Wrong. Counting the days that public transportation is shut down is like counting the times the breaks don't work on your car. Each day of failure is not balanced by a day of success. Think about the damage if New York, San Francisco, or the like is simply shut down for a day. It isn't an issue of one person missing work. It is an entire city missing work. How many days can you go without getting paid before it becomes a problem? A year? 6 months? Well, as much as you and I might be able to go long times without working, there is a significant percentage of the population that would be in serious trouble if they couldn't work for a week.
When your car breaks down, you can find alternatives. You can use your other car. You can borrow a car. You can hitch a ride with someone else. You can even rent a car.
When public transportation goes down (at least if it is used enough to matter) it isn't one person that is looking to rent a car. It is 10000 people. Renting a car suddenly becomes like trying to rent a room during the Olympics. There just aren't enough for everyone. Even if everyone could get a car to get them through the strike, the roads will not have been maintained and expanded in a way to handle the quantity of vehicles that start using the road over night.
No, public transportation is a good idea better than half the time is like saying that skipping fire insurance is better 99% of the time.
Or, if you are so disturbed by someone getting up out of their seat to leave a theater, YOU should rent a DVD. The goal is to find some kind of compromise that gives the most people the most enjoyment of their experience. The first way to do that is to always behave better than what you would expect from anyone else. No doubt there are exceptions, but my experience is that the cult of the anti-phone do not follow this golden rule. Their goal is to control public environments and force everyone else to adhere to their standards. (Standards that they frequently don't adhere to themselves.)
The did the same thing they did before they had movie theaters. They dealt with the fact that they lived in a less technologically advanced time. Guess what? Having a quiet movie theater is also not a right. This isn't a discussion about right. Maybe if you can't handle the fact that people on call don't sit at home waiting for the call, a movie theater isn't the place for you.
I would love if Google and Apple would implement a 'request to go silent' feature. The only problem is that all of the neo-luddite jerks would ruin it. There would have to be some way to be sure that it is only used legitimately.
Off the top of my head, the way I would implement something like this is:
* Use Bluetooth for the Request For Silent transmitter. With an approximately 30 foot range, you wouldn't constantly be in range of 20 RFS transmitters.
* Have a device name prefix that tells the phones that they are seeing a RFS transmitter. Label the devices RFS-XXXXXXXX with XXXXXXXX being the owners label.
* If possible, get the Bluetooth standards committee to reserve a block of addresses for this purpose, as it would be more efficient than using the device name.
* When a new RFS transmitter is spotted, the device would give the owner a notification that a RFS transmitter is requesting silence. This could be a ringtone, a vibration, or any other method that we currently have for notifications.
* The device owner then selects how to respond to this RFS transmitter's request. Accept/Ignore
* If the user selects accept, the mobile device pairs with the transmitter, and the transmitter issues a public key for later authentication. This would be needed to prevent neo-luddites from abusing the system.
* If the user selects accept or ignore, the device adds the RFS transmitter's address to it's internal list so that it knows how to respond to future requests from the same transmitter.
* From that point forward, any time a transmitter with a known address comes into range, the mobile device could either ignore the transmitter, or pair to the transmitter, authenticate the transmitter, switch to silent, and unpair.
* Once a RFS transmitter is no longer in range, the device should return to its previous state.
I have been an advocate of electric cars powered by a generator for a long time. The key would be making a standard plug and mounting system.
The other cool thing that could be done with an all electric with generator is that generator trailers could be built. Most people would be fine with the range of current electric vehicles 95% of the time. The problem is that they periodically take longer trips. With a little bit of planning by DOT, people could run all electric vehicles and when they needed to take that road trip, they could rent a generator trailer from U-Haul or the like. Yes, they could rent full cars now, but renting a car is a lot more expensive, and has a lot more issues than just renting a trailer with a generator.
I can't agree with blocking reception. If my phone vibrates, I want to have the option to get up and take the call outside. The theaters need to handle it in a non-technical way. The reason is that cell phones are just one of many ways that rude patrons can ruin the movie for everyone else. I want them all handled, and not have the theater decide that they will only stop cell phones because they believe cell phones are evil.
You are being nitpicky. No, I don't mean distributed in bundles of discontinued software like that made available by MSDN. Telling people that the the software that they bought on a brand new computer with the full blessing of the OS's manufacturer is 10 year old piece of software, so they shouldn't expect support is ridiculous.
