Ok, but why do "anti-mac" people like yourself feel the need to exaggerate things? The 13" macbook pro* is $1200. $1300 if you want 4GiB of RAM. Still expensive, but certainly not $2k.
*And why would you get anything bigger than this? The larger models have a fraction more speed (unnoticeable in UI terms, really), but are also.. larger. The 9400M is adequate enough to drive a 1080p display, and all of the laptops come with a mini display port for adding an extra screen.
IMO, the performance benefit you get from the larger machines is far outweighed by the hit you take in both the wallet and the backpack.
Public transportation is set up to rob the poor of their time, making it difficult or impossible for them to be able to set aside enough time from just surviving to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
It's not the sole cause of their continuing poverty, but it is one more huge obstacle placed in their way.
You're not supposed to tailgate either, but cops do it all the time. Worst drivers on the road as far as I can tell, and I don't think it's just because they know they will get away with it. Tailgating specifically, I think, is deliberately designed to make you instinctively go a little faster, which might bump you into a [more] expensive ticket should they decide to nab you.
"Organic" is poorly defined in relation to food if the test is "natural things and natural methods." All farming is unnatural: plants don't naturally grow in convenient rows, and livestock don't conveniently choose to mate only the tastiest specimens.
So it only really makes sense to apply the term on a case by case basis according to someone's arbitrary whim. "Organic" on the label doesn't mean anything to you unless you know the specific regulations regarding that specific food product bearing it.
Wait.. organic table salt??? That doesn't even make sense from the new-agery definition. What do they do, extract it from the sweat of organically fed livestock?
So, what are we supposed to do? Take up arms? everyone else is giving up this liberty, and so far my best solution is "protest by excessive compliance." I.e. going through security in nothing but your skivvies and a pair of giant fuzzy bunny slippers. (and tank top, if you plan on using an airport restaurant later on.), A clear plastic suitcase, only thick enough for one layer of clothes, so you obviously aren't hiding anything, And all your important account numbers bar coded and face-painted on your forehead.
Well, obviously, you should have planned ahead and arrived at the airport one hundred twenty-three hours before your flight, to give yourself ample time to find parking and clear security. It's the responsible thing to do.
You know what? If you feel better on an airline that does physical searches, go right ahead. Me, I feel better about airlines that don't do that. The event that precipitated all this extra "security" can't happen again, no planeful of passengers will let it, now that we know the rules have changed.
So.. where's my search-free airline (or at least, limited to running the luggage through an explosives detector, since it's difficult to overpower a portmanteau in the cargo compartment that you don't even know about.) I'd even be willing to "suffer" through more frequent, more direct flights on smaller aircraft if that is the price for such an airline to be allowed to exist.
Now, let's be clear here, I'm surprised that the ACLU is getting involved in this, it being a genuine civil rights issue and all, but the fourth amendment does not say what you think it does.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'm not sure what the underlying right this thing is supposed to affirm, but the writers seem to have left themselves some wiggle room in key phrases like, "unreasonable searches." Why did they specify "unreasonable" searches as prohibited and not just "searches." without qualifier? The tenth amendment would seem to apply at least, but when have we ever seen the government actually obey the tenth?
The logical conclusion is that warrants are not required in all circumstances, and national borders would seem to be an appropriate location for some amount of searching (for contraband, at least). As there is no prohibition on data entering the country, I'm at a loss as to why border agents would be interested in or have authority to search laptops beyond checking that they are, in fact, actually laptops.
I dunno, Isn't it possible that most people are guilty of the parking violation in question, and are (mistakenly) honest about it? I know my last parking ticket was valid (I gambled that I'd be back before "residents only" kicked in and lost), so I paid it.
It's hard to make a stand if you know you're in the wrong. At least, if you're honest.
Your friend should see if he can't find out whether the police didn't solve the cases because they never bothered trying. I mean, what's the point of paying taxes if you can't even get the protection you're supposed to be buying?
In a sense, parking in a city is a limited resource, and the shortage of spaces represents a market failure, the solution of which is to allow the price to fluctuate to market-clearing levels.
In other words, change the price throughout the day based on the number of remaining available spaces, and the traffic flow rate.
The problem is not charging for spaces, per se, only that there aren't enough of them for everyone who has business to get their business done. Especially if the prices are artificially low, encouraging hoarding.
