Actually, that was from an HBO special, "Live from Aspen" I believe, that was hosted by Robert Klein. It's one of the available programs in the "Monty Python Live" 2 DVD set...well, here in the States anyway. I'm not sure if they're distributed any differently outside of the U.S. and Canada.
Terry Gilliam "accidentally" kicked the urn from a coffee table that was on the stage in front of him. A butler came out with a Dust Buster. Some of the other Pythons pushed some of the remaining ashes under the area rug. Definitely one of the funniest moments of the entire show.
To the f**kwad Nazi who trolled me down, I rest my case! Burn any good books that you disagree with lately? People like you are poster children for Darwin awards.
No, I'm saying that mods who use those two particular mod options are nothing more than self-serving, pro-censorship, egomaniacal, f**kwad Nazis who think it's their place to quash an opposing view (horrors!) than what they believe. Oh, the shame that we're not all mindless robots who think the same way!
As to your PS, sadly it's been so long since I've played Monkey Island that I can't remember the other responses. But I did catch the reference.:)
but at least it recognizes that most people will use it for piracy.
You get a virtual +1 funny since I don't have any mod points right now. I wonder how many people are actually going to make the connection, though. "Pieces of WHAT? Eight is a number! A piece of eight is a four!"
I really get tired of people like Dvorak who make statements equating "no new ideas" with "soon to pass". All of the cars that we drive are based on a single design that was made over 100 years ago, yet all of the cars on the road are still different from each other. They're all cars, but they all have a different feel and different enjoyment factor to different people.
Look at series like the "Splinter Cell" and "Thief". They're all variations on the same theme - first person stealth - but they all have a different feel with different challenges. So, they're all the same kind of game, but I've purchased every one of them because they're still different enough that they don't feel like I'm playing the same game.
Just look at how many games are STILL being played frequently because of fan mods! A lot of games have GIGS of mods available for them to keep the experience fresh. As long as the core engine and functionality are enjoyable, all that gamers need is something to break the repetition of "the same old levels". The success of so many game series that are just mild improvements over prequels or competitors (like the "Thief", "Rainbow Six"/"Ghost Recon", and "Splinter Cell" series) should be proof of that.
Just my two one-hundreths of an American dollar. Convert to your currency as necessary.
Careful! Some jackass mod will "troll" you down for adding points onto my original statement!
You do bring another aspect of this into the picture. Then again, maybe this will all have a trickle-down effect. Large jet = need for larger facilities = construction jobs + extra maintenance jobs + baggage handler jobs + system upgrading... Who knows, maybe this beast would have a more positive effect overall.
I still won't fly in one. "Your disembarking time is now 2 hours and 17 minutes.":)
Then unlike the majority of/. users, I will at least admit that I stand corrected.
This used less fuel/passenger than a 747. It's therefore cheaper to operate with a higher capacity.
But is this because of the design or because of the engine? Obviously, the extra weight of the beast and the people account for the need for more powerful engines. Would not the 747 gain higher efficiency as well if they used the same engines as the A38, assuming that they can but don't now? (Genuine question there. Not the typical Slashdot, sarcasm-laden rhetorical question.)
nobody would have spent the money building and developing this aircraft without knowing they'd get an ROI.
You mean more government subsidies?:) (Kidding! I'm sure that Boeing gets them, too.)
I worked on the flight system, I've flown the plane in simulation; trust me, it's very fuel efficient.
Yes, I'm sure that the flight system computers and the simulators are very fuel efficient.:) (Sorry. It was there.)
But I would like yor definition of "very efficient." I can only assume that the 380 requires more fuel for the same distance than a 747, even if the engines are newer.
Which is "more fuel efficient"? A mammoth Airbus 380 that is only filled to 1/2 capacity or a smaller plane (777/7E7) at full capacity? I'm not being sarcastic - really! - but there is more to the term "efficiency" than "rate of fuel consumption".
Two different schools of thought, all depends who is right.
I see no reason why they both can't be right. There are market demands for both, so both companies should be able to feed both markets more than adequately. But the 380 still seems to be more about "one-upsmanship" than filling in a practical need and demand.
