what it takes to get something certified for a mission critical application. You don't use the latest and greatest. You use what you KNOW works, especially when it comes to human survivability. If they are actually working toward a manned flight to Mars within 10 years, the time to start designing and TESTING is NOW. Waiting 8 years and telling NASA, "sorry, we were hoping for a miracle material to be developed, we've got nothing" is stupid. Even telling them, "yup, they just developed this material. now, just give us 5 more years to do sufficient study and testing" is not acceptable.
Damn insane moderators. I swear this place should be called Sheepdot.
Though you may think it clever to demand of me an outline of my problems to back up my original post, it by no means follows.
The "Please go right ahead" is an implied "yes". So, yes it does follow (well, it should to any native English speaker).
Also, if it's not true that you hold those beliefs, then you should put a disclaimer to avoid confusion. Alternatively, instead of saying in your reply that a logical assumption and request does not follow one of your statements, you should simply point out that you didn't mean to imply such and that you hold no such beliefs, because logical expectation and causation is on his side here.
An aside:
Something I've found is that people with "radical" ideas who nitpick phrases and continually force arguments over semantics and tangental topics usually don't actually have ANY argument. Not simply a bad one, but NONE. You just CAN'T get them to tell you their theories.
I think you mis-read it.
He's either saying that you can't really argue whether evolution exists because there's too much proof now that it does, or he's being sarcastic and saying that maybe evolution hasn't produced very good results (us). It's not too clear, but I don't thinks it's a knock against evolution.
So, the question is, "Did he change 'seagull' to 'butterfly' after hearing of RB's story?"
There is a very simple way to eliminate the demand in 99% of cases for fossil fuels: criminalize their possession.
WTF? Did you step in from Bizarro world or something? That is SO FAR from what is likely to ever happen that it's insane to even say.
He's only right if you accept his assertions. He feels that security is more important than a GUI. Obviously, if you don't rate features at the same importance level as him, you're probably going to come to a different conclusion. The question you have to start with is, better at what?
/. never cease to amaze me) Checking your web site, I see that you have thought about and posted a couple articles about programming (although I found them incomplete and disagreed with some things), but I get the feeling that you don't have the expertise to argue such things with a well-respected expert (Tanenbaum, not me!).
However, the last sentence and a half of your post is what really intreagues me. I find it interesting that you'd disagree with somebody who's been studying and teaching microkernel architecture for 20 years. If a well-known and respected champion of a cause is willing to admit to a significant performance hit, you really need to post more evidence than "I believe". (the way things get moderated here at
As far as QNX being slow, do you have a monolithic QNX kernel to compare it to? If not, then how do you know that it's not running 20% slower than a comprable monolithic kernel? That's Tanenbaums's point of the 20% performance loss being moot; if you're running at a speed that you're happy with (2.4GHz), then why worry about any performance cost (i.e., vs. 3GHz)?
Damn, electricity is blinking. forgive any errors, can't proofread!
Turn this into a flameboard? Heh. That's at least 25% of what /. is!
No, their faces will be red because they're a bunch of geeks stuck outside all day for the first time in years! :)