How about if you have bombs on both ends. When you push either button, the bomb blows up at the other end, pushing that button which will detonate the local bomb. If you push your button, have you been dead for five minutes?
or maybe both buttons are pushed 5 minutes into the future.
I have to take issue with your view of Carter. Carter had great intentions, was an extremely honourable and honest man, and is one of the finest ex-Presidents we've had until he started criticizing sitting presidents (Clinton and Bush). It's a shame he missed the example set by Clinton and Bush41 putting politics aside and teaming up for various charitable causes.
But back to Carter as a president. America was strong in 1976, although the populace had lost all confidence in government. Carter was honest enough to earn the trust of Americans, but too naive as president to actually get anything done. He believed in the goodness of people and had a hard time recognizing evil people. I place the Islamic Revolution in Iran squarely at Carter's feet. We are still feeling the ramifications of that blunder. His handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis was horrid made America look like a paper tiger, and this was probably correct. Carter had gutted the military so badly that we couldn't piece together a few working choppers to fly a few hundred miles into the desert without crashing! The Russians were even emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan, knowing that Carter would not do a thing (except skip an Olympics!). Carter's economy sucked. Inflation and unemployment were through the roof! Mortgage rates under Carter matched credit card rates of today. The "misery index" was created to measure the poor attitude of Americans under Carter. And blaming the Carter economy on Nixon is about as asinine as giving Bush41 credit for the Clinton economy.
No, I'm afraid that Carter was such a poor president that by 1980, many were wondering if honesty in Washington was such a good idea!
Do you understand what true libertarianism implies?
Liberalism: Anarchy, but with just enough government to keep the bridges repaired and the roads paved. Did I get it right?
That's a pretty fair assessment. My problem is not with our system of democracy, but with masses of poorly educated people who are easily swayed by their fears and appetites rather than following their philosophy and convictions. I also have a problem with the entire political class. Politics should be about informing, serving, and uniting the public; not selling our system of laws to the highest bidder.
Agreed! The problem is, as I have seen over the last eight years, is that anything with Bush's name on it, Democrats fight against. Two examples: Bush's education plan that was pushed early in his first term (No child left behind) was actually Ted Kennedy's plan. Democrats rejected it outright. Another was a plan to take federal tax payer money and give it to poor children in poor districts so that these poor kids could go to private schools and get the same education the rich kids were getting. If this voucher program were proposed under Clinton, it would have been praised by the Democrats and all who opposed it would have been called elitists that were trying to hold down the poor kids. Instead, it was a Bush plan so Democrats fought it, no matter how liberal it was on its face. Bush honestly tried to be a "uniter, not a divider", but when one side is hell bent on being divisive just to prove him wrong, there is really little he can do. Granted, the Republicans were not exactly kind to Clinton, but they were not close to the hatred I've seen thrown at Bush. Clinton was never called a terrorist or Nazi. His face was never shown with the caption of "Sniper Wanted". No Republican ever said "a victory is Bosnia is bad news for Republicans". Karl Rove is no more of a criminal that James Carville. The problem as I see it is that Democrats have put the future of the party ahead of the future of the country. They are determined to bring Bush down, even if they have to bring the country down to do it!
Again, that is just how I see it.
No thanks, I prefer to clean up my own house. If increasing evidence of fraud in our national and local elections doesn't raise your ire, then it is clear that you're no friend of democracy. You're just another apologist. (P.S. not everyone who disagrees with you comes from the left, you have a terrible nose for politics)
Again, I agree. (hard to believe, isn't it?) I'm just as upset over Hsu and the Clintons as I am about Gore taking bribes... er donations from a Chinese monestery as I am about Jack Abramoff.
You are correct, living by normal, generally accepted morals does however. No need for religion.
Very true. Religion is not part of morality. Morality is part of religion (most religions anyway).
Rituals that would have the un-indoctrinated giggling in the corner could be found in almost any organized religion, and is used for solidification of power.
Agreed! I'm fortunate enough to have not been raised Catholic or any other religion that held man-made rituals as its foundation. Just follow The Book and throw all the other stuff out the window!
