Actually i completely disagree with your statement. I've had a BB storm for almost a year now and they charge the EXACT same thing for the storm. You have to pay the $30 unlimited web plan and to tether it is another $30/mo but i'm not sure if they are two different caps or if they both share the same cap. i use my phone fairly heavily for web stuff and email and opening large (2mb+) attachments and i've yet to even come close to just 1GB a month.
I do agree that tethering is something that shouldn't cost extra and that's why i refuse to pay the additional $30 for that but they do have other options that will let you use it for a day for $10 i think and a week for $20, i don't remember the exact details but if you were gonna use it often then the $30 was worth it but to connect just for a day or two here and there it wasn't.
And honestly with the coverage and other benefits Verizon (at least in my area) is the best and you can bet every other cell company has a similar cap in their contract and if not then there service or coverage isn't good and they're using it just to attract customers.
Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic. One official said: "It will make prosecution harder because it increases the workload significantly."
One would think that encryption would stop them in their tracks, not just "increase the costs and workload"
Those increased costs and workload are for actually doing "real" police work instead
I adapted the spam form to a more updated file-sharing version...
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting illegal File sharing. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Userss can easily add encryption to circumvent the monitoring
( ) Legitimate file transfers would be blocked or hindered
( ) You cannot sue every single person who shares files illegally
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop file sharing for two weeks and then we'll have another new way
(X) Users would not put up with it
( ) ISP's will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from file sharers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many users cannot afford to pay that much anyway
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlled authority for file sharing
( ) The numerous different avenues for sharing files
( ) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes or fees
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in current file sharing methods
( ) Ability of applications to enable encryption
( ) Willingness of users to share files unknowingly
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme cost savings of file sharing to users
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who try to implement filtering
( ) Dishonesty on the part of file sharers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Anonymous networks such as TOR
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-in or opt-out is unacceptable
( ) Packet headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to share legitimate files without being blocked
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public or private networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sharing files should not add an additional cost to current ISP charges
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) I don't want the government or my ISP snooping all my traffic
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Don't worry Google is working on this as well, they will soon recreate the world using pictures from your accidentally public facebook pictures. Not only will they be able to provide 3d city models but also provide you a model of your home, pool, garage, neighborhood, vacation spots, etcc... Soon you won't even need to vacation you can just step in the the local Google Holo Deck and be instantly transported to your favorite destination with real-time visual updates!!
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( X ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( X ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( X ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( X ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( X ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( X ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( X ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
If you're going to reboot an original you gotta do Oregon Trail!
not that it was really a series, but put in a better map, better hunting, different hazards, more types of supplies, open-ended route selection like gps navigation or something, roving bands of indians to deal with, much much more!!
i still have the old version on a flash drive with an old mac emulator and play it every now and then, so much fun hunting, i always max out the number of bullets i can take with me!
Actually this sounds like the echo location batman used in the Dark Night at the end except for being self contained on the phone versus using just the mic from all phones and processing centrally
Of course it's the US we do EVERYTHING bigger and better!! (though that's reported prisoners) if you read the wikipedia article you would see that some claim forced labor camps in China to be "prisoners" and that additional population would put them higher than the US though not by much...
The Wikipedia article:
The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 738 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 (as of 2005).[18] A report released Feb. 28, 2008 indicates that more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States are in prision.[9] The United States has 5% of the world's population and 23.6% of the world's prison population.[3]
The link and the relevant section is "Comparison with other countries"
I was under the impression that only 1, 6, 11 were the only channels that didn't overlap. using 12, 13, or even 14 would still overlap with channel 9-11 and would decrease the bandwidth capable Wifi Channels
i've seen other images of the channel/spectrum use that puts the ends of the channels closer together especially in some of the Cisco wireless documentation. So i don't think that switching to an illegal channel (in the US anyway) would help much.
Oh yeah and here's the relevant wikipedia article for 802.11
You will want to scroll down to the "Channels and international compatibility"
I think the real question here is can the streaming content be saved locally?
With my mythtv box that i have one of the main benefits is i can store the shows for later, not just until i have time to watch them but for when you want to do those marathon weekends and re-watch everything from the beginning in order.
I think if they can record streaming shows from abc and such (which are available OTA) would be great, recording the netflix is not as needed since as long as you have the service you have all of the movies.
I believe what he was trying to say is why do they force a phone line or basic cable on you when all he want's is just the internet. He is not asking for that service and obviously doesn't want it so why should he have to pay for it?
This has nothing to do with his neighbors, bailing anything out, etc... that's just your own made up political ranting.
