I actually didn't know it was 30% but I'm sure you can also figure out what that number is completely meaningless. Contrast current war fighting tactics, strategies, and technological capabilities against those of other wars, and you'll quickly understand. Don't forget to contrast the number of deaths against other wars and their theater casualty rates. The number of FF deaths from the current war is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the deaths from each previously significant war (excluding first Gulf War).
To even discuss current FF deaths with any angle other than regret is to be misinformed. The very low number of friendly fire deaths should be applauded, including at the beginning of the war.
If they don't get robots this far, please don't give them guns, ever. EVER.
I'm not sure which is worse, you for making that statement of the moderators that thought it was insightful.
The entire reason for Asimov's stories is to show that not matter how clever mankind is there is always room for error and ambiguity. Either you've never read his stories or they went WAY over your head. Most of his stories are about dire consequences in spite of the so called perfect three laws of robotics. Either you need to go get a copy of his books and read or you direly need to reread the ones you have.
This used to be true but no longer. The most recent release series of PostgreSQL stomps MySQL in almost every area of performance. I say, "almost" because it's possible some corner cases still exist. Now that PostgreSQL properly (native binaries vs Cygwin and fast/east installation) supports Windows, only a fool would use PostgreSQL for new projects.
MySQL uses lots of non-ANSI SQL, teaching poor SQL habits. MySQL is feature poor compared to PostgreSQL, requiring involved work arounds to do what is easy in most other RDBMs. PostgreSQL's performance now completely rocks across the performance and scalability (PostgreSQL always was ahead here) spectrum.
The only thing preventing MySQL users from migrating to a superior platform is poor, non-ANSI SQL learned from using a crappy MySQL platform in the first place.
if you have to travel home to be in hospice near your family.
I'm just throwing this out there. I know this is somewhat off topic. Just don't forget organizations like Angel Flight (West, South Central, East, and North East) exist to assist ambulatory patients that can't otherwise afford air transportation for specialized, non-local, medial treatment. Of course, they help with other emergencies too, such as after Katrina.
If you have a medical and financial need, Angel Flight may be able to help you side step financial and time problems created by road travel and the TSA during public air travel.
The entire point of my message is he BELIEVES it is true despite the fact that it's completely false. Thusly, I suggested the use of a "+1 Ignorant" rather than "Troll" because it's much closer to reality. I then went on to explain why these types of popular myths come to be, which again, is factually supported (well, at least by both ratings and numerous studies). I then get rated troll and you proceed to imply I'm a nut case or simply been duped. WTF?
According to you, living with reality, dealing with facts, and presenting facts, makes people dupes and idiots. I might suggest you first re-read my post as you start off supporting the entire point of my post. That suggests you either misread, misunderstood, or are just plain out there.
The post is a troll! Almost everything he stated in his post is factually incorrect. Despite the fact he is universally incorrect, the post does reflect popular perception. In turn, this popular perception is then hyped by media and fed back en mass who then feel validated and further feed the misinformed hysteria back into the ugly cycle. If I were wrong, media outlets (notice I didn't say news) like FOX wouldn't exist. People want to be validated, not informed. That's sad but true.
So while the statement is 100% troll, it is likely the author's intent was not to troll but rather to inform. If there was a "+1 Ignorant", it would likely be more accurate.
Secondly, such plain sight does not apply to routers, which generally are headless and incomprehensible to their owners; a reasonable person would not assume that the router's operator had specifically set the router the way it was currently set.
Your logic seems odd given it is in plain sight. When the user goes to connect to his AP and he did not have to authenticate, this is very much a "plain sight" issue. Furthermore, some computers will simply use the nearest, open AP, which means it will automatically connect. If the owner did not have to authenticate then it is a very safe and reasonable assumption that no other user is require to authenticate either.
In the eyes of criminal law, ignorance is not a defense. And yet, that's basically where your whole argument falls. Furthermore, reasonable measures are often assumed. Is it reasonable someone who operates a gun knows how to handle it and assume the associated risk? Yes, therefore you assume the risk (and no if you are a toddler, mentally challenged). The same goes for RF equipment and this is widely upheld by the FCC. If you operate equipment which interferes, then YOU are responsible, regardless of what your education or level of experience dictates. This is no different. If you operate an AP, YOU are responsible for proper operation.
I'm sorry, but you may not like this position, but it is reasonable to assume given the same standards apply in both criminal law and federal regulation. Unless you can successfully argue somehow AP's don't use RF or that somehow it requires special legal exception, I can in no way, shape, or form, see your position as legitimate.
Ever heard of missle carrying subs? Stupidity like yours is exactly the reason this country is so f**ked up.
LOL. With reasoning like yours, it is clear conventional weaponry will never be used again...after all, we have nukes (subs). Shesh. You clearly live in your own world. Is there much light there? Do you have a room with a view? LOL.