You're right. Congress is complicit in his crimes. GWB represents almost exactly half (2000 was a statistical tie) of the citizenry who can be bothered to turn out in increasingly phony elections. And many of those who voted for him can hardly stomach his policies any more (i.e. paleoconservatives). Saying that he "represents the will of a majority of Americans" is rhetorical nonsense when he has a 33% approval rating.
It seems to me that your problem is not so much with the American government, but the populace who elected not only GWB, but every single member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
I'm so sorry, democracy hasn't worked out for you. Maybe another country with some other form of government would better suit your needs. I hear Hugo Chavez is going to do away with those pesky, "increasingly phony" elections. Maybe you would be happier in Venezuela or Cuba.
A list of impressive people, though one could question whether their various strengths lend them credibility in theological matters. But regardless: doesn't asserting the right/imperative/ability of people to think and speak for themselves seem a bit contrary to claiming that the beliefs of others should be considered persuasive?
Good point. However, I was not trying to make an appeal to authority. The GP was trying to make the assumption that faith and intelligence are mutually exclusive. My point was to show that there are really smart people who believe in a higher power as evidence that it is possible to be both smart and religious. Religion is not a symptom of a weak mind.
And since what they're actually opposing are the policies of the President, you have proven that Bush supporters have been convinced that opposing George Bush is the same as opposing America, and that supporting George Bush is supporting America.
George Orwell puts it better than I can:
Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism. In short, if you are hampering the war effort in the US, you are helping those that fight against the US. Are you implying that supporting America's enemies is somehow patriotic? If you have a problem with the current administration, VOTE! Don't encourage our enemies by holding large rallies calling GWB a terrorist or Nazi. Don't constantly claim that the war is lost or that our enemies are winning. Don't try your best to block supplies at a port in Seattle that are headed to the troops in the field.
Here's a hint: George W. Bush is not America. If I'm against how Bush's policies because they are ruining America, it's because I'm for America. If I'm against how Bush is wasting our soldiers' lives, it's because I'm deeply concerned about our troops.
Um, George Bush decisions with Congressional backing is what makes up America's policies. GWB is the lawfully elected president of the US. So, while GWB is not America, he represents the the will of a majority of Americans.
And if you are deeply concerned about our troops then you will do whatever it takes to allow them to complete their mission and come home alive. That is what the troops want. Going against them is not providing support.
Speak for yourself. The the rest of us are quite capable of speaking without your help.
I have little doubt your faith makes you feel good inside, but then again, so does a hit to a heroin addict.
True, but doing heroin doesn't give insight as to how to live your life, how to treat those around you and how to deal with life's unforeseen problems. And while heroin addicts may have various support groups, it is nothing compared to what you will find in your average, every day, small town church. I don't see a lot of heroin addicts feeding or the poor, housing the homeless, finding homes for orphans or giving Christmas gifts to children whose parents can't or won't afford it, all while demanding absolutely nothing in return.
So while you may think it's cute to insult the intelligence of those of us who believe in a higher power, it shows your ignorance of how faith works. There is so much more to religion that simply feeling good. Some of the greatest minds in history believed in God. Who are you to challenge the intelligence of people like Einstein, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, George Washington and all of the many, many other brilliant historical figures that also believed in God?
So, the TFA's notion that your denying of faith adds credence to it is not because it keeps it in the limelight, it is because you have a such a disdain for those who believe in something that you do not understand at all, there must be something to it.
(Forgive me for going OT, but if I'm OT, so is the parent.)
Yep how sickening is that. Not shocking though, just about everyone I know who still at this point in the game supports Bush is so jaded they would say that. Bush has gone out of his way to make his followers believe that actually participating in Democracy is anti-American.
Well, as a Bush supporter, I see it as the opposite. Democrats, or more accurately, the left wing, have convinced their followers that opposing America is somehow patriotic. They say America was formed through descent. That is not true. America was founded on revolution, not protests.
Also, as a former soldier who spent some time in the deserts of the Middle East, I say that these soldiers need to get over it. America's Army is a recruiting tool disguised as a game!
Not so much, I think. You'd just land or start hovering before you make the turn. Worst case, you leave the traffic lights, and stop traffic when someone wants to turn -- which is a lot better than stopping it just to allow through traffic going the other way.
