It's not foolproof, but it does provide an extra layer of security. If the system is well designed, an incorrect code will alert the air traffic controllers, military, etc., which means that if the pilot is altruistic, he/she can give a distress code instead of deactivation. The system could even respond with an "overriden" message and allow an extra few hundred/thousand feet of leeway so that hijackers don't suspect anything, while fighter jets scramble, etc.. In fact, a "worst-case scenario" code can also lock up the system so that more codes (including the deactivation code) cannot be input, meaning that the plane cannot be crashed into anything, whether the pilot is tortured or not.
"Maybe it'd save lives if the pilot had a heart attack and collapsed in his seat, but it's a stretch."
Perhaps a double-override (pilot-computer-pilot) system is needed. If the system automatically takes over in the situation, the pilot could be able to enter a code to deactivate the system. It acts as a safeguard - if the pilot passes out/is drunk/etc., the system kicks in to save the day. If the pilot knows better, they can override. If someone hacks into the system, it's not a big deal, since the pilot has final authority (assuming the override code can't be remotely modified).
In the terrorist scenario, the pilot can "be a hero" and withhold the code under pain of death (and he can't just be killed).
Let me rephrase - no country has brought war to the US mainland for a long time. Guerilla warfare (which includes modern terrorism) doesn't count - you're not fighting a government or a specific geographic target. There is no one to deter, just shadows and fog with guns and bombs.
To be a "world power" you need them. Basically, nukes only matter if you want to push other countries around. If you sit quietly and don't get into international wars, they're useless. If you get into fights with other countries or they pick fights with you, they're helpful. For India, the trouble is with Pakistan. For the US, it's with just about everyone. For North Korea, it's most of east Asia. Russia, China, the list goes on, but it's all about leverage and deterrance. Canada sits atop the US, a nation which has a track record of scouring the globe for potential enemies. No one has brought war to the US mainland for a long time, and that's not about to change. Additionally, Canada is on relatively good terms with the US, and since the US takes any political threat or change in North America personally, nobody is about to mess with Canada (not that I can think of a reason for someone to do so). If Canada got aggressive, they'd want nukes in their arsenal, too.
"I'm guessing that you are a manager who is annoyed that one of your employees showed up in jeans on a Tuesday or something."
Hah, yeah, lots of managers here finishing up at University. I'm headed off to grad school to pursue a career in academia (scientific research). You can point fingers and make baseles accusations all day long, but it won't help your case at all.
The "techie" culture has embraced the "look like shit" attitude, but it to anyone outside, it's a joke. Do you know any people working 2+ minimum wage jobs to put food on the table? I know plenty (including single mothers, etc.), and guess what - they all manage to find 5 minutes during the day to make themselves look decent. It's not a complicated thing, it's a simple matter of taking pride in your appearance.
My experience: Avg. shaving time/day (electric razor): 1-2 minutes. Cost: pennies (electricity). Avg. time to make a beard presentable/day: 20 seconds. Cost: $0. Avg. time I spend cutting my own hair: 15 minutes every 1.5 weeks. Cost: pennies (electricity). Avg. time/week ironing clothes: 10 minutes. Cost: pennies (electricity).
As I said, this isn't complicated stuff here, and most people who work even 18+ hour days and have kids manage to find the time for it. I seriously doubt you don't have time to do your laundry or shave; I've found that most people that make those kinds of claims find time to browse the 'net, watch TV, see movies, etc.. The problem is with prioritizing, not with a clear-cut lack of time. Setting the alarm clock 5 minutes earlier won't ruin your sleep, but it will give you more than enough time to fix yourself up.
If you don't want to look respectable, that's fine, just don't go yelling that you have no choice. In my life I have not come across anyone with an income that put them over the poverty line (or many even under) who couldn't shave or do laundry. Homeless people don't have a choice; you do.
Cheers.