By the last date distributed, I mean last date of general distribution.
That has been my experience. Theaters take a no confrontation stance, and if you force the issue, they will consider YOU to be the problem. That is one of the many reasons I don't go to theaters anymore.
What theaters should really be doing is taking a queue from churches. Put a sound proof booth in the back for those that can't help but disturb the people around them. That means people with babies, people who want to talk during the show, or people who absolutely must use their cell phone. If the number of people who want seats in the noisy room start outnumber the ones that want quiet, they can just switch where the two groups sit.
Of course, either way the theater should be dealing with disturbances. It is unacceptable that they expect the customers to deal with it themselves.
The flip side of that is that sometimes adding the functionality makes the functionality no longer a requirement. I have had several clients that would spend months calling for labels on buttons to be changed. It would be "Submit", then "Save", "Save and Close", "Save Document", "Save Ticket", "Submit Ticket", back to "Submit" only to start the pattern over again. Each of these would require setting up a meeting and demoing the entire software package to bring the new players up to speed on the application only to have a button title complaint that has the users declaring it impossible for them to continue acceptability testing on the application until the label is "fixed".
The first year I worked with one of my current clients, this was standard operating procedure for the company. They went through contractors like sun flower seeds. The solution was to write a function that scanned the code for button labels and make them available in a configuration screen. Not only did this solve the problem, but the customer never used the feature. Amazingly, as soon as the button labels became customer configurable, the default labels became acceptable. Over the course of 12 years working with this company and dozens of applications, only 2 button labels have ever been changed from the default.
From an audit perspective, making button labels configurable would look like insane complexity that was a waste of time and money. When the company culture and employee behavior that no one want's to admit exists are taken into account, it starts making a lot more sense. That "unnecessary" code complexity saved the company $100s of thousands of dollars while simultaneously improving user acceptance.
That is only if you look at the problem from strictly a developer's point of view. In many environments, new applications mean greater accountability, and often increased workload generated by the software preventing work tasks from getting 'lost'. From a manager's point of view, the greater accountability is good thing, and the employees should have been doing all of the tasks all along. After all, it is hard to argue with a manager that "If we use this software, we will have to do our jobs completely.". The argument that "We have not been doing our jobs completely because we do not have the staff to do the job completely." gets heard and acted on as if it is only "We have not been doing our jobs completely.".
Thus, the users who are now being put in, quite frequently, the role of completing impossible tasks are going to be hostile to the introduction of the software. Whether the company is run well or badly, they likely have some of the more trusted users assigned to acceptance testing. These users can have a vested interest in exploiting even the slightest ambiguity in the spec. If they can find anything that could be construed as being incorrect, they will happily send you back for another round of updates. This can be dragged out for months before management decides to pull the plug on the project completely.
If you are an in house developer, you have just wasted a huge amount of time, and your project has been a drain on the company. If you are an outside developer, you now have to take a loss on payment, or call in the lawyers. None of these options are good.
Conversely, a few configurable items can nip this behavior in the bud. There are only so many times that a hostile user can declare an application unusable due to a button name preference, or icon color when each declaration is responded to with a "No problem. You are just looking at the default. It is a customer configurable feature. Just click on settings and there is a field to set it to whatever you want.". After the 3rd or 4th time this happens, the ploy starts to wear thin. Eventually management steps in to put an end to it.
Just as both simplicity and complexity can be taken too far, so can configuration. Counting on customers to always know or understand when configurability makes sense is a recipe for disaster.
I have to agree. My son's laptop with an A10 processor beats both mine and my wife's laptops with i5. They all cost about the same amount. My laptop is fine for most tasks, but fails at gaming. My son's A10 handles every game he has tried without problem. There may be some that won't run well on it, but until we find one that doesn't, anything more would be wasted money.
That probably has to do with the fact that since the first days of 'science', and even before the learned men of knowledge have declared things 'unknowable' which later proved out to be knowable. Heisenberg's Uncertainty reeks of the same logic that would declare knowing the will of Helios as he rides his fiery chariot across the sky.
It smells of learned men believing that while they might not know everything, anything that they don't even know where to start with must be magic. How many times does humanity have to learn how to know the 'unknowable' before we start to question declarations of 'unknowable'?