I was thinking something more along the lines of: Left Turn, 20 Feet Right Turn Ground level North/South 30 Feet East/West 10 Feet.
Who knows. I don't think it's going to be anything we have to worry about for years. Besides, where are you going to turn if we do away with roads?
Surely you wouldn't want to have 2 layers of traffic on a set of lights (one on the ground and one hovering above the "normal" traffic below)
Well, I could imagine something like East/West traffic travels on the ground while the North/South traffic travels in the air. This could eliminate traffic lights, stop signs, the works! However, it does add a new dimension to making a right turn.
The only way I could see this working is if they work out a few infrastructure challenges. For starters, the article mentions that you won't be able to fly one over 10 feet without a pilot's license. 10 Feet won't get you over some pickups, much less off the highways. Next, how do you work out right of way, parking and so on. These are challenges that will be difficult to overcome even IF flying cars were readily available.
Next is safety. While cars have been pretty focused on protecting their occupants, this takes that to a whole new dimension. A stall is no longer just an inconvenience, but a high probability that you are going to die. What about the people on the ground that you crash into? How many car wrecks are there in an average size city. Now imaging that for each of these wrecks, you have a heavy, flammable piece of metal, glass and plastic falling to the ground! It would seem to me that the only way to make these things remotely safe would be to equip them not only with a parachute, but with airbags on the outside to protect those that are going to be in their homes beneath these things!
Economy. With all the current focus on global warming, dwindling oil supplies, wars in the middle east etc, I don't see how flying cars will help alleviate any of these problems. As a matter of fact, I see the exact opposite happening! Could you imagine what would happen to the demand for energy if half the auto's on the road were not flying over it!
Of course, these issues are just a few issues that my ignorant-ass can come up with in a few minutes. I'm sure that there are problems that real life engineers haven't even dreamed of yet! So I'm afraid that building a flying car will be the easy part.
That's because we needed to go back before the conservative movement decided to make government fail by underfunding it.
Funny! Even with the Bush tax cuts (actually, because of...) the US Gov't has received record tax receipts not just for any time in US history, but WORLD history, and we're still running a deficit! It appears to me that the conservative movement is over funding government.
"There is one system to maintain, one anti-virus package, one system to back up and so on." Untrue w.r.t. the anti-virus especially. Once a user terminal is zombied, your server is directly exposed to application level attacks. I was speaking of an application based virus, like the good ol' Word Macro Virus. Of course, running your word processing apps on a remote server will not protect each terminal from other viral/trojan attacks, but it makes it easier to ensure that your sales team isn't sending infected Word docs to customers trying to sell them security software!
"Single point of failure should a catastrophe happen." I've never seen this as a good thing for survivability. The classes I took, and my industry experience tend to support adding redundancy to elements identified as SPoFs. I think I know what you're trying to say, but still... Keeping an application running on a bank of redundant servers is still easier than maintaining that same applications on 20,000 independent PC's. While it does have its drawbacks, such as when the servers or network go down, everyone is SOL, it's easier to fix that single bank of localized servers than it is to fix every single machine if something really catastrophic happened, like a virus run amok on your network that trashes 20,000 copies of Office.
I can see why it is a good idea to remove critical applications from the control of the end user, but the drop in performance does not justify the increased level of maintainability. And no matter how much we hate it, there are some applications that are required to have some or all of it run at a centralized location. Examples would be your Exchange server, your database server and any web based applications that simply can not be run on local PC's.
These are all the arguments for Dumb Terminals, but computers moved away from that years ago for good reason..
I agree completely. Unfortunately, the industry is trying to move BACK in that direction and it is not a good thing. Which was the point of the article.
I, for one, can't think of a single upside of "Software as Service"
Software as a service can be run locally by a company, rather than on the web. There are several (provided the server is maintained on site). Single point of failure should a catastrophe happen. User's can't go in and break the system. There is one system to maintain, one anti-virus package, one system to back up and so on. Files are much easier to share and keep updated. It is a nightmare to have a single spreadsheet that is updated by several people when they are updated on the own personal systems.