Of course I agree - there is a big difference between looking presentable and looking like a model. I'm only suggesting that one should always look respectable, not that they should spend a thousand dollars on a suit. A minimal fashion sense only requires being conscious of what people around you are wearing, and little else. As for the time issue - making yourself look decent doesn't take very much time at all; if you have time to read Slashdot, you have time to shave.
Sorry, but I've never respected that attitude. It's idealistic, wasteful, and is more often rationalization than action.
Firstly, what should and shouldn't be is irrelevant in the real world. Idealistic attitudes will get you nowhere but the gutter, and if you don't like it, tough. This is a society - "social" being the same root. Your ideal situation doesn't matter, the actual happenings in the social (interpersonal) world do. I don't think looks should matter either (to an extent), but I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot and declare "if it's not the way I think it should be, I'll boycott it" with respect to society (buying CDs and software is a mainly a personal matter, so it's a different story). You're free to hold your belief, you're free to hold yourself back by clinging onto it, and we're free to not care. Sorry, but your theory will have only one immediate outcome: you will make less money, get worse jobs, and all the trickle down effects of monetary issues will follow. Cheers.
Societal change is a bigger issue than one man/woman looking like a slob; if you want it not to matter, try having intelligent discussions about it with people, and if you're put in the position to hire/fire, do your best.
Secondly, looks have to matter, but to a different extent than current. An unkempt person is a clear sign of an unkempt lifestyle; if you don't take the time to do your laundry, why would I think you'd take the time to do your job well? Throwing on whatever clothes are available suggests you'll do the minimal amount of work necessary for any task - not exactly the person I'd want working for me. Being tall you can't control - that shouldn't matter. If you are willing to invest the energy and time to stay/get in good shape to improve your health (and appearance), it suggests that you're also likely to go beyond the call of duty to present a nice finished product at your job. Your appearance is the simplest reflection of your mind; it's the easiest thing to see when meeting someone, and can tell a lot (though for the most part only negatives). Most people can dress nicely, but very few are willing to look like a slob. Take your pick, but don't blame society when you really just need a haircut.
In my experience (including my own history), the whole 'society shouldn't care so I'll just do my own thing' stance is usually just rationalization. It's an easy way to make your own laziness or hatred of fashion into a righteous crusade. That may not be the case for you, but it is for many (most commonly seen in the goth/punk communities today). It's no surprise that there are far fewer punks/goths/etc over the age of 25 than under. People mature, and when they do, they realize that they're only hurting themselves by shunning societal norms.
(I'm not pointing the finger at you, psxndc, so don't take it personally.)
It's not just pay cuts, but cost cuts. It costs next to nothing to have someone work from their own home. If they are in an office, you not only need to have an office/cubicle for them, but also any things that go along with it (AC, water, bathroom, cleaning, etc.). Even toilets get broken less often when there are less people using them.
JetBlue was successful because they had such low operating costs, which was because most of their employees worked from home.
My problem can be found over here. (I'm not going to copy/paste it)
As for Austin having developers modify the code - what makes you think that's possible? You assume they have a bunch of people just sitting around with nothing important to do. My guess is that if they have full time programmers, they're busy, and if they just give development contracts to private bidders, it would cost money they may not want to spend.
My issues weren't with creating pretty pictures for presentations, but with APA-style charts, proper for submission to scientific journals. There were several essential features missing, foremost among them was the inability to have standard error bars made using specific data (OOo only lets you use certain formulae - I need to use my numbers). In Excel, you can simly select the cells which contain the values you want to use (which is what OOo needs). There were a bunch of issues with customizing appearance, but I don't recall specifics (once I was certain I couldn't get the SE bars, there was no point in further attention).
Oh, and I had forgotten about word count - I continuously have to copy/paste into Word to get that data.
OOo is fine for most people, but not everyone - many features which may seem inane to you may be essential to me.
I'm guessing they get a better rate on Windows by preloading Works (which the end user pays for anyway). When you buy a Dell, they show you the breakdown of how much you pay for Windows, Works, Office, etc. MS probably gives the OEM a better deal on products if they [only] offer MS products. That's just my guess - OEMs wouldn't be preloading Works under your schema anyway - there have been cheaper applications out there for years (including older versions of popular applications).