I take issue with that. UFOs factually exist. Everyone knows they do. The confusion comes in when you attempt to define what a UFO is. Some "UFO-ologists" simply attempt to record and scientifically explain what was observed. Some use science to actively debunk others who fall well outside of the "UFO gang". Contrary to popular use UFO does not mean "flying saucer". Use of "UFO" is always technically correct when used to describe an Unknown Flying Object (UFO). "Flying saucers" would certainly fit into a UFO category, but UFO means far, far more than that narrow and popularized definition.
If you've ever seen an airplane flying in fog and it didn't look like an airplane, you have seen a UFO. Sure, you may have assumed it to be a plane, and you are likely right, but that doesn't change the fact it can be more accurately described a UFO than "I guess it is a plane."
What I am trying to say is, UFOs absolutely do exist and anyone that says otherwise is a hillbilly sipping on a "XXX" bottle. Now, if you want to make specific claims about the "flying saucer gang", or "aliens gang", or whatever, I'll shut the hell up. In short, you are lumping alien chasers into "UFO", just as anti-evolutionists are often lumped in with Christians. To do so is wrong, ignorant, and poor form.
Add to the fact that Linus' argument is that the flag has nothing to do with license but rather kernel taint. Since the intent of the wrapper is strictly to load 3rd party binary blobs into kernel space, the driver should always taint the kernel. It was offered that a GPL driver does exist but it was brushed aside as it simply is not the primary use.
In a nutshell, Linus doesn't want to work on bug reports because of buggy, binary drivers from the Windows operating system, and rightfully so.
Wow, pretty scary when historically supported fact is rated, "troll."/. has really gone down hill. It used to be mods actually moderated topics they either understood or could at least follow. These days, they mod troll when they disagree, despite the fact that topic is both accurate and not a troll.
If you are going to moderate, please learn what "troll" means. Troll does not mean, "I disagree." Please learn to critically read and perform your moderation duties responsibly.
Cuba a strategic threat to the U.S.? Dude, Cuba was a threat to the US for about 10 minutes. Did you know that countries can now launch missles form within their own borders an hit the U.S.?
LOL. You are exactly the reason they continue to cry humanitarian rather than strategic threat. Cuba is close enough to strike the US via cruise missile. And ICBMs travel so fast, the duration from detection, validation, and reaction is so narrow, essentially the US would be boned. IIRC, from launch to impact from Cuba, by means of ICBM is less than 15 minutes. Detection and validation protocols requires 2-8 minutes. That's not a lot of time left once you finish your subtraction.
Clearly, even today, especially as missile tech improves, getting smaller and faster, Cuba continues to be of significant strategic importance. Even if Cuba were a staunch alley today, it would not change the strategic value of Cuba.
Your statement doesn't make any sense to me. Before Castro, relations with the US were very strong. Cuba was a high end result for many US stars and powerful players before Castro came into power. Castro came in with a very anti-American position. In fact, many of the people that were executed when Castro came into power were executed under the assumption they were either CIA, a rat for the CIA, or someone who had strong ties to the US, and as such, posed a significant subversive risk to the new regime. Needless to say, saying, "Cuba could have gone either way", is a revisionist position. You seem to forget that Castro took power by mass murdering all that had ties to either the US or the old government (they were intrinsically tied). The second Castro took power, US relations were destroyed.
So we had a mass murdering thug with a fear of the US and socialist inclinations, in a position of extreme strategic value to the US. That most certainly does not position Castro to become a strong US ally. In fact, it made such a relationship all but impossible.
Cuba could have been an ally after that revolution,
I don't see how considering they executed some Americans, some CIA agents, and most every CIA plant/mole we had there. It is extremely unlikely since Castro also had socialist stance in how it approached things and actively worried about American subversion, and rightfully so. The Russians saw what was obvious and attempted to exploit it. Might things have been different? Sure? But unlikely.
So, historically, the US priority is hardly one of "no threat". It's one of "Castro out" and "we want control back" as well.
Yes, because we all know the Cuban Missile Crisis never happened. It's only been in the last decade, plus or minus a couple of years, where a "no threat" position can seriously be placed on the table. Considering one President after and another continues to see Cuba as a threat, it is unlikely that threat has entirely gone away.
Does the strenght of Cuban economy actually matter ?
Strong economy means strong military and ideaologically strengthens the notion of communism in this hemisphere. A strong military opens the Pandora's box for nuclear opens, much like you see taking placing in the middle east.
If anything, having ties of trade to the US would make Cuba less likely to allow another country to attack its trading partner through it...
That makes sense only as long as the existing governing body is not in place. This is why the US has stated many times, with a change of government, it's very likely relations will normalize.
Yes, I see how the US is putting pressure on all the African countries with which they trade weapons, diamonds and oil...
