ah, but everyone would have them. Presumably the extra weight on the fat people would just slow them down proportionately and you'd have the same dilemma. But maybe if the fat people started using them to get everywhere, their weight would balloon to the point that they'd break their little toys and be left like beached whales in the electronics department.
While I believe the other comments are correct that it stands for "Chief Information Officer," I know of a company that unfortunately must remain nameless, where they had a "Chief Innovation Officer," which basically just meant "giant douchebag."
I'm confused...isn't using the ubiquitous "Belkin 54g" exactly what was being referred to as "stealing"?
For myself, I'm not cheap enough to feel the need to steal wireless in my home (I think my neighbor's have unsecured wireless...), nor would I ever think about doing anything over someone else's unsecured wireless that required any sort of security (I draw the line at checking my gmail account). But, I'm perfectly happy grabbing someone else's wireless when I'm away from my home to use my wifi enabled phone or my laptop.
I posted this in response to another response above:
"you'll notice, however, that all the ipods in that category are 4th and 5th generation. So the mp3 players on that list all seem to be older out-of-date models (maybe they're no longer separating new models into "flash-based" and "hard-drive" based categories?), which makes drawing any conclusions from that sales data pretty much impossible."
because if you narrow things down, as you suggest, the top-selling hard-drive based model is an older (?) Brown 30 gb model, not the 80gb model that is number 9 in the big list. That HD-Based list looks completely out of date to me, since there doesn't seem to be any model from this year in that list.
you'll notice, however, that all the ipods in that category are 4th and 5th generation. So the mp3 players on that list all seem to be older out-of-date models (maybe they're no longer separating new models into "flash-based" and "hard-drive" based categories?), which makes drawing any conclusions from that sales data pretty much impossible
never seen gold plated optical wires, but I did have to upgrade to nicely shielded optical wires, and they do serve an important purpose: it is more difficult for my cat to chew through the cable. My first optical cable did look pretty cool after my cat had worked on it for a week or so--little red lights peeking through along the whole length of the cord.
definitely true, but I'm still pretty convinced that the biggest reason is the constant stopping and starting. From my house, I can go in several directions without hitting many hills, and often I'll go entire tanks without going up many hills and I still get bad (well 45 still isn't too bad) mileage...
that is certainly a factor as well, and I would have mentioned it, but I didn't really want to start a "whose driving is worse" flamewar--but hell, it's fun, no? Rhode Island driving is by far the worst I've seen...and some of their habits have a profound effect on mileage:
1. people pulling out in front of you, usually without even bothering to do it quickly, requiring you to slam on the brakes
2. the "boston" left turn, where someone pulls halfway across the intersection blocking traffic coming from the left and waits for the opposite side to clear, or--more often--someone will decide to let them go.
3. people inexplicably slamming on their brakes to allow someone waiting on a side street to turn right in front of them.
I assume you aren't too familiar with Providence? Its downright provincial--its hardly like driving in New York or Chicago. As I said in my post, I lost considerable gas mileage going from Connecticut to Ann Arbor, which from my purely subjective view of things is not much different in terms of traffic than Providence. It really is not a very big city. I have no stats to back this up, but I'd assume if you put a rhode island sized box around Ann arbor, you'd probably have a much higher population density than Rhode Island (certainly if you situated said box to include the Detroit metropolitan area.) What I think is different about Rhode Island is the terrible spacing and timing of traffic lights.
And for the record, I do ride my bike most of the time (my car comes out of the garage about once or twice a week to get groceries--my bike is my primary mode of transportation) so please lose the condescension.
interesting. I never thought about the possibility that that is what is going on in providence. Certainly the cops here have no interest in enforcing speed limits, so maybe the frequent stops are intentional, and the only way they've come up with to slow people down. (Red lights also only seem to be a suggestion around here anyway...)
I have a honda insight, and since I've moved to Providence, RI, I've seen my fuel efficiency drop from an average of 70 miles per gallon per tank of gas (in Connecticut driving mostly on back roads at moderate speeds) to 60ish (mostly city driving) in Ann Arbor, to barely 45 mpg here in Rhode Island. I am convinced that it is mostly the fault of poor traffic planning here. I've never seen a city with worse timing for the lights. You will often get a green light only to be forced to stop 30-40 feet away at another light that turned red the very instant your light turned green (Benefit and Waterman/Angell anyone?)
with that said, i always did wonder how much of my great mileage in Connecticut was due to the fact that I could watch and keep track of my mpg. ie. would I see a similar increase in mileage in a non-hybrid car just by being able to monitor my driving efficiency?
tell me which (major) city has a speed limit of 35-45 in the center...I can't think of any. In the country there aren't sidewalks, so unless you're proposing banning all bikes? Even on my current crappy bike, it isn't too difficult to maintain 15-20 miles an hour, which in congested areas is faster than the cars. In non-congested areas it is plenty of time for an attentive driver to react/move around.
