They may just not want to look stupid. My son's name is Conan. When people ask what nationality that is, I tell them "Cimmerian". They will often follow up with "Where is that?" I would tell them "Northern Hyboria". This generally illicits a knowing nod, and a "Oh, yeah." as if they know where that is, and just needed a reminder. So, while MAYBE they know what Cisco is, they also might just be buying it because they don't want to look ignorant.
It always amazes me that people are to stupid to bring an eye shade and ear plugs when they plan on sleeping in a crowded room. What is with these jerks that think mass transit and a bedroom are the same thing?
Of course these people certainly make a good argument for avoiding mass transit.
100% backward compatibility should have been a no brainer in Vista. MS bought this little program called VirtualPC. That means that if they had integrated the emulator, and included some hard coded disk images, they could have had 100% backward compatibility with very little effort. The ownership of VirtualPC also means that they don't need to worry about keeping any older API, or even stay on the same platform. They only need to make sure that VirtualPC runs on any OS they release.
What in the world are you doing driving an RV with only one person? An RV is mass transit. If you would have had charted a private plane, it certainly would have cost you more than $149.
I just did a search on Expedia, and the shortest flight from Seattle to Baltimore is 5 hours 5 minutes. This leads to the distinct impression that your not comparing doorstep to doorstep, but are misrepresenting the amount of time it takes to travel by airplane. It is safe to assume that you spent at least 3 hours in drive time, baggage check-in, security checkpoint time, baggage retrieval time, boarding time, and wait time for the plane itself. You probably spent closer to 4 or 5 hours more than you claim. Sure, it may have still have taken you 5 times as long to drive as to fly, but that is far less than the 10 times you claimed.
There are also some significant benefits to driving a trip across country in an RV that you didn't include. Obviously if your goal is to get from point A to point B as fast and as cheap as possible, driving an RV is a pretty dumb way to accomplish that. Of course if you had driven a Prius instead of an RV, you would have gotten ~50 mpg, so you would have used closer to 55 gallons, which at around $3/per, you would have spent $165 in gas. Given the number of "abouts" in the calculations, it is safe to say that a cross country car trip costs about the same as a cross country plane trip.
I won't argue that driving is more dangerous than flying, but given the number of hours that most people spend on the road, worrying about danger differences in the rare cross country trip, is a little like being concerned about whether your daily game of Russian Roulette is played with one bullet or two.
"all telephone calls will also require biometric authentication"
This is pointless unless we also require long term retention policies. One year of recordings of all calls should suffice.
"Historically, many annonymous notes have been written on paper. We must institute a new system where paper is only available to authorised government agents; illegial possession of paper is also grounds for shippment to Gitmo."
This should not be necessary. It should suffice to put a code on the paper to indicate it's source. Something like yellow dots that would not be noticed by the paper users. Of course if we could require all paper to be registered at time of purchase, it would be helpful. We could use a secure method for identifying people. Might I suggest a 9 digit numbering system that the federal government can issue.
I don't want to pick a side on the exploitation issue, but using the number of hits in google to support a position is very poor logic. I really tells you nothing.
Case in point, A quick google turns up 334K links for the phrase "chinese zombie workers"
to state that 1.1 million links with exploitation proves a problem with exploitation, would also require you to believe that china also has a zombie problem that is 1/3 as bad as their exploitation problem.
That's what I was thinking. The terror of seeing your unfeeling, inhuman attacker run on water would be... well, terrifying. I'm thinking that it would be so shocking that if that scene were put into a sci-fi movie today, it would bet universally panned as totally unrealistic.
Um... That is the exact same type of example that I used. It is no more or less deceptive than mine.
Those same kids that grew up and mostly interacted with family, friends and neighbors, also were WAY more distrustful of people they didn't know than we are today. And no, it isn't quite hard to keep secrets from people when you sleep in the same room with them every night for 20 years. You just hide the tokens of affection offered by that suitor your parents disapproved of some place other than under your bed.