I'd like to think we could solve the rehab problem without having to resort to socialized medicine, especially as that doesn't really address the "why should I pay" problem without resorting to violence: you'll pay because we tell you to.
But I did a quick google search and there doesn't seem to be a big rehab charity like march-of-dimes (which.. um.. why is that still around now that we've basically licked Polio?) to donate to. Lots of small-scale things, but nothing that could be promoted at a national level with a massive funding drive.
The whole point of meters was to encourage people to be quick and move on, freeing up parking so others can patronize the same businesses. That's why there are time limits and feeding the meter is illegal in many places, even if you own the car.
Perhaps instead it's time to rethink the whole concept of meters and find a better way to accomplish the task. Preferably one which leaves as few hazards in a too-narrow roadway as it is. Something like.. valet parking, satellite lots, underground parking (I understand this has been very successful in Boston, for instance), mass transit, etc.
It is clear to anyone with more sense than a turnip that individual transportation machines is not a solution that scales well. But it's tricky because it's not enough to have the bandwidth, a viable "public transportation" option needs to have equivalent or better latency, too.
Is it will we're testing, or athletic performance, in an athletic competition? If it's simply pure will, then where is Olympic Used Car Negotiating, or National Championship "Sticking your arm in a bucket of ice water"? International Staring Contests?
If it's not simply will, then why are you looking for ways to mitigate the other factors?
I mean, even if she does have a rare disorder that gives her an advantage in female competition, she's still at a disadvantage in "everyone" i.e. male competition. So where should she compete? Why do we have to make this so complicated?
What's the point of "women's leagues" anyway, if not to give non-men a chance in athletic competitions?
Or have we decided that what we really want are the "everybody" league, where athletic excellence is all that matters and a "porny" league, where everyone has to have a score of 8.5 or better on hotornot
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, but why do "anti-mac" people like yourself feel the need to exaggerate things? The 13" macbook pro* is $1200. $1300 if you want 4GiB of RAM. Still expensive, but certainly not $2k.
*And why would you get anything bigger than this? The larger models have a fraction more speed (unnoticeable in UI terms, really), but are also.. larger. The 9400M is adequate enough to drive a 1080p display, and all of the laptops come with a mini display port for adding an extra screen.
IMO, the performance benefit you get from the larger machines is far outweighed by the hit you take in both the wallet and the backpack.
Public transportation is set up to rob the poor of their time, making it difficult or impossible for them to be able to set aside enough time from just surviving to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
It's not the sole cause of their continuing poverty, but it is one more huge obstacle placed in their way.
You're not supposed to tailgate either, but cops do it all the time. Worst drivers on the road as far as I can tell, and I don't think it's just because they know they will get away with it. Tailgating specifically, I think, is deliberately designed to make you instinctively go a little faster, which might bump you into a [more] expensive ticket should they decide to nab you.
"Organic" is poorly defined in relation to food if the test is "natural things and natural methods." All farming is unnatural: plants don't naturally grow in convenient rows, and livestock don't conveniently choose to mate only the tastiest specimens.
So it only really makes sense to apply the term on a case by case basis according to someone's arbitrary whim. "Organic" on the label doesn't mean anything to you unless you know the specific regulations regarding that specific food product bearing it.
Wait.. organic table salt??? That doesn't even make sense from the new-agery definition. What do they do, extract it from the sweat of organically fed livestock?
No they won't. Network speeds use the same terminology that RF engineers use: base-10 prefixes.
Uh.. the inch is technically an SI unit. It is defined as exactly 2.54 cm.
So, what are we supposed to do? Take up arms? everyone else is giving up this liberty, and so far my best solution is "protest by excessive compliance." I.e. going through security in nothing but your skivvies and a pair of giant fuzzy bunny slippers. (and tank top, if you plan on using an airport restaurant later on.), A clear plastic suitcase, only thick enough for one layer of clothes, so you obviously aren't hiding anything, And all your important account numbers bar coded and face-painted on your forehead.
Feel free to add to the list, btw.
Well, obviously, you should have planned ahead and arrived at the airport one hundred twenty-three hours before your flight, to give yourself ample time to find parking and clear security. It's the responsible thing to do.
I'm imagining it, but it's really hard to get a good rhythm out of a dead fish.
You know what? If you feel better on an airline that does physical searches, go right ahead. Me, I feel better about airlines that don't do that. The event that precipitated all this extra "security" can't happen again, no planeful of passengers will let it, now that we know the rules have changed.