Cuba is considered different because of its strategic value (closeness to the US). No one wants a communist bastille in our backyard. Many argue, and very reasonably so, supporting Cuba is paying your enemy to subvert your own country. They decided Cuba was the line in the sand and it would be the example held high to ensure no other threats surface. They prop it up as a human rights argument (and it) but that's only because few really understand the strategic value (hint, hint...Cuban Missile Crisis) Cuba has for enemies of the United States.
Those that beckon to strengthen the Cuban economy are perceived by the US as ignorant dupes, serving to undermine the security of the United States. And it has been perceived that way for the last 40 years (so people don't think this is a Bush-ism). By in large, those that are in a hurry to open trade with Cuba are usually completely lost as to what it means to national security.
And when you have a country like the US keeping the hatches secure, and when Cuba is not strategic threat to you, you can easily afford to trade with that country. Most children understand that just because you know someone that doesn't like another person, doesn't mean you have to hate them too. Likewise, not every ally country shares the same priorities (no threat) as the US, and as a bonus, it works as an economic benefit.
That was a sincere comment and only presumed you would take a critical look at your position as it related to the paragraph in question.
I guess *I* presumed too much. It would seem you're incapable of self reflection so a request for critical examination of your position is nothing but rhetoric. I was sincere when I wrote that and continue to be. You do come across as smart. Sometimes isn't easier to ask for someone to look within than it is to bang them over the head while writing a book which is likely to be ignored on forums such as this. Ya, it's a scapegoat for me from wasting time...but sincere nonetheless.
Yes. As they should. No one is benefited by the IRS going after pocket change from lots of people.
You've completely missed the point. If they were not on a tipping system which encourages tax fraud, there would be no reason for the IRS to be concerned with these point in the first place.
Bullshit. Eating out is not a necessity, it is a choice. There are many, many easy methods of cheaply prepping your own food, many of which do not require dishes or any other of the attendant needs of normal food prep. I don't recommend them, but then I don't recommend eating out on a regular basis if you can't afford it - or the appropriate tip.
I should be more clear. No one needs to eat out every night, I completely agree. Having said that, having gone through the treadmill with kids, several times a month, it's either feed shit food to your family or eat out. Those that care for nutrition and their kids often elect to eat out. After having typed that, it's rather obvious we were a minority because the majority of parents have no idea what nutrition is and a "good" meal for them often ranks as unacceptable for us. And take a look at the "fast" home alternatives. Most are incredibly unhealthy, but especially fast food. Granted some of that has started to change in the last couple of years but your "bullshit" is uninformed at best or your are indifferent as to what constitutes nutrition for your self and family.
Yes. It should. And further, what you consider to be no value added is not the general consensus. The general consensus is that wait staff add a lot of value. If you don't think they do, eat at home. What is it about dining out that you want, if not the wait staff?
You've misunderstand. I do not consider it "zero" value. I considering it of little value, especially once you take FACTUAL look at what you get for your money; which **almost** does translate into zero for the majority of restaurants.
The general consensus is that wait staff add a lot of value. If you don't think they do, eat at home. What is it about dining out that you want, if not the wait staff?
Now that is pure bullshit! Few people, save only the wait staff, consider it a significant value. The value to be had by the VAST majority eating out is simple: you don't cook and you don't clean. Period. Both of which are 100% built into the price of a meal, be it fast food or formal. Fine, you want to pay a waiter minimum wage, I'm fine with that. My problem is, in no way shape or form does their job qualify as a $15/hr job, let alone something like $30-$40/hr. There are some exceptions to this, but only a faction of wait staff qualify and these are in very high end establishments where they truly qualify as skilled laborers.
I totally agree with you here. The position is both not idiotic, and truly skilled laborers are underpaid.
I agree, they are underpaid, but that's not really the point. The point is, to be one same scale, that is proportional pay for skill and labor, you need to either triple (or more) the pay of all skilled laborers, or cut in third (or more) the pay of wait staff. Since skilled laborers, by in large, are not undervalued 3x their actual value, common sense demands waiters are far, far, far overpaid.
And, for the record, I do think it is entirely ungracious to resent people for demanding a fair market value.
Once again, you missed the point. I agree everyone should be paid a fair market value. But waiters are far OVER paid as is...so what is ungracious is for waiters to bitch and complain about being underpaid while providing little value added and generally poor service while already being over paid.
Here you have jumped a logical divide. No one pays a fixed percent of their income to have their hair cut.
Obviously that was silly but it seems you missed the point. At least hair **IS** factually accountable for some of your income, like it or not! Period. That's the world we live in, which is with biased huma
Besides, it's not like this is going to affect TCP or IP or whatnot--this is way down at the bottom of the OSI model at level 1.
Early research indicates IP protocols will not scale well with high speed links. CPU load goes through the roof and because of limited buffer sizes relative to line speeds, retries and fallbacks plague applications. The end result is a slow, high speed link.
In a nut shell, for high speed links to become useful to a large category of users, IP, and especially TCP must be revamped. Some research has already progressed down this road but late I heard, much more is required.