The GP just wanted internet with no extra services and to PAY FOR IT, he just didn't want to pay for the extra services. Our phone companies around my area do the same thing, phone line + 768k dsl is cheaper than just plain DSL which makes no sense since they are offering more services to you for less money, seems like a deal but why can't i just get internet without the land line and have it be even cheaper? Same with cable companies, $50 for internet only, $40 for basic cable only, $60 for internet and basic cable? it just doesn't make any sense. They want you to have more services and give you more for less money when you don't even want them.
I agree, out of every os that i've ever used that wasn't some windows version FreeBSD has the single best documentation.
The FreeBSD handbook is a superior resource than any distro's wiki anyday. And i'm not a BSD fanboy, i run linux at home (fedora, ubuntu, and centos) but i have a personal colo server and that runs BSD and i've never had to touch it once in 5 years, runs solid no problems at all
Thank god someone has their head on strait around here.
I don't understand how the internet gets mentioned and something is blown completely out of proportion. Facebook is not allowing these pictures on THEIR WEBSITE that's on THEIR SERVERS.
This is not censorship of any kind, this is a company with a policy and that policy doesn't allow these pictures to be posted. It's like a restaurant asking a woman who is breast feeding to stop or leave. They don't think that it is appropriate in their establishment same goes for facebook.
Unless you can explain how asking a woman in a restaurant that's breast feeding to stop or leave is censorship or unjust then you have no case here to accuse Facebook of censorship just because it is on the internet which all of a sudden seems to make everything different.
But without electricity how would your water pump run when you are out of water pressure? and if you were in a neighborhood with city water i would drain the pipes and use a faucet in the basement with a drain to keep the water moving instead of having faucets running everywhere.
If people exibited as much common sense doing other things as they do when they use their computer (not to mention when they call for help) then there would be many more issues with everyday things.
You would have people putting refrigerators in their house upside down and wonder why the ice maker doesn't work. Try to cook something in a stove when the power is out at their house. Drive on the left side of the road (in the US) because their driver seat is on the left and that makes sense. i'm sure there are 1000+ more examples.
what has amazed me from the beginning of my support career is the fact that so many "smart" people just lose all common sense in front of a computer. I told a user to right-click on the desktop once, after a few minutes of frustrating conversation i figured out he had written "click" on a piece of paper on his desktop and that's why he was so infuriated with me. I've had other users who thought i could see their screen when i'm helping them setup a dial-up connection because i had done it 1000 times and i knew what the screens all looked like.
It's not that you're always fighting with users but they all have a similar lack of common sense when using a computer, i would never drive anywhere if everyone exibited the same lack of common sense on the road.
you keep saying that electric cars are the way with solar power...
But honestly until battery technology catches up with current hydrocarbon fuels in storage density it will never happen
I wouldn't buy an electric or even a hybrid because i drive 50 miles to work every day and 50 miles back on a highway. The best thing to drive is a regular car since a hybrid costs much more and burns the same amount of gas on a highway anyway. Plug-in electric car would maybe barely get me to work but then i have no charge and no where to plug it in.
You talk about building new infrastructure (solar plants) then moving to electric cars that would require new infrastructure to recharge on the go if you were to take a long trip or vacation somewhere.
Can't you just accept that this Swift Fuel is at least a damn good interim step to getting to your magical electrical world? And if everyone was to switch to electric vehicles wouldn't more fossil fuels be burned in power stations till your distributed grid solar power plants get built
Well i guess they were probably thinking more along the lines of voice commands... much easier than typing in the first place... and by then they should have some kind of decently working voice command system in place
In that case you would rarely need a keyboard, you could use a finger to click into your browser and just say the domain name, or just open up office and hit the record button or something to that effect and just start rambling on and have it all get written down for you.
not saying that i would like that but it seems that's where all these designs were headed... voice activation what a wonderful failure.....
I'm studying for my CCNA right now and the only thing referencing IPv6 in the documentation on Cisco's website are these two lines:
# Describe the technological requirements for running IPv6 in conjunction with IPv4 (including: protocols, dual stack, tunneling, etc).
# Describe IPv6 addresses
that's for the new 802 test, the 801 test that was just retired on Nov 6 had barely mentioned IPv6 if even at all.
and here i thought it might have been because there are more people on the road which means more people on the road without common sense which causes more accidents... i'm sure cellphone use, eating/drinking while driving, shaving/makeup/etc.. while driving don't help either. but like many say... correlation is not causation
Slashdot Mirror
No i heard one go by today and it sounded like
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'mmmmmmmmmmmm gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Then i heard one at a stop light next to me going
homohomohomohomohomohomohomohomohomohomohomo
Gotta love Walter!