Well, here is a reference (that took 3 minutes to find) to people's attempts to maintain privacy, and the tragic results of loosing it, dating from ~1150 AD. Just how far back do you consider "Recent"?
"Also, notice that the secret in your example is used to lie and deceive people. You might want to come up with a better example."
You just used the "If you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy" falicy. You clearly do not understand the issue, and apparently do not understand what the word privacy means.
No, you are wrong. A secret is privacy. Secrets have been held for as long as humans have had society. Do you think when the local warlord made a secret pact to marry his daughter off to the warlord to the east, instead of the warlord to the west, that he wasn't very clear that he was keeping a secret? Whether he called it 'privacy' or not, he was very clear on the idea that letting just anyone know certain things about him would be very dangerous indeed.
There is absolutely no excuse for a sound track to cost more than the movie AND soundtrack. I would assume that MOST soundtracks cost more than the movies they are from within a year or two of the movies release to video.
Of course the same research could also show that free internet could be given to every person in the world. They would just have to reduce the priority to all traffic to zero. There would be no packet loss, not a single packet would have more than 10% of the current latency, and the cost to run the network would be 100% less expensive than it is today.
You have your head in the sand. Women may not fight in wars as much, due to traditions that were established during a time that strength was the most important factor in winning. But when it comes to things like domestic violence, the violence that women commit simply dwarfs what men do. Women commit so much domestic violence it doesn't even register for most people when they see it.
And under what circumstances would that be the "only" way to "get public awareness" about it? Would traditional advertising necessarily fail? Why? Under the exact circumstances we live in. You tell me why we don't see traditional advertising for this. It definitely isn't because some people make jokes about it.
Finally you've said something reasonable. Yes, it's true that "violence" (read: rape) against men is not taken seriously in our culture. That is a pretty hypocritical statement. "read: rape"?!?!?! No, read "violence". You are a perfect example of why the joke phase is not over. Given the amount of violence committed against men in our society, your dismissal of all other violence shows that the jokes succeeded in bringing your attention to this particular form of violence. Maybe if more jokes were made about how bad domestic violence against men is, we would see some progress in getting people outraged about that too.
Let me give you another example. Abner Louima was raped by police officers. If giant swaths of our culture thought this was funny instead of outrageous, do you think that justice would have been better served? Instead, "awareness" was raised by mass outrage, not by making churlish jokes about it! The fact that we treat prison rape as a joke instead of an outrage is what helps prison rape to continue. Yes, everyone is "aware" of it, and they treat it like a joke. Until people take it seriously, it's going to continue. I would say that all of the prison rape jokes are what made it possible for the reports to make it to the main stream media instead of being swept under the rug. Public outrage doesn't happen if the public doesn't hear about it due to it being too sensitive of a subject.
That is such ripe bullshit. If that were true, the comedy movies would make similar jokes about male-on-female rape. The culture at large views prison rape as just, and I think that's disgusting, and I don't see how making jokes about it does anything but trivialize the situation. "It raises awareness!" you pitifully say. Great. Everyone is aware. It's common knowledge, for pete's sake! How does making continued jokes make this situation any better? You say that, but take rapist priests as an example. It was common knowledge that the Catholic Church was an international child molestation ring. It has been happening for hundreds of years, but it still took a generation of people cracking crude jokes about it before the general public became comfortable enough with it for the lawsuits to actually start, and anything to be done about it. Hell, there are still large groups of people that are in denial about it going all the way to the top, even when the Pope himself said they would not defrock all priests who have committed rape.
The same holds true here. It will take time for people to move from uncomfortable joke to outrage. Of course until people like you stop limiting our outrage to only very specific type of violent acts, it is unlikely to reach critical mass.
What if women who were sent to prison were regularly raped by men. Would you joke about this? Would you say something like, "She didn't want to go to prison where she'd end up getting pounded up the cunt?" with a snicker? If that was the only way to get public awareness about it. Definitly.