It costs OEMs money to preload applications and distribute CDs/documentation. If someone isn't paying, they're not going to do it, as far as I can see.
You obviously didn't read the article, however you also failed to consider something anyway. There are still things that OOo can't do that MS Office can. For example, I can't fully switch because I need the chart/graph capabilities that Excel has, but OOo doesn't. For Austin, it's a specific application. OOo is great for most people, but it's not a complete replacement just yet.
The issue isn't subtitling; if that takes extra time, so be it. The big deal is that the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and other English-speaking countries don't even get them at the same time, despite the identical product they typically get (I don't think censorship plays a large role - in the US, many DVDs aren't even rated, and most movies don't have conflicts anyway). Releasing a subbed version later on would probably be good for profits in the same way that "Special Edition" DVDs are. Add a new feature, and everyone has to buy it again.
But that's beside the point - simultaneous releases are not the issue, region coding is. If you had an English version and a Chinese version and an Indian version (dubs/subs), it would probably be censored anyway - countries can always restrict import of foreign DVDs if they don't like the content.
"The validity of a patent is for the courts and ultimately the tax payers to figure out."
The taxpayers are responsible either way. It's just a matter of which end - the patent clerk's salaray or the judge's salary. The current system is actually the most cost effective - the amount of time the courts spend reviewing patents is miniscule, while the expansion of the patent office necessary to research every patent would be astronomical. Taxpayers can't complain about cost on this one.
That's essentially what my university did. P2P was taking 99% of the bandwidth, so they simply changed all the port allocations (or something to that effect; I'm not on the inside), and now web pages fly like they should, and P2P has slowed to a virtually intolerable crawl. In addition, they keep tabs on your usage, so that if you do too much too often, they give you a phone call and shut you off. I haven't heard of anyone having a problem who wasn't doing something illegal yet.
What's the footprint on it? Unless it's equal to or smaller than WA2 (which I doubt), the odds of pulling people away are slim. People looking for features switched to other programs/versions years ago. Those who still hold out (myself included) do so for the simplicity and small footprint of WA2.
...which is why the current (computer) system works. Your computer can easily be your TV, stereo, DVD player, gaming system, phone, etc., without even costing that much (those capabilities have been around for a decade, and unless you buy top-of-the-line, they're cheap). Each of those components is separate within the box, so you can upgrade each piece as necessary. The problem is that current computer-integrated systems are just too complex for the task.
What's really needed is just a better UI for current technology . We need a modular OS that changes entirely based on active function. A TV mode, a stereo mode, a traditional computer mode, etc.. A simple button to switch to a different mode, and each would have as simple an appearance as possible. The stereo mode doesn't need anything but stereo functions, and play/stop/pause/etc should be 50% of the screen (should be touchscreen, too). Basically, there's no reason for someone to use a mouse or keyboard when watching TV. If someone can make a seamless system to do all of this (and not require the user know anything about programming or hardware installation), it could be a goldmine.
I didn't see it, but here are my guesses for why 1 & 3 would be there...
Thrusting & crashing noises may be through the ears of the people on the ships - just because they aren't in the shot doesn't mean we can't hear what they can. Same with "handheld" outer space camerawork - you're getting the "human" perspective (the "experience," if you will) of the scene. Even if no one could see from that angle, what you're seeing is what you would see if you were standing there (attention shifts, etc).
Someone using a workstation at an office or computer lab doesn't usually have control over which applications they can use. Not only are installations, etc. restricted, but even if they weren't, it wouldn't be very intelligent to install new software every single time you want to spend 2 minutes on the web, considering the difference isn't huge over small periods of time (tabbed browsing is great, but you can surf the web without it).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not foolproof, but it does provide an extra layer of security. If the system is well designed, an incorrect code will alert the air traffic controllers, military, etc., which means that if the pilot is altruistic, he/she can give a distress code instead of deactivation. The system could even respond with an "overriden" message and allow an extra few hundred/thousand feet of leeway so that hijackers don't suspect anything, while fighter jets scramble, etc.. In fact, a "worst-case scenario" code can also lock up the system so that more codes (including the deactivation code) cannot be input, meaning that the plane cannot be crashed into anything, whether the pilot is tortured or not.