Jeff Dunham http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb12nQEOyfM
Actually i completely disagree with your statement. I've had a BB storm for almost a year now and they charge the EXACT same thing for the storm. You have to pay the $30 unlimited web plan and to tether it is another $30/mo but i'm not sure if they are two different caps or if they both share the same cap. i use my phone fairly heavily for web stuff and email and opening large (2mb+) attachments and i've yet to even come close to just 1GB a month.
I do agree that tethering is something that shouldn't cost extra and that's why i refuse to pay the additional $30 for that but they do have other options that will let you use it for a day for $10 i think and a week for $20, i don't remember the exact details but if you were gonna use it often then the $30 was worth it but to connect just for a day or two here and there it wasn't.
And honestly with the coverage and other benefits Verizon (at least in my area) is the best and you can bet every other cell company has a similar cap in their contract and if not then there service or coverage isn't good and they're using it just to attract customers.
Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic. One official said: "It will make prosecution harder because it increases the workload significantly."
One would think that encryption would stop them in their tracks, not just "increase the costs and workload"
Those increased costs and workload are for actually doing "real" police work instead
I adapted the spam form to a more updated file-sharing version...
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting illegal File sharing. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Userss can easily add encryption to circumvent the monitoring
( ) Legitimate file transfers would be blocked or hindered
( ) You cannot sue every single person who shares files illegally
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop file sharing for two weeks and then we'll have another new way
(X) Users would not put up with it
( ) ISP's will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from file sharers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many users cannot afford to pay that much anyway
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlled authority for file sharing
( ) The numerous different avenues for sharing files
( ) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes or fees
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in current file sharing methods
( ) Ability of applications to enable encryption
( ) Willingness of users to share files unknowingly
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme cost savings of file sharing to users
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who try to implement filtering
( ) Dishonesty on the part of file sharers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Anonymous networks such as TOR
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-in or opt-out is unacceptable
( ) Packet headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to share legitimate files without being blocked
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public or private networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sharing files should not add an additional cost to current ISP charges
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) I don't want the government or my ISP snooping all my traffic
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Don't worry Google is working on this as well, they will soon recreate the world using pictures from your accidentally public facebook pictures. Not only will they be able to provide 3d city models but also provide you a model of your home, pool, garage, neighborhood, vacation spots, etcc... Soon you won't even need to vacation you can just step in the the local Google Holo Deck and be instantly transported to your favorite destination with real-time visual updates!!
Aint the future grand?
Your post advocates a
( X ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( X ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( X ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( X ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( X ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( X ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( X ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough Furthermore, this is what I think about you: ( X ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
not that it was really a series, but put in a better map, better hunting, different hazards, more types of supplies, open-ended route selection like gps navigation or something, roving bands of indians to deal with, much much more!!
i still have the old version on a flash drive with an old mac emulator and play it every now and then, so much fun hunting, i always max out the number of bullets i can take with me!
Actually this sounds like the echo location batman used in the Dark Night at the end except for being self contained on the phone versus using just the mic from all phones and processing centrally
The Wikipedia article:
The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 738 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 (as of 2005).[18] A report released Feb. 28, 2008 indicates that more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States are in prision.[9] The United States has 5% of the world's population and 23.6% of the world's prison population.[3]
The link and the relevant section is "Comparison with other countries"
I was under the impression that only 1, 6, 11 were the only channels that didn't overlap. using 12, 13, or even 14 would still overlap with channel 9-11 and would decrease the bandwidth capable Wifi Channels
i've seen other images of the channel/spectrum use that puts the ends of the channels closer together especially in some of the Cisco wireless documentation. So i don't think that switching to an illegal channel (in the US anyway) would help much.
Oh yeah and here's the relevant wikipedia article for 802.11
You will want to scroll down to the "Channels and international compatibility"
I think the real question here is can the streaming content be saved locally?
With my mythtv box that i have one of the main benefits is i can store the shows for later, not just until i have time to watch them but for when you want to do those marathon weekends and re-watch everything from the beginning in order.
I think if they can record streaming shows from abc and such (which are available OTA) would be great, recording the netflix is not as needed since as long as you have the service you have all of the movies.
I believe what he was trying to say is why do they force a phone line or basic cable on you when all he want's is just the internet. He is not asking for that service and obviously doesn't want it so why should he have to pay for it?
This has nothing to do with his neighbors, bailing anything out, etc... that's just your own made up political ranting.
The GP just wanted internet with no extra services and to PAY FOR IT, he just didn't want to pay for the extra services. Our phone companies around my area do the same thing, phone line + 768k dsl is cheaper than just plain DSL which makes no sense since they are offering more services to you for less money, seems like a deal but why can't i just get internet without the land line and have it be even cheaper? Same with cable companies, $50 for internet only, $40 for basic cable only, $60 for internet and basic cable? it just doesn't make any sense. They want you to have more services and give you more for less money when you don't even want them.