The obvious lie in "Climate Change" is that the definition changes during any discussion. If by "Climate Change" you mean the same changing of the climate that has been going on since the Earth was formed, no one would argue with you. No one believes that we have ever been in some magical static time for the climate. That definition is only used to "prove" that "Climate Change" is real. It is also a definition of "Climate Change" that does not require or even suggest any change in human behavior.
The definition of "Climate Change" that requires any action by humans is the definition that says humans are significantly altering the climate in ways that are inconsistent with what would happen naturally.
One of the things that makes many people skeptical of Anthropomorphic Climate Change is that the "Climate Change" boosters shift back and forth between the two definitions. When someone starts out their argument with a lie, it throws everything they say afterwords into question. When they are questioned and their responses quickly degrade into ad hominem attacks, it confirms their deceptions. Even if they are correct, it becomes clear that being correct is just an accident. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to try to deceive you into believing them.
So, to answer your question, no one is claiming that there is not "Climate Change". They are arguing that there is not "Climate Change".
You are on the other end of the unrealistic spectrum. The NSA themselves don't care about your Steely Dan collection, but the RIAA does. The RIAA has deep hooks into our law enforcement. While I don't think that the OP has anything to worry about crossing the boarder with his movies and music, the RIAA has gone full nuclear with the might of our law enforcement for sillier things.
No, being a hippie might make you think bringing your dog into restaurants is OK, but it doesn't make you dress the dog up, or cause you to think that dogs are human.
Cat ladies seems to be in the majority these days. Being a crazy cat lady has become so mainstream that it has become common for men as well. They have even spawned the new sub-genre of crazy dog lady.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Counting the days that public transportation is shut down is like counting the times the breaks don't work on your car. Each day of failure is not balanced by a day of success. Think about the damage if New York, San Francisco, or the like is simply shut down for a day. It isn't an issue of one person missing work. It is an entire city missing work. How many days can you go without getting paid before it becomes a problem? A year? 6 months? Well, as much as you and I might be able to go long times without working, there is a significant percentage of the population that would be in serious trouble if they couldn't work for a week.
When your car breaks down, you can find alternatives. You can use your other car. You can borrow a car. You can hitch a ride with someone else. You can even rent a car.
When public transportation goes down (at least if it is used enough to matter) it isn't one person that is looking to rent a car. It is 10000 people. Renting a car suddenly becomes like trying to rent a room during the Olympics. There just aren't enough for everyone. Even if everyone could get a car to get them through the strike, the roads will not have been maintained and expanded in a way to handle the quantity of vehicles that start using the road over night.
No, public transportation is a good idea better than half the time is like saying that skipping fire insurance is better 99% of the time.
Or, if you are so disturbed by someone getting up out of their seat to leave a theater, YOU should rent a DVD. The goal is to find some kind of compromise that gives the most people the most enjoyment of their experience. The first way to do that is to always behave better than what you would expect from anyone else. No doubt there are exceptions, but my experience is that the cult of the anti-phone do not follow this golden rule. Their goal is to control public environments and force everyone else to adhere to their standards. (Standards that they frequently don't adhere to themselves.)
That is simply incorrect. There is no universal rule on where someone on call is supposed to be. Thinking that there is is simply ridiculous.
The did the same thing they did before they had movie theaters. They dealt with the fact that they lived in a less technologically advanced time. Guess what? Having a quiet movie theater is also not a right. This isn't a discussion about right. Maybe if you can't handle the fact that people on call don't sit at home waiting for the call, a movie theater isn't the place for you.
Oh, I am fully aware that it is all shades of gray. The question is do you recognize that you are also just a point in the gray scale?
I would love if Google and Apple would implement a 'request to go silent' feature. The only problem is that all of the neo-luddite jerks would ruin it. There would have to be some way to be sure that it is only used legitimately.
Off the top of my head, the way I would implement something like this is:
* Use Bluetooth for the Request For Silent transmitter. With an approximately 30 foot range, you wouldn't constantly be in range of 20 RFS transmitters.