The first part is so riddled, I'll just leave it be. You seem like a smart person so I have no doubt you'll be able to figure out where the huge holes are at.
In terms of numbers of people or dollars?
In terms of number of people, which is not to say the dollar figure is small (frankly I don't remember, but it's a large figure). The problem with chasing these people is that from each, the loss to our coffers are relatively small, but there are a lot of them. Worse, proving it is problematic and time consuming so the IRS would rather chase other people.
On the other hand, wait staff is a luxury you're choosing to paying for. It hardly seems mannerly to resent them for it.
That's just a dumb statement. I'm sorry. With two parents working the typical case these days, eating out in many house holds is not a luxury. Rather, luxury is better defined by the price per plate, location, and added amenities. This is not to say wait staff should not be compensated. I'm saying the compensation should be commensurate to the value added; which is that of an unskilled worker. If one can accept his position as anything other than idiotic, then truly skilled laborers are **drastically** underpaid. I guess next time you go to the mechanic you won't blink when they tell you your minor engine service is going to cost $5,000. But hey, having someone work on your car is a luxury you're choosing to pay for. It hardly seems mannerly to resent them for it.;) And don't cringe when you pay a fixed percent of your income to have your hair cut. So what would be fair? $200, $500, what percentage of your income is fair? 1%, 2%, 5%? After all, appearance is directly related to your income. It's been said that appearance can create a wage gap by as much as 20%-40%. You willing to pay that 20%-40%/yr to have your hair cut? Of course the satire could endlessly go one showing how ridiculous such a out of touch statement really is. Hopefully you're laughing at my idiocy and realize the folly of the entire tip system. It sucks as is.
You can rationalize anything, and it's easy to do when it's the status quo. Or you can attempt to hold them to the same standard that everyone else must work within. If you do so, you'll forced to agree wait staff are significantly over paid.
Finally, though, let me note that it seems to me as though everyone who is against tipping is somehow under the impression that a tipping-free system would obviate the need to pay that money. The fact of the matter is that the market dictates that there is a certain value to being served at a restaurant.
No one is arguing that. The primary problem with tipping is that value is not proportionate the the service. Not even close. Add to the fact that you already PAID for that service (it's included in your meal; at least a portion thereof, if tipping were to disappear) and we all wind up paying a third time to compensate for the monies due but not paid to the IRS. Waiters and topless dancers represent the largest group of tax evaders in the US.
You also ignore that even small, moderately successful restaurants can easily absorb a labor increase. Even if they choose not to, the price per plate is still far less than a 10% tip, let alone 10%-30% common these days. You need to keep in mind, we're talking about dollars in the range of $10k-$60k PROFIT, per month, for a *successful*, restaurant, where margins are thin (e.g. burgers and pizza). For many owners, a modest labor increase isn't worth talking about; ignoring the false stink they would otherwise create. There is a reason why people want successful restaurants, and it isn't the long work hours.
Sorry, for the vast majority of wait staff, they are not skilled laborers. Pathetic tricks like memorizing my order, which increases the chance it will be screwed up (surprise, it often is), when it should have been written down in the first place, is a ploy to fool the weak minded (*cough*) into believing they are justified a higher tip. By your definition, anyone who speaks to anyone on behalf of a company is a skilled laborer. That's completely false and flatly dumb. And how is "memorizing who ordered what", deserving of a tip. It's not. Period. That's idiotic.
No one mentioned bartenders, aside from you. Unlike wait staff, they ARE skilled laborers. Not to mention, they have legal liability. Learn the difference and stop shamming the topic. You seem easily confused and it is pretty clear you don't understand what you're talking about.
And contrary to the assertions made by many, for most businesses, they can easily absorb the cost of higher wages, just like every other business already does. A small place with steady customers can easily net $40k-$80k per month in PROFITS, and that's just with something like burgers. Yet ignorance runs rampant and people believe that a modest increase in overhead for a decent size wait staff is somehow going to force the price of a meal upwards. In most small, successful restaurants, even if it was spread across the menu, you're talking about pennies per meal. In other words, for a large segment of restaurants, food prices don't have to change.
An interesting side to waiters is they are also the largest group actively involved in tax evasion.
To summarize, we double pay dolts and idiots skilled labor rates for poor or average service to then turn and pay a third time, to make up what they illegally pocket and don't pay the IRS. The final kick in the balls is that we're suppose to pay a percent, when their performance is in no way, shape, or form, proportional to the price of a meal.
In every other aspect of business or life, this is called a free ride or a scam.
Slashdot Mirror
above 30% of allied casualties
I actually didn't know it was 30% but I'm sure you can also figure out what that number is completely meaningless. Contrast current war fighting tactics, strategies, and technological capabilities against those of other wars, and you'll quickly understand. Don't forget to contrast the number of deaths against other wars and their theater casualty rates. The number of FF deaths from the current war is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the deaths from each previously significant war (excluding first Gulf War).