So, this beast holds 840 passengers maximum. That means
- 840 passengers waiting at the check-in desk
- 840 passengers waiting at the baggage claim area
- 840 passengers waiting at customs
- 1 large, human disaster should that bird go down
- 1 even larger potential target for terrorists
Oh, yeah. I can't wait to fly on that beast.
Not.
Seriously, was this monster created because Airbus saw a genuine need or was it created just to try to one-up their evil, American rival? If it was created for the former, they probably need to do more market research. If it was for the latter, they need to fire their entire marketing/PR department. Given the current market conditions of the airline industry plus the rising cost of fuel oil, this plane is the wrong design in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I just recently switched from more than five years with DSL to cable because of the cost. For $10 more than my DSL provider (Covad), I'm now getting more than 3x the download speed and 3x the upload speed. I can go even faster if I want to throw another $10 at it. I know that Verizon is cheaper, but the value still isn't there.
This is a great hurdle for Verizon to overcome. As more and more people are switching to cellular for voice, not locking people into a base package (which costs at least $23 the last time I checked) is going to be a plus, particularly in areas where cable broadband is not available.
But until Verizon (and DSL providers in general) get their heads out of the "1.5 Mb is the fastest that we give" particularly for those of us who are less than 5,000 feet from the CO (like myself), DSL just doesn't provide the value.
Until they get past that marketing arrogance, they are limiting their customer base to those who want to get away from modems. That's certainly not a small amount of people, but once their customers taste the speed difference, those who want more are going to demand more. Until DSL providers break away from outragous >1.5 Mb costs, all they're doing is providing a stepping stone to potential cable broadband customers... for those who get (or will be getting) broadband cable availability.
But for those who can't (or won't) get broadband cable, this is at least a way to get rid of the 56K modem. It's good to see Verizon do this. It's a good first step. The question is... will the next step be to lead the way or to step on the customers?
The article doesn't come right out and say it, but this is regarding their web-based filing. When I first read the title, I thought that it was for their CD-based package.
The problem is that at least web information can be caught since most of that information is captured and retrieved through cookies. Unfortunately, this article makes me even more suspect about their CD-based software. You know, the one with CD-illa (2003 tax year) that didn't uninstall properly? We can track and delete cookies. We're not so fortunate with their CD version, except to not install the product at all.
Maybe it's time to let TurboTax figure out the math while disconnected from the network, hand-write the results and send them in, then immediately wipe the hard drive and reinstall the operating system. Okay, I'm being facetious with that, but if they're willing to do this sort of thing on the web where we can catch them, what's to stop them from doing it with their binary distributions where catching them in the act might not be so easy?
Okay, my bad. I didn't RTFA and assumed that the RIAA was responsible for this action. My bad. Guilty as charged. (When it comes to punishing the hell out of consumers and music, one just about can always assume that the RIAA is to blame.)
But regardless of whether or not this is done my the RIAA or a similar organization, this is completely inexcusable.
I don't know about anyone else, but I am always downloading lots of stuff that are FREE and LEGAL! Whether that constitutes Linux ISO images, Solaris patches, or whatever, there are a ton of things out there that are completely legal and take up gobs of bandwidth! Streaming media (radio or TV stations), game patches, game mods, on-line gaming, and so forth are completely legal and will consume bandwidth! If you leave a high-bitrate, streaming media download running all month, you bet that's going to look like a lot of bandwidth, but that does not infer illegal activities!
Even if many downloads are not legal (*cough*newsgroups*cough*), what makes them assume that the downloads are of MUSIC? A massive download of the latest National Geographic bazillion-CD set will completely spike monthly bandwidth; but it has absolutely nothing to do with music, regardless of it being an illegal download!
Who the f*ck are the RIAA to assume that (excessive_bandwith == piracy || excessive == MUSIC_piracy)?
The arrogance of even drafting such a "code of conduct" is beyond comprehension!
No, they're probably assuming that the extra one hour of darkness in the morning would be slept through. For those people who wake up when the sun is already up, they might not have much of a need to turn the lights on an hour earlier if the sun is either still up or just breaking, even with the hour difference. You're assuming that one hour in the morning is the difference between total darkness and total light. That's not always going to be the case.