When the server is remote, there are still advantages, just not as many: My step-dad uses quickbooks for his small business. He has architects and accountants that need access to the books. Originally, he had purchased a copy for each of them to run on their personal computers. Unfortunately, when one made a change, he had to call everyone else to tell them, or email a backup copy of the DB and everyone would have to manually update their own DB's. It was a nightmare and this was only with four or five employees. With Quickbooks Online, each user logs into the website, enters their data and everything is updated almost in real time. He's a roofer and does not have the knowledge, nor the time to keep up with the application. He only cares about the reports, not how they are created. This works very well for him.
However, with all these advantages, I agree that it sux for the most part. It's slow... much slower than running apps locally. In the event of a failure, you're at the mercy of the tech folks that you do not employ and have not control over. You are not in control of your own destiny.
Good post. I especially liked this part:
Now I'll throw a wrench into things with a random musing. One of the biggest differences between Islam and Christianity occurred to me after I wrote that last post: age. Islam is the 'youngest' of the major world religions, which means they're not that much older currently than when Christianity was engaged in the various Crusades. I wonder if there's something about the stage of the religion currently that magnifies its ability to be used as bludgeon. Actually, I think the youngest religion would go to scientology.... no wait, there is now a newer one... ArcherB-ism.
I think we're both pretty much right across the board, and very wrong at the same time. If there were a single, simple reason that drove people batshit mad, we would have solved this problem years ago.
Stop lying. What the press reported was that if selective recounts had been completed, yes Bush would have still won the election. What was hidden away in the shitty media's reporting of the story was the fact that Gore won a statewide recount under every possible scenario. Gore won Florida. Bush stole the election. Deal with it.
Of course! Because I state facts that goes against what you THINK, I must be lying. However, you are correct, if you count the undervotes and overvotes, Gore would have won. But, like I said, that's changing the rules after the game is played.
That stated, if you count the votes that were properly cast using the rules set by each precinct before the first vote was cast, Bush won, every time, every recount. That is no lie! To say otherwise, is.
I hate to venture OT like this, but this requires a correction.
He also would have won the electoral vote in 2000 if there had been a statewide recount of Florida's votes.
You mean like this?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, or how many left-wing websites you quote, Al Gore tried to steal the election in 2000 and failed. Granted, if you change enough rules, Gore could have pulled it out, but that would not really be fair, would it? You can't change the rules AFTER the election to favor one side over another. Fortunately, the US Supreme Court decided that it wouldn't be legal, either.
With the electoral college, the only votes that are fought for are those in battleground states. The rest of the country is lucky to settle for a visit from the VP nominee. And without the electoral college, the only votes that would be fought for are those in big cities. The rest of the country would be lucky to get a campaign stop from a candidate traveling between cities.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, NOW they can build that nuclear plant in my back yard!
How about if you have bombs on both ends. When you push either button, the bomb blows up at the other end, pushing that button which will detonate the local bomb. If you push your button, have you been dead for five minutes?
or maybe both buttons are pushed 5 minutes into the future.
I have to take issue with your view of Carter. Carter had great intentions, was an extremely honourable and honest man, and is one of the finest ex-Presidents we've had until he started criticizing sitting presidents (Clinton and Bush). It's a shame he missed the example set by Clinton and Bush41 putting politics aside and teaming up for various charitable causes.
But back to Carter as a president. America was strong in 1976, although the populace had lost all confidence in government. Carter was honest enough to earn the trust of Americans, but too naive as president to actually get anything done. He believed in the goodness of people and had a hard time recognizing evil people. I place the Islamic Revolution in Iran squarely at Carter's feet. We are still feeling the ramifications of that blunder. His handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis was horrid made America look like a paper tiger, and this was probably correct. Carter had gutted the military so badly that we couldn't piece together a few working choppers to fly a few hundred miles into the desert without crashing! The Russians were even emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan, knowing that Carter would not do a thing (except skip an Olympics!). Carter's economy sucked. Inflation and unemployment were through the roof! Mortgage rates under Carter matched credit card rates of today. The "misery index" was created to measure the poor attitude of Americans under Carter. And blaming the Carter economy on Nixon is about as asinine as giving Bush41 credit for the Clinton economy.