To even discuss current FF deaths with any angle other than regret is to be misinformed. The very low number of friendly fire deaths should be applauded, including at the beginning of the war.
Please stop sniffing glue.
The FF rates are the lowest in history. You obviously know nothing of the topic or history.
If they don't get robots this far, please don't give them guns, ever. EVER.
I'm not sure which is worse, you for making that statement of the moderators that thought it was insightful.
The entire reason for Asimov's stories is to show that not matter how clever mankind is there is always room for error and ambiguity. Either you've never read his stories or they went WAY over your head. Most of his stories are about dire consequences in spite of the so called perfect three laws of robotics. Either you need to go get a copy of his books and read or you direly need to reread the ones you have.
Should have read, "wouldn't use PostgreSQL". I make /. posts in such a hurry such mistakes are common for me.
This used to be true but no longer. The most recent release series of PostgreSQL stomps MySQL in almost every area of performance. I say, "almost" because it's possible some corner cases still exist. Now that PostgreSQL properly (native binaries vs Cygwin and fast/east installation) supports Windows, only a fool would use PostgreSQL for new projects.
MySQL uses lots of non-ANSI SQL, teaching poor SQL habits. MySQL is feature poor compared to PostgreSQL, requiring involved work arounds to do what is easy in most other RDBMs. PostgreSQL's performance now completely rocks across the performance and scalability (PostgreSQL always was ahead here) spectrum.
The only thing preventing MySQL users from migrating to a superior platform is poor, non-ANSI SQL learned from using a crappy MySQL platform in the first place.
if you have to travel home to be in hospice near your family.
I'm just throwing this out there. I know this is somewhat off topic. Just don't forget organizations like Angel Flight (West, South Central, East, and North East) exist to assist ambulatory patients that can't otherwise afford air transportation for specialized, non-local, medial treatment. Of course, they help with other emergencies too, such as after Katrina.
If you have a medical and financial need, Angel Flight may be able to help you side step financial and time problems created by road travel and the TSA during public air travel.
The entire point of my message is he BELIEVES it is true despite the fact that it's completely false. Thusly, I suggested the use of a "+1 Ignorant" rather than "Troll" because it's much closer to reality. I then went on to explain why these types of popular myths come to be, which again, is factually supported (well, at least by both ratings and numerous studies). I then get rated troll and you proceed to imply I'm a nut case or simply been duped. WTF?
According to you, living with reality, dealing with facts, and presenting facts, makes people dupes and idiots. I might suggest you first re-read my post as you start off supporting the entire point of my post. That suggests you either misread, misunderstood, or are just plain out there.
The post is a troll! Almost everything he stated in his post is factually incorrect. Despite the fact he is universally incorrect, the post does reflect popular perception. In turn, this popular perception is then hyped by media and fed back en mass who then feel validated and further feed the misinformed hysteria back into the ugly cycle. If I were wrong, media outlets (notice I didn't say news) like FOX wouldn't exist. People want to be validated, not informed. That's sad but true.
So while the statement is 100% troll, it is likely the author's intent was not to troll but rather to inform. If there was a "+1 Ignorant", it would likely be more accurate.
Secondly, such plain sight does not apply to routers, which generally are headless and incomprehensible to their owners; a reasonable person would not assume that the router's operator had specifically set the router the way it was currently set.
Your logic seems odd given it is in plain sight. When the user goes to connect to his AP and he did not have to authenticate, this is very much a "plain sight" issue. Furthermore, some computers will simply use the nearest, open AP, which means it will automatically connect. If the owner did not have to authenticate then it is a very safe and reasonable assumption that no other user is require to authenticate either.
In the eyes of criminal law, ignorance is not a defense. And yet, that's basically where your whole argument falls. Furthermore, reasonable measures are often assumed. Is it reasonable someone who operates a gun knows how to handle it and assume the associated risk? Yes, therefore you assume the risk (and no if you are a toddler, mentally challenged). The same goes for RF equipment and this is widely upheld by the FCC. If you operate equipment which interferes, then YOU are responsible, regardless of what your education or level of experience dictates. This is no different. If you operate an AP, YOU are responsible for proper operation.
I'm sorry, but you may not like this position, but it is reasonable to assume given the same standards apply in both criminal law and federal regulation. Unless you can successfully argue somehow AP's don't use RF or that somehow it requires special legal exception, I can in no way, shape, or form, see your position as legitimate.
I think you replied to the wrong person because you are repeating much of what I said.
Ever heard of missle carrying subs? Stupidity like yours is exactly the reason this country is so f**ked up.
LOL. With reasoning like yours, it is clear conventional weaponry will never be used again...after all, we have nukes (subs). Shesh. You clearly live in your own world. Is there much light there? Do you have a room with a view? LOL.
folk are like the UFO gang.