My guess is that they believe that you would not need to turn the lights on for another hour at night thus saving 1 hour of electricity, assuming that we would sleep through the extra hour of darkness in the morning. So, they're equating the lowered use of electricity with lower use of fuels to generate that electricity.
But that's just my guess. Just more "feel good" policy to make it seem to us like they're doing something.
Admittedly, the extra two months would be nice as far as I'm concerned. I hate getting home when it's dark as it reserves any necessary outdoor work until (A) days off or (B) the weekends.
"I saw that Star Trek episode where two nanites had sex and reproduced like rabbits! They had to shoot the computer! And then they, like, started talkin' and stuff, and that dude had to apologize.. Well, shit, I ain't wanna apologize to some sex-maniac robots who want to take over my computer! No way, man! None of this nanotechnology for me! I don't wanna shoot my 'puter neither!
I love how everyone who finds it necessary to comment on the sig never seems to take into consideration that some people have their own *NIX workstations at work.;)
Actually, what you said is only partially true. You're discounting power saving features in most PCs and PC-based operating systems that can shut down idle drives. By pushing swap/virtual memory to another drive, that drive will probably stay up and running due to paging in/out, but the main data drive would have a much better chance of being spun down when not in use. This happened multiple times on a PC that had three drives in it. The main drive (which was also swap) never slowed down, but the two data drives frequently had the chance to shut down, sometimes for hours on end.
Slashdot Mirror
This is deserving of a "+5 On the Nose" if one existed.
Actually, that was from an HBO special, "Live from Aspen" I believe, that was hosted by Robert Klein. It's one of the available programs in the "Monty Python Live" 2 DVD set...well, here in the States anyway. I'm not sure if they're distributed any differently outside of the U.S. and Canada.
Terry Gilliam "accidentally" kicked the urn from a coffee table that was on the stage in front of him. A butler came out with a Dust Buster. Some of the other Pythons pushed some of the remaining ashes under the area rug. Definitely one of the funniest moments of the entire show.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen any spice worm comments, or whatever those desert creatures were. Hey, the rover is stuck on a Dune!
:)
Yes, yes. Bad joke. Blame end-of-the-week fatigue.
To the f**kwad Nazi who trolled me down, I rest my case! Burn any good books that you disagree with lately? People like you are poster children for Darwin awards.
No, I'm saying that mods who use those two particular mod options are nothing more than self-serving, pro-censorship, egomaniacal, f**kwad Nazis who think it's their place to quash an opposing view (horrors!) than what they believe. Oh, the shame that we're not all mindless robots who think the same way!
:)
As to your PS, sadly it's been so long since I've played Monkey Island that I can't remember the other responses. But I did catch the reference.
but at least it recognizes that most people will use it for piracy.
You get a virtual +1 funny since I don't have any mod points right now. I wonder how many people are actually going to make the connection, though. "Pieces of WHAT? Eight is a number! A piece of eight is a four!"
I really get tired of people like Dvorak who make statements equating "no new ideas" with "soon to pass". All of the cars that we drive are based on a single design that was made over 100 years ago, yet all of the cars on the road are still different from each other. They're all cars, but they all have a different feel and different enjoyment factor to different people.
Look at series like the "Splinter Cell" and "Thief". They're all variations on the same theme - first person stealth - but they all have a different feel with different challenges. So, they're all the same kind of game, but I've purchased every one of them because they're still different enough that they don't feel like I'm playing the same game.
Just look at how many games are STILL being played frequently because of fan mods! A lot of games have GIGS of mods available for them to keep the experience fresh. As long as the core engine and functionality are enjoyable, all that gamers need is something to break the repetition of "the same old levels". The success of so many game series that are just mild improvements over prequels or competitors (like the "Thief", "Rainbow Six"/"Ghost Recon", and "Splinter Cell" series) should be proof of that.
Just my two one-hundreths of an American dollar. Convert to your currency as necessary.
Careful! Some jackass mod will "troll" you down for adding points onto my original statement!
... Who knows, maybe this beast would have a more positive effect overall.
:)
You do bring another aspect of this into the picture. Then again, maybe this will all have a trickle-down effect. Large jet = need for larger facilities = construction jobs + extra maintenance jobs + baggage handler jobs + system upgrading
I still won't fly in one. "Your disembarking time is now 2 hours and 17 minutes."