No, I'm afraid that Carter was such a poor president that by 1980, many were wondering if honesty in Washington was such a good idea!
That's a pretty fair assessment. My problem is not with our system of democracy, but with masses of poorly educated people who are easily swayed by their fears and appetites rather than following their philosophy and convictions. I also have a problem with the entire political class. Politics should be about informing, serving, and uniting the public; not selling our system of laws to the highest bidder.
Agreed! The problem is, as I have seen over the last eight years, is that anything with Bush's name on it, Democrats fight against. Two examples:
Bush's education plan that was pushed early in his first term (No child left behind) was actually Ted Kennedy's plan. Democrats rejected it outright. Another was a plan to take federal tax payer money and give it to poor children in poor districts so that these poor kids could go to private schools and get the same education the rich kids were getting. If this voucher program were proposed under Clinton, it would have been praised by the Democrats and all who opposed it would have been called elitists that were trying to hold down the poor kids. Instead, it was a Bush plan so Democrats fought it, no matter how liberal it was on its face. Bush honestly tried to be a "uniter, not a divider", but when one side is hell bent on being divisive just to prove him wrong, there is really little he can do. Granted, the Republicans were not exactly kind to Clinton, but they were not close to the hatred I've seen thrown at Bush. Clinton was never called a terrorist or Nazi. His face was never shown with the caption of "Sniper Wanted". No Republican ever said "a victory is Bosnia is bad news for Republicans". Karl Rove is no more of a criminal that James Carville. The problem as I see it is that Democrats have put the future of the party ahead of the future of the country. They are determined to bring Bush down, even if they have to bring the country down to do it!
Again, that is just how I see it.
No thanks, I prefer to clean up my own house. If increasing evidence of fraud in our national and local elections doesn't raise your ire, then it is clear that you're no friend of democracy. You're just another apologist. (P.S. not everyone who disagrees with you comes from the left, you have a terrible nose for politics)
Again, I agree. (hard to believe, isn't it?) I'm just as upset over Hsu and the Clintons as I am about Gore taking bribes... er donations from a Chinese monestery as I am about Jack Abramoff.
You are correct, living by normal, generally accepted morals does however. No need for religion.
Very true. Religion is not part of morality. Morality is part of religion (most religions anyway).
Rituals that would have the un-indoctrinated giggling in the corner could be found in almost any organized religion, and is used for solidification of power.
Agreed! I'm fortunate enough to have not been raised Catholic or any other religion that held man-made rituals as its foundation. Just follow The Book and throw all the other stuff out the window!
Neither does believing in invisible superhero father figures in the sky. Please stop confusing morality with religion.
Actually, it does. While it is true that you can have morality without religion, you can not truly have religion without morality.
You're right. Congress is complicit in his crimes. GWB represents almost exactly half (2000 was a statistical tie) of the citizenry who can be bothered to turn out in increasingly phony elections. And many of those who voted for him can hardly stomach his policies any more (i.e. paleoconservatives). Saying that he "represents the will of a majority of Americans" is rhetorical nonsense when he has a 33% approval rating.
It seems to me that your problem is not so much with the American government, but the populace who elected not only GWB, but every single member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
I'm so sorry, democracy hasn't worked out for you. Maybe another country with some other form of government would better suit your needs. I hear Hugo Chavez is going to do away with those pesky, "increasingly phony" elections. Maybe you would be happier in Venezuela or Cuba.
A list of impressive people, though one could question whether their various strengths lend them credibility in theological matters. But regardless: doesn't asserting the right/imperative/ability of people to think and speak for themselves seem a bit contrary to claiming that the beliefs of others should be considered persuasive?
Good point. However, I was not trying to make an appeal to authority. The GP was trying to make the assumption that faith and intelligence are mutually exclusive. My point was to show that there are really smart people who believe in a higher power as evidence that it is possible to be both smart and religious. Religion is not a symptom of a weak mind.