So.. where's my search-free airline (or at least, limited to running the luggage through an explosives detector, since it's difficult to overpower a portmanteau in the cargo compartment that you don't even know about.) I'd even be willing to "suffer" through more frequent, more direct flights on smaller aircraft if that is the price for such an airline to be allowed to exist.
The Rio Grande is a muddy river. They'd be buried in the plane until you got them out.
Now, let's be clear here, I'm surprised that the ACLU is getting involved in this, it being a genuine civil rights issue and all, but the fourth amendment does not say what you think it does.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'm not sure what the underlying right this thing is supposed to affirm, but the writers seem to have left themselves some wiggle room in key phrases like, "unreasonable searches." Why did they specify "unreasonable" searches as prohibited and not just "searches." without qualifier? The tenth amendment would seem to apply at least, but when have we ever seen the government actually obey the tenth?
The logical conclusion is that warrants are not required in all circumstances, and national borders would seem to be an appropriate location for some amount of searching (for contraband, at least). As there is no prohibition on data entering the country, I'm at a loss as to why border agents would be interested in or have authority to search laptops beyond checking that they are, in fact, actually laptops.
I dunno, Isn't it possible that most people are guilty of the parking violation in question, and are (mistakenly) honest about it? I know my last parking ticket was valid (I gambled that I'd be back before "residents only" kicked in and lost), so I paid it.
It's hard to make a stand if you know you're in the wrong. At least, if you're honest.
Michael Mann, is that you?
Well, hang on there.
How many crimes were committed per thousand cameras?
Surely some cameras failed to spot or solve crimes because no crimes occurred within their view.
Your friend should see if he can't find out whether the police didn't solve the cases because they never bothered trying. I mean, what's the point of paying taxes if you can't even get the protection you're supposed to be buying?
Yeah, but OS X Lynx will have to be text based. On the plus side, it will run great on a VT-100 terminal...
Frankly, from the ad, I half expect half the movie to be about dancing in "The A-H"
Y'know, I think I'd pay to see a powerpuff girls live-action movie, if it had a big enough budget...
In a sense, parking in a city is a limited resource, and the shortage of spaces represents a market failure, the solution of which is to allow the price to fluctuate to market-clearing levels.
In other words, change the price throughout the day based on the number of remaining available spaces, and the traffic flow rate.
The problem is not charging for spaces, per se, only that there aren't enough of them for everyone who has business to get their business done. Especially if the prices are artificially low, encouraging hoarding.
I'd like to think we could solve the rehab problem without having to resort to socialized medicine, especially as that doesn't really address the "why should I pay" problem without resorting to violence: you'll pay because we tell you to.
But I did a quick google search and there doesn't seem to be a big rehab charity like march-of-dimes (which.. um.. why is that still around now that we've basically licked Polio?) to donate to. Lots of small-scale things, but nothing that could be promoted at a national level with a massive funding drive.
The whole point of meters was to encourage people to be quick and move on, freeing up parking so others can patronize the same businesses. That's why there are time limits and feeding the meter is illegal in many places, even if you own the car.
Perhaps instead it's time to rethink the whole concept of meters and find a better way to accomplish the task. Preferably one which leaves as few hazards in a too-narrow roadway as it is. Something like.. valet parking, satellite lots, underground parking (I understand this has been very successful in Boston, for instance), mass transit, etc.
It is clear to anyone with more sense than a turnip that individual transportation machines is not a solution that scales well. But it's tricky because it's not enough to have the bandwidth, a viable "public transportation" option needs to have equivalent or better latency, too.
Is it will we're testing, or athletic performance, in an athletic competition? If it's simply pure will, then where is Olympic Used Car Negotiating, or National Championship "Sticking your arm in a bucket of ice water"? International Staring Contests?
If it's not simply will, then why are you looking for ways to mitigate the other factors?
I mean, even if she does have a rare disorder that gives her an advantage in female competition, she's still at a disadvantage in "everyone" i.e. male competition. So where should she compete? Why do we have to make this so complicated?
What's the point of "women's leagues" anyway, if not to give non-men a chance in athletic competitions?
Or have we decided that what we really want are the "everybody" league, where athletic excellence is all that matters and a "porny" league, where everyone has to have a score of 8.5 or better on hotornot