* Have a device name prefix that tells the phones that they are seeing a RFS transmitter. Label the devices RFS-XXXXXXXX with XXXXXXXX being the owners label. * If possible, get the Bluetooth standards committee to reserve a block of addresses for this purpose, as it would be more efficient than using the device name. * When a new RFS transmitter is spotted, the device would give the owner a notification that a RFS transmitter is requesting silence. This could be a ringtone, a vibration, or any other method that we currently have for notifications. * The device owner then selects how to respond to this RFS transmitter's request. Accept/Ignore * If the user selects accept, the mobile device pairs with the transmitter, and the transmitter issues a public key for later authentication. This would be needed to prevent neo-luddites from abusing the system. * If the user selects accept or ignore, the device adds the RFS transmitter's address to it's internal list so that it knows how to respond to future requests from the same transmitter. * From that point forward, any time a transmitter with a known address comes into range, the mobile device could either ignore the transmitter, or pair to the transmitter, authenticate the transmitter, switch to silent, and unpair. * Once a RFS transmitter is no longer in range, the device should return to its previous state.
The added bonus of everyone switching to motorcycles is that all those people waiting on organ donations will have a steady supply.
I have been an advocate of electric cars powered by a generator for a long time. The key would be making a standard plug and mounting system.
The other cool thing that could be done with an all electric with generator is that generator trailers could be built. Most people would be fine with the range of current electric vehicles 95% of the time. The problem is that they periodically take longer trips. With a little bit of planning by DOT, people could run all electric vehicles and when they needed to take that road trip, they could rent a generator trailer from U-Haul or the like. Yes, they could rent full cars now, but renting a car is a lot more expensive, and has a lot more issues than just renting a trailer with a generator.
For every claim that public transportation, I offer the counter argument. Strikes.
http://www.ibtimes.com/sf-bart-strike-2013-transit-agency-announces-strike-commuters-asked-consider-alternative-1329263#
I can't agree with blocking reception. If my phone vibrates, I want to have the option to get up and take the call outside. The theaters need to handle it in a non-technical way. The reason is that cell phones are just one of many ways that rude patrons can ruin the movie for everyone else. I want them all handled, and not have the theater decide that they will only stop cell phones because they believe cell phones are evil.
You are being nitpicky. No, I don't mean distributed in bundles of discontinued software like that made available by MSDN. Telling people that the the software that they bought on a brand new computer with the full blessing of the OS's manufacturer is 10 year old piece of software, so they shouldn't expect support is ridiculous.
By the last date distributed, I mean last date of general distribution.
That has been my experience. Theaters take a no confrontation stance, and if you force the issue, they will consider YOU to be the problem. That is one of the many reasons I don't go to theaters anymore.
What theaters should really be doing is taking a queue from churches. Put a sound proof booth in the back for those that can't help but disturb the people around them. That means people with babies, people who want to talk during the show, or people who absolutely must use their cell phone. If the number of people who want seats in the noisy room start outnumber the ones that want quiet, they can just switch where the two groups sit.
Of course, either way the theater should be dealing with disturbances. It is unacceptable that they expect the customers to deal with it themselves.
You count the age of an OS by the last date it was distributed. Not the first.
The flip side of that is that sometimes adding the functionality makes the functionality no longer a requirement. I have had several clients that would spend months calling for labels on buttons to be changed. It would be "Submit", then "Save", "Save and Close", "Save Document", "Save Ticket", "Submit Ticket", back to "Submit" only to start the pattern over again. Each of these would require setting up a meeting and demoing the entire software package to bring the new players up to speed on the application only to have a button title complaint that has the users declaring it impossible for them to continue acceptability testing on the application until the label is "fixed".
The first year I worked with one of my current clients, this was standard operating procedure for the company. They went through contractors like sun flower seeds. The solution was to write a function that scanned the code for button labels and make them available in a configuration screen. Not only did this solve the problem, but the customer never used the feature. Amazingly, as soon as the button labels became customer configurable, the default labels became acceptable. Over the course of 12 years working with this company and dozens of applications, only 2 button labels have ever been changed from the default.
From an audit perspective, making button labels configurable would look like insane complexity that was a waste of time and money. When the company culture and employee behavior that no one want's to admit exists are taken into account, it starts making a lot more sense. That "unnecessary" code complexity saved the company $100s of thousands of dollars while simultaneously improving user acceptance.