George Orwell puts it better than I can: Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism. In short, if you are hampering the war effort in the US, you are helping those that fight against the US. Are you implying that supporting America's enemies is somehow patriotic? If you have a problem with the current administration, VOTE! Don't encourage our enemies by holding large rallies calling GWB a terrorist or Nazi. Don't constantly claim that the war is lost or that our enemies are winning. Don't try your best to block supplies at a port in Seattle that are headed to the troops in the field.
Here's a hint: George W. Bush is not America. If I'm against how Bush's policies because they are ruining America, it's because I'm for America. If I'm against how Bush is wasting our soldiers' lives, it's because I'm deeply concerned about our troops.
Um, George Bush decisions with Congressional backing is what makes up America's policies. GWB is the lawfully elected president of the US. So, while GWB is not America, he represents the the will of a majority of Americans.
And if you are deeply concerned about our troops then you will do whatever it takes to allow them to complete their mission and come home alive. That is what the troops want. Going against them is not providing support.
the rest of us just call that "wishful thinking".
Speak for yourself. The the rest of us are quite capable of speaking without your help.
I have little doubt your faith makes you feel good inside, but then again, so does a hit to a heroin addict.
True, but doing heroin doesn't give insight as to how to live your life, how to treat those around you and how to deal with life's unforeseen problems. And while heroin addicts may have various support groups, it is nothing compared to what you will find in your average, every day, small town church. I don't see a lot of heroin addicts feeding or the poor, housing the homeless, finding homes for orphans or giving Christmas gifts to children whose parents can't or won't afford it, all while demanding absolutely nothing in return.
So while you may think it's cute to insult the intelligence of those of us who believe in a higher power, it shows your ignorance of how faith works. There is so much more to religion that simply feeling good. Some of the greatest minds in history believed in God. Who are you to challenge the intelligence of people like Einstein, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, George Washington and all of the many, many other brilliant historical figures that also believed in God?
So, the TFA's notion that your denying of faith adds credence to it is not because it keeps it in the limelight, it is because you have a such a disdain for those who believe in something that you do not understand at all, there must be something to it.
(Forgive me for going OT, but if I'm OT, so is the parent.)
Yep how sickening is that. Not shocking though, just about everyone I know who still at this point in the game supports Bush is so jaded they would say that. Bush has gone out of his way to make his followers believe that actually participating in Democracy is anti-American.
Well, as a Bush supporter, I see it as the opposite. Democrats, or more accurately, the left wing, have convinced their followers that opposing America is somehow patriotic. They say America was formed through descent. That is not true. America was founded on revolution, not protests.
Also, as a former soldier who spent some time in the deserts of the Middle East, I say that these soldiers need to get over it. America's Army is a recruiting tool disguised as a game!
Not so much, I think. You'd just land or start hovering before you make the turn. Worst case, you leave the traffic lights, and stop traffic when someone wants to turn -- which is a lot better than stopping it just to allow through traffic going the other way.
I was thinking something more along the lines of:
Left Turn, 20 Feet
Right Turn Ground level
North/South 30 Feet
East/West 10 Feet.
Who knows. I don't think it's going to be anything we have to worry about for years. Besides, where are you going to turn if we do away with roads?
Surely you wouldn't want to have 2 layers of traffic on a set of lights (one on the ground and one hovering above the "normal" traffic below)
Well, I could imagine something like East/West traffic travels on the ground while the North/South traffic travels in the air. This could eliminate traffic lights, stop signs, the works! However, it does add a new dimension to making a right turn.
The only way I could see this working is if they work out a few infrastructure challenges. For starters, the article mentions that you won't be able to fly one over 10 feet without a pilot's license. 10 Feet won't get you over some pickups, much less off the highways. Next, how do you work out right of way, parking and so on. These are challenges that will be difficult to overcome even IF flying cars were readily available.
Next is safety. While cars have been pretty focused on protecting their occupants, this takes that to a whole new dimension. A stall is no longer just an inconvenience, but a high probability that you are going to die. What about the people on the ground that you crash into? How many car wrecks are there in an average size city. Now imaging that for each of these wrecks, you have a heavy, flammable piece of metal, glass and plastic falling to the ground! It would seem to me that the only way to make these things remotely safe would be to equip them not only with a parachute, but with airbags on the outside to protect those that are going to be in their homes beneath these things!