In my experience, while cars may or may not pay attention to cyclists on the road, the sure as hell don't look at the sidewalks before pulling in or out of driveways, etc. I feel much safer on the road.
That being said, I'll be the first to admit that a lot of bikers ride like jackasses, and I wish they'd stop it. But I also live in Providence and the worst shit that bikers pull is nothing compared to the way most people seem to drive around here.
I really don't think there is any authorship. I was looking in to this because I wanted to know if it was public domain or not, and I couldn't get any conclusive answers. I did look at some other recordings and the legal information on the CD certainly makes it look like copying is not allowed, but then, they would want you to think that, wouldn't they? anyone else have a definitive answer?
I guess my question, specifically in regard to Mississippi John Hurt is whether I could copy, re-order, eliminate a couple tracks, write new liner notes,etc and then re-release the sony Mississippi John Hurt recordings. accounding to the link you posted makes me think I could, but I think its still a bit ambiguous.
yes, and it's not even that simple. take for example Mississippi John Hurt's 1928 recording on OKEH. That recording is now in the public domain. HOWEVER, unless you have a 78 record player and/or can track down a 78 (anyone have one? I'll pay for it...) you will still be stuck buying Sony's (I think--I think there are 2, actually) release. That recording, as assinine as it seems to me, is not public domain. Sony has re-copyrighted their "mastering" and "production"...
There is also a significant savings on electricty. I worked in a computer lab, and we were able to justify switching for several reasons.
1. style and space savings
2. electricty savings for running the monitor
3 electicity savings for air conditioning...the lab was so hot from the monitors that we had to run the air conditioner constantly even through the winter.
during the height of my minesweeper addiction, I would play imaginary games for hours in a semi-sleep state. Then I started wondering if the games I was playing actually made sense. ie...were the formations I was clicking actually valid, or was I just making it up as I went along, and not actually following any rules...since i didn't really ever hit a mine, I think it was all bogus.
point taken...however, do you really think that any tv producers are making programs because there are these great public airwaves, and they want to show something great to the public and that advertising just "allows" them to do that? Everything is designed to get advertising money, and you saying that the airwaves are "free" doesn't really change anything. What I'm really talking about is some sort of "moral obligation" not to subvert the system. If nobody watches commercials, there won't be any programs (at least none that aren't pay-per-view or use some other means of paying for themselves) and if everyone copies music, same goes. All I was saying was that copying music, which is really a form of subverting the system, is no more theft than skipping commercials. (and I realize that the "law" may not necessarily agree with me...)
The socks comment was admittedly off-topic...I just think that if I buy a cd, i should be able to destroy it, eat it, listen to it, let my friend borrow it, make a copy, distribute copy, etc. I don't buy a right of access to airwaves, but I think I do buy a right of access to a cd when I purchase it.
I've always thought that if you follow the logic that copying music is "theft" (which I don't, btw) then you have to equally admit that to watch a TV show (which is provided to you free on the assumption that you will watch commercials) and don't watch the commercials (turn off the tv, leave the room, switch channels...), then you are "stealing" that TV program. Hell, lets take this one further. If you watch, but choose to ignore the commercials (which are provided to you free on the assumption that you will buy their products), then you are still stealing.
I personally don't believe that anyone has any right to control what you do with a product after you purchase it. "I'll sell you these blue socks, but you can only wear them on tuesdays. Or you go to jail."
My job won't be going overseas any time soon, because I work at a bookstore and do programming for them as part of my regular salary (which just went from 8.00 dollars an hour to about 11!!) So if everyone were as dumb as me, and were willing to work for just over minimum wage, there'd be no need to send jobs overseas.
that's absurd. Driving may be a priviledge not a right, but to say that you have to accept every assinine regulation (or opt out altogether)is just ridiculous. Talking on a cell phone is a priviledge, not a right (or at least your choice of providers is not forced upon you), so would you then agree that cell phone service providers have the right to record and/or broadcast all your conversations? Afterall, if you don't want to talk on the phone, you don't have to.
Slashdot Mirror
ah, but everyone would have them. Presumably the extra weight on the fat people would just slow them down proportionately and you'd have the same dilemma. But maybe if the fat people started using them to get everywhere, their weight would balloon to the point that they'd break their little toys and be left like beached whales in the electronics department.