"Maybe it'd save lives if the pilot had a heart attack and collapsed in his seat, but it's a stretch."
Perhaps a double-override (pilot-computer-pilot) system is needed. If the system automatically takes over in the situation, the pilot could be able to enter a code to deactivate the system. It acts as a safeguard - if the pilot passes out/is drunk/etc., the system kicks in to save the day. If the pilot knows better, they can override. If someone hacks into the system, it's not a big deal, since the pilot has final authority (assuming the override code can't be remotely modified).
In the terrorist scenario, the pilot can "be a hero" and withhold the code under pain of death (and he can't just be killed).
The whole Corel WordPerfect Office Suite was very good in my opinion, and the cost is a fraction of MS Office.
If you don't add "Macromedia" to those searches, you're just trolling for skin pics. Do you really need to use /. commenting as an excuse for that?
Tsk, tsk.
Let me rephrase - no country has brought war to the US mainland for a long time. Guerilla warfare (which includes modern terrorism) doesn't count - you're not fighting a government or a specific geographic target. There is no one to deter, just shadows and fog with guns and bombs.
To be a "world power" you need them. Basically, nukes only matter if you want to push other countries around. If you sit quietly and don't get into international wars, they're useless. If you get into fights with other countries or they pick fights with you, they're helpful. For India, the trouble is with Pakistan. For the US, it's with just about everyone. For North Korea, it's most of east Asia. Russia, China, the list goes on, but it's all about leverage and deterrance. Canada sits atop the US, a nation which has a track record of scouring the globe for potential enemies. No one has brought war to the US mainland for a long time, and that's not about to change. Additionally, Canada is on relatively good terms with the US, and since the US takes any political threat or change in North America personally, nobody is about to mess with Canada (not that I can think of a reason for someone to do so). If Canada got aggressive, they'd want nukes in their arsenal, too.
"I'm guessing that you are a manager who is annoyed that one of your employees showed up in jeans on a Tuesday or something."
Hah, yeah, lots of managers here finishing up at University. I'm headed off to grad school to pursue a career in academia (scientific research). You can point fingers and make baseles accusations all day long, but it won't help your case at all.
The "techie" culture has embraced the "look like shit" attitude, but it to anyone outside, it's a joke. Do you know any people working 2+ minimum wage jobs to put food on the table? I know plenty (including single mothers, etc.), and guess what - they all manage to find 5 minutes during the day to make themselves look decent. It's not a complicated thing, it's a simple matter of taking pride in your appearance.
My experience:
Avg. shaving time/day (electric razor): 1-2 minutes. Cost: pennies (electricity).
Avg. time to make a beard presentable/day: 20 seconds. Cost: $0.
Avg. time I spend cutting my own hair: 15 minutes every 1.5 weeks. Cost: pennies (electricity).
Avg. time/week ironing clothes: 10 minutes. Cost: pennies (electricity).
As I said, this isn't complicated stuff here, and most people who work even 18+ hour days and have kids manage to find the time for it. I seriously doubt you don't have time to do your laundry or shave; I've found that most people that make those kinds of claims find time to browse the 'net, watch TV, see movies, etc.. The problem is with prioritizing, not with a clear-cut lack of time. Setting the alarm clock 5 minutes earlier won't ruin your sleep, but it will give you more than enough time to fix yourself up.
If you don't want to look respectable, that's fine, just don't go yelling that you have no choice. In my life I have not come across anyone with an income that put them over the poverty line (or many even under) who couldn't shave or do laundry. Homeless people don't have a choice; you do. Cheers.