Can't wait to check out the Bermuda triangle, if there are no ships then it must be true!
Perhaps now we'll be able to see those massive floating garbage islands in the Pacific Ocean that we're always hearing about.
You mean New Zealand?
I believe he meant Australia, he did say massive
Does it run Vista?
1. acquire non-sea europe to asia internet backbone
2. hire ships to "drop anchor" on internet cables
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!!
I agree, out of every os that i've ever used that wasn't some windows version FreeBSD has the single best documentation.
The FreeBSD handbook is a superior resource than any distro's wiki anyday. And i'm not a BSD fanboy, i run linux at home (fedora, ubuntu, and centos) but i have a personal colo server and that runs BSD and i've never had to touch it once in 5 years, runs solid no problems at all
Thank god someone has their head on strait around here.
I don't understand how the internet gets mentioned and something is blown completely out of proportion. Facebook is not allowing these pictures on THEIR WEBSITE that's on THEIR SERVERS.
This is not censorship of any kind, this is a company with a policy and that policy doesn't allow these pictures to be posted. It's like a restaurant asking a woman who is breast feeding to stop or leave. They don't think that it is appropriate in their establishment same goes for facebook.
Unless you can explain how asking a woman in a restaurant that's breast feeding to stop or leave is censorship or unjust then you have no case here to accuse Facebook of censorship just because it is on the internet which all of a sudden seems to make everything different.
But without electricity how would your water pump run when you are out of water pressure? and if you were in a neighborhood with city water i would drain the pipes and use a faucet in the basement with a drain to keep the water moving instead of having faucets running everywhere.
I am in complete agreement on this one.
If people exibited as much common sense doing other things as they do when they use their computer (not to mention when they call for help) then there would be many more issues with everyday things.
You would have people putting refrigerators in their house upside down and wonder why the ice maker doesn't work.
Try to cook something in a stove when the power is out at their house.
Drive on the left side of the road (in the US) because their driver seat is on the left and that makes sense.
i'm sure there are 1000+ more examples.
what has amazed me from the beginning of my support career is the fact that so many "smart" people just lose all common sense in front of a computer. I told a user to right-click on the desktop once, after a few minutes of frustrating conversation i figured out he had written "click" on a piece of paper on his desktop and that's why he was so infuriated with me. I've had other users who thought i could see their screen when i'm helping them setup a dial-up connection because i had done it 1000 times and i knew what the screens all looked like.
It's not that you're always fighting with users but they all have a similar lack of common sense when using a computer, i would never drive anywhere if everyone exibited the same lack of common sense on the road.
you keep saying that electric cars are the way with solar power...
But honestly until battery technology catches up with current hydrocarbon fuels in storage density it will never happen
I wouldn't buy an electric or even a hybrid because i drive 50 miles to work every day and 50 miles back on a highway. The best thing to drive is a regular car since a hybrid costs much more and burns the same amount of gas on a highway anyway. Plug-in electric car would maybe barely get me to work but then i have no charge and no where to plug it in.
You talk about building new infrastructure (solar plants) then moving to electric cars that would require new infrastructure to recharge on the go if you were to take a long trip or vacation somewhere.
Can't you just accept that this Swift Fuel is at least a damn good interim step to getting to your magical electrical world? And if everyone was to switch to electric vehicles wouldn't more fossil fuels be burned in power stations till your distributed grid solar power plants get built
Well i guess they were probably thinking more along the lines of voice commands... much easier than typing in the first place... and by then they should have some kind of decently working voice command system in place
"Open Writer"
"Begin recording"
"..."
"stop recording"
In that case you would rarely need a keyboard, you could use a finger to click into your browser and just say the domain name, or just open up office and hit the record button or something to that effect and just start rambling on and have it all get written down for you.
not saying that i would like that but it seems that's where all these designs were headed... voice activation what a wonderful failure.....
I'm studying for my CCNA right now and the only thing referencing IPv6 in the documentation on Cisco's website are these two lines: # Describe the technological requirements for running IPv6 in conjunction with IPv4 (including: protocols, dual stack, tunneling, etc). # Describe IPv6 addresses that's for the new 802 test, the 801 test that was just retired on Nov 6 had barely mentioned IPv6 if even at all.
and here i thought it might have been because there are more people on the road which means more people on the road without common sense which causes more accidents... i'm sure cellphone use, eating /drinking while driving, shaving/makeup/etc.. while driving don't help either. but like many say... correlation is not causation
Oh, i thought the phrase might have been "Duke Nukem Forever will be out next year!"