I take issue with that. UFOs factually exist. Everyone knows they do. The confusion comes in when you attempt to define what a UFO is. Some "UFO-ologists" simply attempt to record and scientifically explain what was observed. Some use science to actively debunk others who fall well outside of the "UFO gang". Contrary to popular use UFO does not mean "flying saucer". Use of "UFO" is always technically correct when used to describe an Unknown Flying Object (UFO). "Flying saucers" would certainly fit into a UFO category, but UFO means far, far more than that narrow and popularized definition.
If you've ever seen an airplane flying in fog and it didn't look like an airplane, you have seen a UFO. Sure, you may have assumed it to be a plane, and you are likely right, but that doesn't change the fact it can be more accurately described a UFO than "I guess it is a plane."
What I am trying to say is, UFOs absolutely do exist and anyone that says otherwise is a hillbilly sipping on a "XXX" bottle. Now, if you want to make specific claims about the "flying saucer gang", or "aliens gang", or whatever, I'll shut the hell up. In short, you are lumping alien chasers into "UFO", just as anti-evolutionists are often lumped in with Christians. To do so is wrong, ignorant, and poor form.
Add to the fact that Linus' argument is that the flag has nothing to do with license but rather kernel taint. Since the intent of the wrapper is strictly to load 3rd party binary blobs into kernel space, the driver should always taint the kernel. It was offered that a GPL driver does exist but it was brushed aside as it simply is not the primary use.
In a nutshell, Linus doesn't want to work on bug reports because of buggy, binary drivers from the Windows operating system, and rightfully so.
Wow, pretty scary when historically supported fact is rated, "troll." /. has really gone down hill. It used to be mods actually moderated topics they either understood or could at least follow. These days, they mod troll when they disagree, despite the fact that topic is both accurate and not a troll.
If you are going to moderate, please learn what "troll" means. Troll does not mean, "I disagree." Please learn to critically read and perform your moderation duties responsibly.
Cuba a strategic threat to the U.S.? Dude, Cuba was a threat to the US for about 10 minutes. Did you know that countries can now launch missles form within their own borders an hit the U.S.?
LOL. You are exactly the reason they continue to cry humanitarian rather than strategic threat. Cuba is close enough to strike the US via cruise missile. And ICBMs travel so fast, the duration from detection, validation, and reaction is so narrow, essentially the US would be boned. IIRC, from launch to impact from Cuba, by means of ICBM is less than 15 minutes. Detection and validation protocols requires 2-8 minutes. That's not a lot of time left once you finish your subtraction.
Clearly, even today, especially as missile tech improves, getting smaller and faster, Cuba continues to be of significant strategic importance. Even if Cuba were a staunch alley today, it would not change the strategic value of Cuba.
Cuba could have gone either way
Your statement doesn't make any sense to me. Before Castro, relations with the US were very strong. Cuba was a high end result for many US stars and powerful players before Castro came into power. Castro came in with a very anti-American position. In fact, many of the people that were executed when Castro came into power were executed under the assumption they were either CIA, a rat for the CIA, or someone who had strong ties to the US, and as such, posed a significant subversive risk to the new regime. Needless to say, saying, "Cuba could have gone either way", is a revisionist position. You seem to forget that Castro took power by mass murdering all that had ties to either the US or the old government (they were intrinsically tied). The second Castro took power, US relations were destroyed.
So we had a mass murdering thug with a fear of the US and socialist inclinations, in a position of extreme strategic value to the US. That most certainly does not position Castro to become a strong US ally. In fact, it made such a relationship all but impossible.
Cuba could have been an ally after that revolution,
I don't see how considering they executed some Americans, some CIA agents, and most every CIA plant/mole we had there. It is extremely unlikely since Castro also had socialist stance in how it approached things and actively worried about American subversion, and rightfully so. The Russians saw what was obvious and attempted to exploit it. Might things have been different? Sure? But unlikely.
So, historically, the US priority is hardly one of "no threat". It's one of "Castro out" and "we want control back" as well.
Yes, because we all know the Cuban Missile Crisis never happened. It's only been in the last decade, plus or minus a couple of years, where a "no threat" position can seriously be placed on the table. Considering one President after and another continues to see Cuba as a threat, it is unlikely that threat has entirely gone away.
Does the strenght of Cuban economy actually matter ?
Strong economy means strong military and ideaologically strengthens the notion of communism in this hemisphere. A strong military opens the Pandora's box for nuclear opens, much like you see taking placing in the middle east.
If anything, having ties of trade to the US would make Cuba less likely to allow another country to attack its trading partner through it...
That makes sense only as long as the existing governing body is not in place. This is why the US has stated many times, with a change of government, it's very likely relations will normalize.
Yes, I see how the US is putting pressure on all the African countries with which they trade weapons, diamonds and oil...