Of course I agree - there is a big difference between looking presentable and looking like a model. I'm only suggesting that one should always look respectable, not that they should spend a thousand dollars on a suit. A minimal fashion sense only requires being conscious of what people around you are wearing, and little else. As for the time issue - making yourself look decent doesn't take very much time at all; if you have time to read Slashdot, you have time to shave.
Sorry, but I've never respected that attitude. It's idealistic, wasteful, and is more often rationalization than action.
Firstly, what should and shouldn't be is irrelevant in the real world. Idealistic attitudes will get you nowhere but the gutter, and if you don't like it, tough. This is a society - "social" being the same root. Your ideal situation doesn't matter, the actual happenings in the social (interpersonal) world do. I don't think looks should matter either (to an extent), but I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot and declare "if it's not the way I think it should be, I'll boycott it" with respect to society (buying CDs and software is a mainly a personal matter, so it's a different story). You're free to hold your belief, you're free to hold yourself back by clinging onto it, and we're free to not care. Sorry, but your theory will have only one immediate outcome: you will make less money, get worse jobs, and all the trickle down effects of monetary issues will follow. Cheers.
Societal change is a bigger issue than one man/woman looking like a slob; if you want it not to matter, try having intelligent discussions about it with people, and if you're put in the position to hire/fire, do your best.
Secondly, looks have to matter, but to a different extent than current. An unkempt person is a clear sign of an unkempt lifestyle; if you don't take the time to do your laundry, why would I think you'd take the time to do your job well? Throwing on whatever clothes are available suggests you'll do the minimal amount of work necessary for any task - not exactly the person I'd want working for me. Being tall you can't control - that shouldn't matter. If you are willing to invest the energy and time to stay/get in good shape to improve your health (and appearance), it suggests that you're also likely to go beyond the call of duty to present a nice finished product at your job. Your appearance is the simplest reflection of your mind; it's the easiest thing to see when meeting someone, and can tell a lot (though for the most part only negatives). Most people can dress nicely, but very few are willing to look like a slob. Take your pick, but don't blame society when you really just need a haircut.
In my experience (including my own history), the whole 'society shouldn't care so I'll just do my own thing' stance is usually just rationalization. It's an easy way to make your own laziness or hatred of fashion into a righteous crusade. That may not be the case for you, but it is for many (most commonly seen in the goth/punk communities today). It's no surprise that there are far fewer punks/goths/etc over the age of 25 than under. People mature, and when they do, they realize that they're only hurting themselves by shunning societal norms.
(I'm not pointing the finger at you, psxndc, so don't take it personally.)
Wouldn't even the most basic instant messaging/internet chat/conference-call/etc. setup provide a cheap solution to that problem?
It's not just pay cuts, but cost cuts. It costs next to nothing to have someone work from their own home. If they are in an office, you not only need to have an office/cubicle for them, but also any things that go along with it (AC, water, bathroom, cleaning, etc.). Even toilets get broken less often when there are less people using them.
JetBlue was successful because they had such low operating costs, which was because most of their employees worked from home.
My problem can be found over here. (I'm not going to copy/paste it)
As for Austin having developers modify the code - what makes you think that's possible? You assume they have a bunch of people just sitting around with nothing important to do. My guess is that if they have full time programmers, they're busy, and if they just give development contracts to private bidders, it would cost money they may not want to spend.
My issues weren't with creating pretty pictures for presentations, but with APA-style charts, proper for submission to scientific journals. There were several essential features missing, foremost among them was the inability to have standard error bars made using specific data (OOo only lets you use certain formulae - I need to use my numbers). In Excel, you can simly select the cells which contain the values you want to use (which is what OOo needs). There were a bunch of issues with customizing appearance, but I don't recall specifics (once I was certain I couldn't get the SE bars, there was no point in further attention).
Oh, and I had forgotten about word count - I continuously have to copy/paste into Word to get that data.
OOo is fine for most people, but not everyone - many features which may seem inane to you may be essential to me.