While I believe the other comments are correct that it stands for "Chief Information Officer," I know of a company that unfortunately must remain nameless, where they had a "Chief Innovation Officer," which basically just meant "giant douchebag."
can someone mod this as predundant?
I'm confused...isn't using the ubiquitous "Belkin 54g" exactly what was being referred to as "stealing"?
For myself, I'm not cheap enough to feel the need to steal wireless in my home (I think my neighbor's have unsecured wireless...), nor would I ever think about doing anything over someone else's unsecured wireless that required any sort of security (I draw the line at checking my gmail account). But, I'm perfectly happy grabbing someone else's wireless when I'm away from my home to use my wifi enabled phone or my laptop.
A friend of mine is an engineer and he's half Pakistani...that counts, right? I always knew he was shady.
I posted this in response to another response above:
"you'll notice, however, that all the ipods in that category are 4th and 5th generation. So the mp3 players on that list all seem to be older out-of-date models (maybe they're no longer separating new models into "flash-based" and "hard-drive" based categories?), which makes drawing any conclusions from that sales data pretty much impossible."
because if you narrow things down, as you suggest, the top-selling hard-drive based model is an older (?) Brown 30 gb model, not the 80gb model that is number 9 in the big list. That HD-Based list looks completely out of date to me, since there doesn't seem to be any model from this year in that list.
you'll notice, however, that all the ipods in that category are 4th and 5th generation. So the mp3 players on that list all seem to be older out-of-date models (maybe they're no longer separating new models into "flash-based" and "hard-drive" based categories?), which makes drawing any conclusions from that sales data pretty much impossible
never seen gold plated optical wires, but I did have to upgrade to nicely shielded optical wires, and they do serve an important purpose: it is more difficult for my cat to chew through the cable. My first optical cable did look pretty cool after my cat had worked on it for a week or so--little red lights peeking through along the whole length of the cord.
but, no, you don't understand, my amplifier goes up to 11.
definitely true, but I'm still pretty convinced that the biggest reason is the constant stopping and starting. From my house, I can go in several directions without hitting many hills, and often I'll go entire tanks without going up many hills and I still get bad (well 45 still isn't too bad) mileage...
that is certainly a factor as well, and I would have mentioned it, but I didn't really want to start a "whose driving is worse" flamewar--but hell, it's fun, no? Rhode Island driving is by far the worst I've seen...and some of their habits have a profound effect on mileage:
1. people pulling out in front of you, usually without even bothering to do it quickly, requiring you to slam on the brakes
2. the "boston" left turn, where someone pulls halfway across the intersection blocking traffic coming from the left and waits for the opposite side to clear, or--more often--someone will decide to let them go.
3. people inexplicably slamming on their brakes to allow someone waiting on a side street to turn right in front of them.
what am I forgetting?
I assume you aren't too familiar with Providence? Its downright provincial--its hardly like driving in New York or Chicago. As I said in my post, I lost considerable gas mileage going from Connecticut to Ann Arbor, which from my purely subjective view of things is not much different in terms of traffic than Providence. It really is not a very big city. I have no stats to back this up, but I'd assume if you put a rhode island sized box around Ann arbor, you'd probably have a much higher population density than Rhode Island (certainly if you situated said box to include the Detroit metropolitan area.) What I think is different about Rhode Island is the terrible spacing and timing of traffic lights.
And for the record, I do ride my bike most of the time (my car comes out of the garage about once or twice a week to get groceries--my bike is my primary mode of transportation) so please lose the condescension.
interesting. I never thought about the possibility that that is what is going on in providence. Certainly the cops here have no interest in enforcing speed limits, so maybe the frequent stops are intentional, and the only way they've come up with to slow people down. (Red lights also only seem to be a suggestion around here anyway...)
I have a honda insight, and since I've moved to Providence, RI, I've seen my fuel efficiency drop from an average of 70 miles per gallon per tank of gas (in Connecticut driving mostly on back roads at moderate speeds) to 60ish (mostly city driving) in Ann Arbor, to barely 45 mpg here in Rhode Island. I am convinced that it is mostly the fault of poor traffic planning here. I've never seen a city with worse timing for the lights. You will often get a green light only to be forced to stop 30-40 feet away at another light that turned red the very instant your light turned green (Benefit and Waterman/Angell anyone?)
with that said, i always did wonder how much of my great mileage in Connecticut was due to the fact that I could watch and keep track of my mpg. ie. would I see a similar increase in mileage in a non-hybrid car just by being able to monitor my driving efficiency?
yes. if it isn't published, you would typically list it as "Unpublished Manuscript" in your bibliography.
tell me which (major) city has a speed limit of 35-45 in the center...I can't think of any. In the country there aren't sidewalks, so unless you're proposing banning all bikes? Even on my current crappy bike, it isn't too difficult to maintain 15-20 miles an hour, which in congested areas is faster than the cars. In non-congested areas it is plenty of time for an attentive driver to react/move around.