Cuba is considered different because of its strategic value (closeness to the US). No one wants a communist bastille in our backyard. Many argue, and very reasonably so, supporting Cuba is paying your enemy to subvert your own country. They decided Cuba was the line in the sand and it would be the example held high to ensure no other threats surface. They prop it up as a human rights argument (and it) but that's only because few really understand the strategic value (hint, hint...Cuban Missile Crisis) Cuba has for enemies of the United States.
Those that beckon to strengthen the Cuban economy are perceived by the US as ignorant dupes, serving to undermine the security of the United States. And it has been perceived that way for the last 40 years (so people don't think this is a Bush-ism). By in large, those that are in a hurry to open trade with Cuba are usually completely lost as to what it means to national security.
And when you have a country like the US keeping the hatches secure, and when Cuba is not strategic threat to you, you can easily afford to trade with that country. Most children understand that just because you know someone that doesn't like another person, doesn't mean you have to hate them too. Likewise, not every ally country shares the same priorities (no threat) as the US, and as a bonus, it works as an economic benefit.
I think your basic misconception is that the amount you are compensated for a job should be a direct function of the work and skill it requires.
;) It's not unreasonable. It's just not how it works.
I know it is untrue. That's the basis for my entire rant!
Since you're still in denial about looks versus pay, I sincerely invite you to do some home work. You're clearly uninformed on the topic.
Regardless we don't see eye to eye, the exchange was pleasant. Enjoy.
That was a sincere comment and only presumed you would take a critical look at your position as it related to the paragraph in question.
I guess *I* presumed too much. It would seem you're incapable of self reflection so a request for critical examination of your position is nothing but rhetoric. I was sincere when I wrote that and continue to be. You do come across as smart. Sometimes isn't easier to ask for someone to look within than it is to bang them over the head while writing a book which is likely to be ignored on forums such as this. Ya, it's a scapegoat for me from wasting time...but sincere nonetheless.
Yes. As they should. No one is benefited by the IRS going after pocket change from lots of people.
You've completely missed the point. If they were not on a tipping system which encourages tax fraud, there would be no reason for the IRS to be concerned with these point in the first place.
Bullshit. Eating out is not a necessity, it is a choice. There are many, many easy methods of cheaply prepping your own food, many of which do not require dishes or any other of the attendant needs of normal food prep. I don't recommend them, but then I don't recommend eating out on a regular basis if you can't afford it - or the appropriate tip.
I should be more clear. No one needs to eat out every night, I completely agree. Having said that, having gone through the treadmill with kids, several times a month, it's either feed shit food to your family or eat out. Those that care for nutrition and their kids often elect to eat out. After having typed that, it's rather obvious we were a minority because the majority of parents have no idea what nutrition is and a "good" meal for them often ranks as unacceptable for us. And take a look at the "fast" home alternatives. Most are incredibly unhealthy, but especially fast food. Granted some of that has started to change in the last couple of years but your "bullshit" is uninformed at best or your are indifferent as to what constitutes nutrition for your self and family.
Yes. It should. And further, what you consider to be no value added is not the general consensus. The general consensus is that wait staff add a lot of value. If you don't think they do, eat at home. What is it about dining out that you want, if not the wait staff?
You've misunderstand. I do not consider it "zero" value. I considering it of little value, especially once you take FACTUAL look at what you get for your money; which **almost** does translate into zero for the majority of restaurants.
The general consensus is that wait staff add a lot of value. If you don't think they do, eat at home. What is it about dining out that you want, if not the wait staff?
Now that is pure bullshit! Few people, save only the wait staff, consider it a significant value. The value to be had by the VAST majority eating out is simple: you don't cook and you don't clean. Period. Both of which are 100% built into the price of a meal, be it fast food or formal. Fine, you want to pay a waiter minimum wage, I'm fine with that. My problem is, in no way shape or form does their job qualify as a $15/hr job, let alone something like $30-$40/hr. There are some exceptions to this, but only a faction of wait staff qualify and these are in very high end establishments where they truly qualify as skilled laborers.
I totally agree with you here. The position is both not idiotic, and truly skilled laborers are underpaid.
I agree, they are underpaid, but that's not really the point. The point is, to be one same scale, that is proportional pay for skill and labor, you need to either triple (or more) the pay of all skilled laborers, or cut in third (or more) the pay of wait staff. Since skilled laborers, by in large, are not undervalued 3x their actual value, common sense demands waiters are far, far, far overpaid.
And, for the record, I do think it is entirely ungracious to resent people for demanding a fair market value.
Once again, you missed the point. I agree everyone should be paid a fair market value. But waiters are far OVER paid as is...so what is ungracious is for waiters to bitch and complain about being underpaid while providing little value added and generally poor service while already being over paid.
Here you have jumped a logical divide. No one pays a fixed percent of their income to have their hair cut.
Obviously that was silly but it seems you missed the point. At least hair **IS** factually accountable for some of your income, like it or not! Period. That's the world we live in, which is with biased huma
Besides, it's not like this is going to affect TCP or IP or whatnot--this is way down at the bottom of the OSI model at level 1.