Would our society view this institutionalized rape as flippantly as it does when men are regularly raped in prison? No, they wouldn't. In fact, our society would be up in arms about the problem, and demand it be stopped. Unfortunately, violence against men is just not taken seriously in our society, and discussions about men having anal sex with each other is not considered a proper topic, so while you may want to pretend that there is a middle that is excluded, you are doing just that... pretending. You have to make the choice. Crude, offensive 'humor', or public denial of the problem.
Of course, I do commend your outrage at what is happening, but you should direct it at those that are just complacent. At those that say nothing at all. The people that crack the jokes are simply drilling the fact that this happens into the public consciousnesses. They are more your ally in your disgust, not your opposition.
Personally, I can tell you that 100% of the time I crack that joke, it is because I find the practice of sentencing people to rape to be offensive. Remember the old advice of, "Never discuss sex, politics, or religion" when socializing? Well, our culture allows us to say just about anything if the person saying it can even remotely claim it was a joke. Not at work, but most other places. Just watch any stand up comedy show on TV, and you will see a stream of dirty, political, sexist, and racist jokes. So, what happens is that issues that would normally be considered taboo to speak about, are now put out in the open.
Which is do you find more offensive, people cracking jokes who's punchlines are considered funny BECAUSE the statement is so offensive, or people just not talking about the problem at all?
We pick arbitrary units because in the end, all units of measurement are arbitrary. What we think of as standard measurements are just some arbitrary measurements that lots and lots of people agree on. Given that much of the world has a difficult time understanding what a petaflop really means, the writers will use a unit of measurement that they believe people will understand, and compare it to the 'standard' units. This is frequently a useful way to get the data across. Of course, I will agree that Libraries of Congress is a lame unit of measurement to use for this kind of purpose, as the same people that would not grasp the amount of data in really large data measuring units, are even less likely to grasp how much data is in the Library of Congress.
I would say that you have largely nailed it. What I would add though, is that a couple of points of IQ are probably less responsible for (as the article says) the first child going to a better collage than the second and third, than the parents progressively running out of money to pay for collage.
I would also add to the far apart theory with my personal anecdote. I've always attributed the fact that I was smarter than my siblings to the fact that I was regularly exposed to material aimed at people 4, 6, and 8 years older than me while my siblings were playing with kids younger than them. So, at 4 I was playing Risk and Candyland, while at 12, my oldest brother was playing... Risk and Candyland.
The problem with Jury Duty is that it wasn't supposed to be a financial burden. You can bet the $5 a day they pay was actually worth something when it was first implemented. It's a sad state of affairs when juries are made up entirely of people who can afford to just not get paid for weeks at at time. If we require maternity leave, and disability to be paid by employers, we sure could help our country a lot more by adding jury leave to the list.
Slashdot Mirror
They may just not want to look stupid. My son's name is Conan. When people ask what nationality that is, I tell them "Cimmerian". They will often follow up with "Where is that?" I would tell them "Northern Hyboria". This generally illicits a knowing nod, and a "Oh, yeah." as if they know where that is, and just needed a reminder. So, while MAYBE they know what Cisco is, they also might just be buying it because they don't want to look ignorant.
I'm guessing the correlation happens because feeling bad causes these people to look for cell towers.
It always amazes me that people are to stupid to bring an eye shade and ear plugs when they plan on sleeping in a crowded room. What is with these jerks that think mass transit and a bedroom are the same thing?
Of course these people certainly make a good argument for avoiding mass transit.
100% backward compatibility should have been a no brainer in Vista. MS bought this little program called VirtualPC. That means that if they had integrated the emulator, and included some hard coded disk images, they could have had 100% backward compatibility with very little effort. The ownership of VirtualPC also means that they don't need to worry about keeping any older API, or even stay on the same platform. They only need to make sure that VirtualPC runs on any OS they release.