Economy. With all the current focus on global warming, dwindling oil supplies, wars in the middle east etc, I don't see how flying cars will help alleviate any of these problems. As a matter of fact, I see the exact opposite happening! Could you imagine what would happen to the demand for energy if half the auto's on the road were not flying over it!
Of course, these issues are just a few issues that my ignorant-ass can come up with in a few minutes. I'm sure that there are problems that real life engineers haven't even dreamed of yet! So I'm afraid that building a flying car will be the easy part.
I wonder if that 350Z has an iPod connection?
Meh. We'll still call it that :). But what's next? Ignoble Iguana?
Bleeding Beaver, Timid TubeSnake, Leaping Lemming...
That's because we needed to go back before the conservative movement decided to make government fail by underfunding it.
Funny! Even with the Bush tax cuts (actually, because of...) the US Gov't has received record tax receipts not just for any time in US history, but WORLD history, and we're still running a deficit! It appears to me that the conservative movement is over funding government.
I can see why it is a good idea to remove critical applications from the control of the end user, but the drop in performance does not justify the increased level of maintainability. And no matter how much we hate it, there are some applications that are required to have some or all of it run at a centralized location. Examples would be your Exchange server, your database server and any web based applications that simply can not be run on local PC's.
These are all the arguments for Dumb Terminals, but computers moved away from that years ago for good reason..
I agree completely. Unfortunately, the industry is trying to move BACK in that direction and it is not a good thing. Which was the point of the article.
I, for one, can't think of a single upside of "Software as Service"
Software as a service can be run locally by a company, rather than on the web. There are several (provided the server is maintained on site).
Single point of failure should a catastrophe happen.
User's can't go in and break the system.
There is one system to maintain, one anti-virus package, one system to back up and so on.
Files are much easier to share and keep updated. It is a nightmare to have a single spreadsheet that is updated by several people when they are updated on the own personal systems.
When the server is remote, there are still advantages, just not as many:
My step-dad uses quickbooks for his small business. He has architects and accountants that need access to the books. Originally, he had purchased a copy for each of them to run on their personal computers. Unfortunately, when one made a change, he had to call everyone else to tell them, or email a backup copy of the DB and everyone would have to manually update their own DB's. It was a nightmare and this was only with four or five employees. With Quickbooks Online, each user logs into the website, enters their data and everything is updated almost in real time. He's a roofer and does not have the knowledge, nor the time to keep up with the application. He only cares about the reports, not how they are created. This works very well for him.
However, with all these advantages, I agree that it sux for the most part.
It's slow... much slower than running apps locally.
In the event of a failure, you're at the mercy of the tech folks that you do not employ and have not control over.
You are not in control of your own destiny.
I think we're both pretty much right across the board, and very wrong at the same time. If there were a single, simple reason that drove people batshit mad, we would have solved this problem years ago.
Stop lying. What the press reported was that if selective recounts had been completed, yes Bush would have still won the election. What was hidden away in the shitty media's reporting of the story was the fact that Gore won a statewide recount under every possible scenario. Gore won Florida. Bush stole the election. Deal with it.
Of course! Because I state facts that goes against what you THINK, I must be lying. However, you are correct, if you count the undervotes and overvotes, Gore would have won. But, like I said, that's changing the rules after the game is played.
That stated, if you count the votes that were properly cast using the rules set by each precinct before the first vote was cast, Bush won, every time, every recount. That is no lie! To say otherwise, is.
He also would have won the electoral vote in 2000 if there had been a statewide recount of Florida's votes.
You mean like this? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, or how many left-wing websites you quote, Al Gore tried to steal the election in 2000 and failed. Granted, if you change enough rules, Gore could have pulled it out, but that would not really be fair, would it? You can't change the rules AFTER the election to favor one side over another. Fortunately, the US Supreme Court decided that it wouldn't be legal, either.
With the electoral college, the only votes that are fought for are those in battleground states. The rest of the country is lucky to settle for a visit from the VP nominee.
And without the electoral college, the only votes that would be fought for are those in big cities. The rest of the country would be lucky to get a campaign stop from a candidate traveling between cities.