That is only if you look at the problem from strictly a developer's point of view. In many environments, new applications mean greater accountability, and often increased workload generated by the software preventing work tasks from getting 'lost'. From a manager's point of view, the greater accountability is good thing, and the employees should have been doing all of the tasks all along. After all, it is hard to argue with a manager that "If we use this software, we will have to do our jobs completely.". The argument that "We have not been doing our jobs completely because we do not have the staff to do the job completely." gets heard and acted on as if it is only "We have not been doing our jobs completely.".
Thus, the users who are now being put in, quite frequently, the role of completing impossible tasks are going to be hostile to the introduction of the software. Whether the company is run well or badly, they likely have some of the more trusted users assigned to acceptance testing. These users can have a vested interest in exploiting even the slightest ambiguity in the spec. If they can find anything that could be construed as being incorrect, they will happily send you back for another round of updates. This can be dragged out for months before management decides to pull the plug on the project completely.
If you are an in house developer, you have just wasted a huge amount of time, and your project has been a drain on the company. If you are an outside developer, you now have to take a loss on payment, or call in the lawyers. None of these options are good.
Conversely, a few configurable items can nip this behavior in the bud. There are only so many times that a hostile user can declare an application unusable due to a button name preference, or icon color when each declaration is responded to with a "No problem. You are just looking at the default. It is a customer configurable feature. Just click on settings and there is a field to set it to whatever you want.". After the 3rd or 4th time this happens, the ploy starts to wear thin. Eventually management steps in to put an end to it.
Just as both simplicity and complexity can be taken too far, so can configuration. Counting on customers to always know or understand when configurability makes sense is a recipe for disaster.
I have to agree. My son's laptop with an A10 processor beats both mine and my wife's laptops with i5. They all cost about the same amount. My laptop is fine for most tasks, but fails at gaming. My son's A10 handles every game he has tried without problem. There may be some that won't run well on it, but until we find one that doesn't, anything more would be wasted money.
That probably has to do with the fact that since the first days of 'science', and even before the learned men of knowledge have declared things 'unknowable' which later proved out to be knowable. Heisenberg's Uncertainty reeks of the same logic that would declare knowing the will of Helios as he rides his fiery chariot across the sky.
It smells of learned men believing that while they might not know everything, anything that they don't even know where to start with must be magic. How many times does humanity have to learn how to know the 'unknowable' before we start to question declarations of 'unknowable'?
It's not just strange, it bad.
The RIAA will never be posted at checkpoints. They don't work at the ports now, why would they start working at the borders?
The obvious lie in "Climate Change" is that the definition changes during any discussion. If by "Climate Change" you mean the same changing of the climate that has been going on since the Earth was formed, no one would argue with you. No one believes that we have ever been in some magical static time for the climate. That definition is only used to "prove" that "Climate Change" is real. It is also a definition of "Climate Change" that does not require or even suggest any change in human behavior.
The definition of "Climate Change" that requires any action by humans is the definition that says humans are significantly altering the climate in ways that are inconsistent with what would happen naturally.
One of the things that makes many people skeptical of Anthropomorphic Climate Change is that the "Climate Change" boosters shift back and forth between the two definitions. When someone starts out their argument with a lie, it throws everything they say afterwords into question. When they are questioned and their responses quickly degrade into ad hominem attacks, it confirms their deceptions. Even if they are correct, it becomes clear that being correct is just an accident. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to try to deceive you into believing them.
So, to answer your question, no one is claiming that there is not "Climate Change". They are arguing that there is not "Climate Change".
Last I checked we had that also.
You are on the other end of the unrealistic spectrum. The NSA themselves don't care about your Steely Dan collection, but the RIAA does. The RIAA has deep hooks into our law enforcement. While I don't think that the OP has anything to worry about crossing the boarder with his movies and music, the RIAA has gone full nuclear with the might of our law enforcement for sillier things.
No, being a hippie might make you think bringing your dog into restaurants is OK, but it doesn't make you dress the dog up, or cause you to think that dogs are human.
Cat ladies seems to be in the majority these days. Being a crazy cat lady has become so mainstream that it has become common for men as well. They have even spawned the new sub-genre of crazy dog lady.
And a good chance of having better coffee. I'm not picky about my coffee, but even I can tell that Starbuck coffee is not good.