Early research indicates IP protocols will not scale well with high speed links. CPU load goes through the roof and because of limited buffer sizes relative to line speeds, retries and fallbacks plague applications. The end result is a slow, high speed link.
In a nut shell, for high speed links to become useful to a large category of users, IP, and especially TCP must be revamped. Some research has already progressed down this road but late I heard, much more is required.
The first part is so riddled, I'll just leave it be. You seem like a smart person so I have no doubt you'll be able to figure out where the huge holes are at.
;) And don't cringe when you pay a fixed percent of your income to have your hair cut. So what would be fair? $200, $500, what percentage of your income is fair? 1%, 2%, 5%? After all, appearance is directly related to your income. It's been said that appearance can create a wage gap by as much as 20%-40%. You willing to pay that 20%-40%/yr to have your hair cut? Of course the satire could endlessly go one showing how ridiculous such a out of touch statement really is. Hopefully you're laughing at my idiocy and realize the folly of the entire tip system. It sucks as is.
In terms of numbers of people or dollars?
In terms of number of people, which is not to say the dollar figure is small (frankly I don't remember, but it's a large figure). The problem with chasing these people is that from each, the loss to our coffers are relatively small, but there are a lot of them. Worse, proving it is problematic and time consuming so the IRS would rather chase other people.
On the other hand, wait staff is a luxury you're choosing to paying for. It hardly seems mannerly to resent them for it.
That's just a dumb statement. I'm sorry. With two parents working the typical case these days, eating out in many house holds is not a luxury. Rather, luxury is better defined by the price per plate, location, and added amenities. This is not to say wait staff should not be compensated. I'm saying the compensation should be commensurate to the value added; which is that of an unskilled worker. If one can accept his position as anything other than idiotic, then truly skilled laborers are **drastically** underpaid. I guess next time you go to the mechanic you won't blink when they tell you your minor engine service is going to cost $5,000. But hey, having someone work on your car is a luxury you're choosing to pay for. It hardly seems mannerly to resent them for it.
You can rationalize anything, and it's easy to do when it's the status quo. Or you can attempt to hold them to the same standard that everyone else must work within. If you do so, you'll forced to agree wait staff are significantly over paid.
Finally, though, let me note that it seems to me as though everyone who is against tipping is somehow under the impression that a tipping-free system would obviate the need to pay that money. The fact of the matter is that the market dictates that there is a certain value to being served at a restaurant.
No one is arguing that. The primary problem with tipping is that value is not proportionate the the service. Not even close. Add to the fact that you already PAID for that service (it's included in your meal; at least a portion thereof, if tipping were to disappear) and we all wind up paying a third time to compensate for the monies due but not paid to the IRS. Waiters and topless dancers represent the largest group of tax evaders in the US.
You also ignore that even small, moderately successful restaurants can easily absorb a labor increase. Even if they choose not to, the price per plate is still far less than a 10% tip, let alone 10%-30% common these days. You need to keep in mind, we're talking about dollars in the range of $10k-$60k PROFIT, per month, for a *successful*, restaurant, where margins are thin (e.g. burgers and pizza). For many owners, a modest labor increase isn't worth talking about; ignoring the false stink they would otherwise create. There is a reason why people want successful restaurants, and it isn't the long work hours.
Sorry, for the vast majority of wait staff, they are not skilled laborers. Pathetic tricks like memorizing my order, which increases the chance it will be screwed up (surprise, it often is), when it should have been written down in the first place, is a ploy to fool the weak minded (*cough*) into believing they are justified a higher tip. By your definition, anyone who speaks to anyone on behalf of a company is a skilled laborer. That's completely false and flatly dumb. And how is "memorizing who ordered what", deserving of a tip. It's not. Period. That's idiotic.
No one mentioned bartenders, aside from you. Unlike wait staff, they ARE skilled laborers. Not to mention, they have legal liability. Learn the difference and stop shamming the topic. You seem easily confused and it is pretty clear you don't understand what you're talking about.
And contrary to the assertions made by many, for most businesses, they can easily absorb the cost of higher wages, just like every other business already does. A small place with steady customers can easily net $40k-$80k per month in PROFITS, and that's just with something like burgers. Yet ignorance runs rampant and people believe that a modest increase in overhead for a decent size wait staff is somehow going to force the price of a meal upwards. In most small, successful restaurants, even if it was spread across the menu, you're talking about pennies per meal. In other words, for a large segment of restaurants, food prices don't have to change.
An interesting side to waiters is they are also the largest group actively involved in tax evasion.
To summarize, we double pay dolts and idiots skilled labor rates for poor or average service to then turn and pay a third time, to make up what they illegally pocket and don't pay the IRS. The final kick in the balls is that we're suppose to pay a percent, when their performance is in no way, shape, or form, proportional to the price of a meal.
In every other aspect of business or life, this is called a free ride or a scam.