In my experience, while cars may or may not pay attention to cyclists on the road, the sure as hell don't look at the sidewalks before pulling in or out of driveways, etc. I feel much safer on the road.
That being said, I'll be the first to admit that a lot of bikers ride like jackasses, and I wish they'd stop it. But I also live in Providence and the worst shit that bikers pull is nothing compared to the way most people seem to drive around here.
I just use the mouse to "Insert Symbol" select the letter out of the table, and click away. keyboards are useless.
I really don't think there is any authorship. I was looking in to this because I wanted to know if it was public domain or not, and I couldn't get any conclusive answers. I did look at some other recordings and the legal information on the CD certainly makes it look like copying is not allowed, but then, they would want you to think that, wouldn't they? anyone else have a definitive answer?
I guess my question, specifically in regard to Mississippi John Hurt is whether I could copy, re-order, eliminate a couple tracks, write new liner notes,etc and then re-release the sony Mississippi John Hurt recordings. accounding to the link you posted makes me think I could, but I think its still a bit ambiguous.
yes, and it's not even that simple. take for example Mississippi John Hurt's 1928 recording on OKEH. That recording is now in the public domain. HOWEVER, unless you have a 78 record player and/or can track down a 78 (anyone have one? I'll pay for it...) you will still be stuck buying Sony's (I think--I think there are 2, actually) release. That recording, as assinine as it seems to me, is not public domain. Sony has re-copyrighted their "mastering" and "production"...
There is also a significant savings on electricty. I worked in a computer lab, and we were able to justify switching for several reasons.
1. style and space savings
2. electricty savings for running the monitor
3 electicity savings for air conditioning...the lab was so hot from the monitors that we had to run the air conditioner constantly even through the winter.
during the height of my minesweeper addiction, I would play imaginary games for hours in a semi-sleep state. Then I started wondering if the games I was playing actually made sense. ie...were the formations I was clicking actually valid, or was I just making it up as I went along, and not actually following any rules...since i didn't really ever hit a mine, I think it was all bogus.
point taken...however, do you really think that any tv producers are making programs because there are these great public airwaves, and they want to show something great to the public and that advertising just "allows" them to do that? Everything is designed to get advertising money, and you saying that the airwaves are "free" doesn't really change anything. What I'm really talking about is some sort of "moral obligation" not to subvert the system. If nobody watches commercials, there won't be any programs (at least none that aren't pay-per-view or use some other means of paying for themselves) and if everyone copies music, same goes. All I was saying was that copying music, which is really a form of subverting the system, is no more theft than skipping commercials. (and I realize that the "law" may not necessarily agree with me...)
The socks comment was admittedly off-topic...I just think that if I buy a cd, i should be able to destroy it, eat it, listen to it, let my friend borrow it, make a copy, distribute copy, etc. I don't buy a right of access to airwaves, but I think I do buy a right of access to a cd when I purchase it.
I've always thought that if you follow the logic that copying music is "theft" (which I don't, btw) then you have to equally admit that to watch a TV show (which is provided to you free on the assumption that you will watch commercials) and don't watch the commercials (turn off the tv, leave the room, switch channels...), then you are "stealing" that TV program. Hell, lets take this one further. If you watch, but choose to ignore the commercials (which are provided to you free on the assumption that you will buy their products), then you are still stealing.
I personally don't believe that anyone has any right to control what you do with a product after you purchase it. "I'll sell you these blue socks, but you can only wear them on tuesdays. Or you go to jail."
My job won't be going overseas any time soon, because I work at a bookstore and do programming for them as part of my regular salary (which just went from 8.00 dollars an hour to about 11!!) So if everyone were as dumb as me, and were willing to work for just over minimum wage, there'd be no need to send jobs overseas.
that's absurd. Driving may be a priviledge not a right, but to say that you have to accept every assinine regulation (or opt out altogether)is just ridiculous. Talking on a cell phone is a priviledge, not a right (or at least your choice of providers is not forced upon you), so would you then agree that cell phone service providers have the right to record and/or broadcast all your conversations? Afterall, if you don't want to talk on the phone, you don't have to.