I'm guessing they get a better rate on Windows by preloading Works (which the end user pays for anyway). When you buy a Dell, they show you the breakdown of how much you pay for Windows, Works, Office, etc. MS probably gives the OEM a better deal on products if they [only] offer MS products. That's just my guess - OEMs wouldn't be preloading Works under your schema anyway - there have been cheaper applications out there for years (including older versions of popular applications).
It costs OEMs money to preload applications and distribute CDs/documentation. If someone isn't paying, they're not going to do it, as far as I can see.
You obviously didn't read the article, however you also failed to consider something anyway. There are still things that OOo can't do that MS Office can. For example, I can't fully switch because I need the chart/graph capabilities that Excel has, but OOo doesn't. For Austin, it's a specific application. OOo is great for most people, but it's not a complete replacement just yet.
The issue isn't subtitling; if that takes extra time, so be it. The big deal is that the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and other English-speaking countries don't even get them at the same time, despite the identical product they typically get (I don't think censorship plays a large role - in the US, many DVDs aren't even rated, and most movies don't have conflicts anyway). Releasing a subbed version later on would probably be good for profits in the same way that "Special Edition" DVDs are. Add a new feature, and everyone has to buy it again.
But that's beside the point - simultaneous releases are not the issue, region coding is. If you had an English version and a Chinese version and an Indian version (dubs/subs), it would probably be censored anyway - countries can always restrict import of foreign DVDs if they don't like the content.
"The validity of a patent is for the courts and ultimately the tax payers to figure out."
The taxpayers are responsible either way. It's just a matter of which end - the patent clerk's salaray or the judge's salary. The current system is actually the most cost effective - the amount of time the courts spend reviewing patents is miniscule, while the expansion of the patent office necessary to research every patent would be astronomical. Taxpayers can't complain about cost on this one.
That's essentially what my university did. P2P was taking 99% of the bandwidth, so they simply changed all the port allocations (or something to that effect; I'm not on the inside), and now web pages fly like they should, and P2P has slowed to a virtually intolerable crawl. In addition, they keep tabs on your usage, so that if you do too much too often, they give you a phone call and shut you off. I haven't heard of anyone having a problem who wasn't doing something illegal yet.
Short answer: it works.
What's the footprint on it? Unless it's equal to or smaller than WA2 (which I doubt), the odds of pulling people away are slim. People looking for features switched to other programs/versions years ago. Those who still hold out (myself included) do so for the simplicity and small footprint of WA2.
...which is why the current (computer) system works. Your computer can easily be your TV, stereo, DVD player, gaming system, phone, etc., without even costing that much (those capabilities have been around for a decade, and unless you buy top-of-the-line, they're cheap). Each of those components is separate within the box, so you can upgrade each piece as necessary. The problem is that current computer-integrated systems are just too complex for the task.
What's really needed is just a better UI for current technology . We need a modular OS that changes entirely based on active function. A TV mode, a stereo mode, a traditional computer mode, etc.. A simple button to switch to a different mode, and each would have as simple an appearance as possible. The stereo mode doesn't need anything but stereo functions, and play/stop/pause/etc should be 50% of the screen (should be touchscreen, too). Basically, there's no reason for someone to use a mouse or keyboard when watching TV. If someone can make a seamless system to do all of this (and not require the user know anything about programming or hardware installation), it could be a goldmine.
I believe the word you're looking for is conservative.
I didn't see it, but here are my guesses for why 1 & 3 would be there...
Thrusting & crashing noises may be through the ears of the people on the ships - just because they aren't in the shot doesn't mean we can't hear what they can. Same with "handheld" outer space camerawork - you're getting the "human" perspective (the "experience," if you will) of the scene. Even if no one could see from that angle, what you're seeing is what you would see if you were standing there (attention shifts, etc).
Someone using a workstation at an office or computer lab doesn't usually have control over which applications they can use. Not only are installations, etc. restricted, but even if they weren't, it wouldn't be very intelligent to install new software every single time you want to spend 2 minutes on the web, considering the difference isn't huge over small periods of time (tabbed browsing is great, but you can surf the web without it).
...and Slashdot, where there are so many people trying to get you to look at goatse