What in the world are you doing driving an RV with only one person? An RV is mass transit. If you would have had charted a private plane, it certainly would have cost you more than $149.
I just did a search on Expedia, and the shortest flight from Seattle to Baltimore is 5 hours 5 minutes. This leads to the distinct impression that your not comparing doorstep to doorstep, but are misrepresenting the amount of time it takes to travel by airplane. It is safe to assume that you spent at least 3 hours in drive time, baggage check-in, security checkpoint time, baggage retrieval time, boarding time, and wait time for the plane itself. You probably spent closer to 4 or 5 hours more than you claim. Sure, it may have still have taken you 5 times as long to drive as to fly, but that is far less than the 10 times you claimed.
There are also some significant benefits to driving a trip across country in an RV that you didn't include. Obviously if your goal is to get from point A to point B as fast and as cheap as possible, driving an RV is a pretty dumb way to accomplish that. Of course if you had driven a Prius instead of an RV, you would have gotten ~50 mpg, so you would have used closer to 55 gallons, which at around $3/per, you would have spent $165 in gas. Given the number of "abouts" in the calculations, it is safe to say that a cross country car trip costs about the same as a cross country plane trip.
I won't argue that driving is more dangerous than flying, but given the number of hours that most people spend on the road, worrying about danger differences in the rare cross country trip, is a little like being concerned about whether your daily game of Russian Roulette is played with one bullet or two.
Ridiculous!
"all telephone calls will also require biometric authentication"
This is pointless unless we also require long term retention policies. One year of recordings of all calls should suffice.
"Historically, many annonymous notes have been written on paper. We must institute a new system where paper is only available to authorised government agents; illegial possession of paper is also grounds for shippment to Gitmo."
This should not be necessary. It should suffice to put a code on the paper to indicate it's source. Something like yellow dots that would not be noticed by the paper users. Of course if we could require all paper to be registered at time of purchase, it would be helpful. We could use a secure method for identifying people. Might I suggest a 9 digit numbering system that the federal government can issue.
I don't want to pick a side on the exploitation issue, but using the number of hits in google to support a position is very poor logic. I really tells you nothing.
Case in point, A quick google turns up 334K links for the phrase "chinese zombie workers"
to state that 1.1 million links with exploitation proves a problem with exploitation, would also require you to believe that china also has a zombie problem that is 1/3 as bad as their exploitation problem.
That's what I was thinking. The terror of seeing your unfeeling, inhuman attacker run on water would be... well, terrifying. I'm thinking that it would be so shocking that if that scene were put into a sci-fi movie today, it would bet universally panned as totally unrealistic.
Um... That is the exact same type of example that I used. It is no more or less deceptive than mine.
A belard)
Those same kids that grew up and mostly interacted with family, friends and neighbors, also were WAY more distrustful of people they didn't know than we are today. And no, it isn't quite hard to keep secrets from people when you sleep in the same room with them every night for 20 years. You just hide the tokens of affection offered by that suitor your parents disapproved of some place other than under your bed.
Well, here is a reference (that took 3 minutes to find) to people's attempts to maintain privacy, and the tragic results of loosing it, dating from ~1150 AD. Just how far back do you consider "Recent"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heloise_(student_of_
"Also, notice that the secret in your example is used to lie and deceive people. You might want to come up with a better example."
You just used the "If you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy" falicy. You clearly do not understand the issue, and apparently do not understand what the word privacy means.
No, you are wrong. A secret is privacy. Secrets have been held for as long as humans have had society. Do you think when the local warlord made a secret pact to marry his daughter off to the warlord to the east, instead of the warlord to the west, that he wasn't very clear that he was keeping a secret? Whether he called it 'privacy' or not, he was very clear on the idea that letting just anyone know certain things about him would be very dangerous indeed.
That is certainly not it. My favorite example is:
n fo=who+made+who&HT_Search=TITLE&image.x=11&image.y =9&cart=566907299&style=music&altsearch=yes
5 727&style=movie&BAB=E
http://www.cduniverse.com/sresult.asp?HT_Search_I
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=727
There is absolutely no excuse for a sound track to cost more than the movie AND soundtrack. I would assume that MOST soundtracks cost more than the movies they are from within a year or two of the movies release to video.
Of course the same research could also show that free internet could be given to every person in the world. They would just have to reduce the priority to all traffic to zero. There would be no packet loss, not a single packet would have more than 10% of the current latency, and the cost to run the network would be 100% less expensive than it is today.
Are you suggesting that the way to stop terrorists is to get into knife fights?!?!?!?!
(Yes, I am joking, and do agree with you.)
"Violence is almost entirely a male domain."
You have your head in the sand. Women may not fight in wars as much, due to traditions that were established during a time that strength was the most important factor in winning. But when it comes to things like domestic violence, the violence that women commit simply dwarfs what men do. Women commit so much domestic violence it doesn't even register for most people when they see it.
http://www.google.com/products?q=wood+burning+stov e&hl=en&um=1&sa=X&oi=froogle&ct=title
The same holds true here. It will take time for people to move from uncomfortable joke to outrage. Of course until people like you stop limiting our outrage to only very specific type of violent acts, it is unlikely to reach critical mass.
Of course, I do commend your outrage at what is happening, but you should direct it at those that are just complacent. At those that say nothing at all. The people that crack the jokes are simply drilling the fact that this happens into the public consciousnesses. They are more your ally in your disgust, not your opposition.
Personally, I can tell you that 100% of the time I crack that joke, it is because I find the practice of sentencing people to rape to be offensive. Remember the old advice of, "Never discuss sex, politics, or religion" when socializing? Well, our culture allows us to say just about anything if the person saying it can even remotely claim it was a joke. Not at work, but most other places. Just watch any stand up comedy show on TV, and you will see a stream of dirty, political, sexist, and racist jokes. So, what happens is that issues that would normally be considered taboo to speak about, are now put out in the open.
Which is do you find more offensive, people cracking jokes who's punchlines are considered funny BECAUSE the statement is so offensive, or people just not talking about the problem at all?
They didn't say WHICH people.
We pick arbitrary units because in the end, all units of measurement are arbitrary. What we think of as standard measurements are just some arbitrary measurements that lots and lots of people agree on. Given that much of the world has a difficult time understanding what a petaflop really means, the writers will use a unit of measurement that they believe people will understand, and compare it to the 'standard' units. This is frequently a useful way to get the data across. Of course, I will agree that Libraries of Congress is a lame unit of measurement to use for this kind of purpose, as the same people that would not grasp the amount of data in really large data measuring units, are even less likely to grasp how much data is in the Library of Congress.
"noise is something thats jarring and loud."
f f&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aoffic ial&hs=uXj&q=white+noise+machines&btnG=Search
I think that there are a few people that would disagree with you...
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=o
I would say that you have largely nailed it. What I would add though, is that a couple of points of IQ are probably less responsible for (as the article says) the first child going to a better collage than the second and third, than the parents progressively running out of money to pay for collage.
I would also add to the far apart theory with my personal anecdote. I've always attributed the fact that I was smarter than my siblings to the fact that I was regularly exposed to material aimed at people 4, 6, and 8 years older than me while my siblings were playing with kids younger than them. So, at 4 I was playing Risk and Candyland, while at 12, my oldest brother was playing... Risk and Candyland.
The problem with Jury Duty is that it wasn't supposed to be a financial burden. You can bet the $5 a day they pay was actually worth something when it was first implemented. It's a sad state of affairs when juries are made up entirely of people who can afford to just not get paid for weeks at at time. If we require maternity leave, and disability to be paid by employers, we sure could help our country a lot more by adding jury leave to the list.
My vote goes to Second Hand SmokeTM.