Well, look at This Reuters coverage.
/. users, I will at least admit that I stand corrected.
:) (Kidding! I'm sure that Boeing gets them, too.)
Then unlike the majority of
This used less fuel/passenger than a 747. It's therefore cheaper to operate with a higher capacity.
But is this because of the design or because of the engine? Obviously, the extra weight of the beast and the people account for the need for more powerful engines. Would not the 747 gain higher efficiency as well if they used the same engines as the A38, assuming that they can but don't now? (Genuine question there. Not the typical Slashdot, sarcasm-laden rhetorical question.)
nobody would have spent the money building and developing this aircraft without knowing they'd get an ROI.
You mean more government subsidies?
I worked on the flight system, I've flown the plane in simulation; trust me, it's very fuel efficient.
:) (Sorry. It was there.)
Yes, I'm sure that the flight system computers and the simulators are very fuel efficient.
But I would like yor definition of "very efficient." I can only assume that the 380 requires more fuel for the same distance than a 747, even if the engines are newer.
Which is "more fuel efficient"? A mammoth Airbus 380 that is only filled to 1/2 capacity or a smaller plane (777/7E7) at full capacity? I'm not being sarcastic - really! - but there is more to the term "efficiency" than "rate of fuel consumption".
Two different schools of thought, all depends who is right.
I see no reason why they both can't be right. There are market demands for both, so both companies should be able to feed both markets more than adequately. But the 380 still seems to be more about "one-upsmanship" than filling in a practical need and demand.
So, this beast holds 840 passengers maximum. That means
- 840 passengers waiting at the check-in desk
- 840 passengers waiting at the baggage claim area
- 840 passengers waiting at customs
- 1 large, human disaster should that bird go down
- 1 even larger potential target for terrorists
Oh, yeah. I can't wait to fly on that beast.
Not.
Seriously, was this monster created because Airbus saw a genuine need or was it created just to try to one-up their evil, American rival? If it was created for the former, they probably need to do more market research. If it was for the latter, they need to fire their entire marketing/PR department. Given the current market conditions of the airline industry plus the rising cost of fuel oil, this plane is the wrong design in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It has worked! You've given everything away!
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?!
The Princess Bride quotes with a Monty Python sig. That's the kind of humor that I needed on a dreary, Monday morning. :)
But you would have known that I would have responded to your post, so I clearly cannot mod the comment in front of me.
I just recently switched from more than five years with DSL to cable because of the cost. For $10 more than my DSL provider (Covad), I'm now getting more than 3x the download speed and 3x the upload speed. I can go even faster if I want to throw another $10 at it. I know that Verizon is cheaper, but the value still isn't there.
... for those who get (or will be getting) broadband cable availability.
... will the next step be to lead the way or to step on the customers?
This is a great hurdle for Verizon to overcome. As more and more people are switching to cellular for voice, not locking people into a base package (which costs at least $23 the last time I checked) is going to be a plus, particularly in areas where cable broadband is not available.
But until Verizon (and DSL providers in general) get their heads out of the "1.5 Mb is the fastest that we give" particularly for those of us who are less than 5,000 feet from the CO (like myself), DSL just doesn't provide the value.
Until they get past that marketing arrogance, they are limiting their customer base to those who want to get away from modems. That's certainly not a small amount of people, but once their customers taste the speed difference, those who want more are going to demand more. Until DSL providers break away from outragous >1.5 Mb costs, all they're doing is providing a stepping stone to potential cable broadband customers
But for those who can't (or won't) get broadband cable, this is at least a way to get rid of the 56K modem. It's good to see Verizon do this. It's a good first step. The question is
The article doesn't come right out and say it, but this is regarding their web-based filing. When I first read the title, I thought that it was for their CD-based package.
The problem is that at least web information can be caught since most of that information is captured and retrieved through cookies. Unfortunately, this article makes me even more suspect about their CD-based software. You know, the one with CD-illa (2003 tax year) that didn't uninstall properly? We can track and delete cookies. We're not so fortunate with their CD version, except to not install the product at all.
Maybe it's time to let TurboTax figure out the math while disconnected from the network, hand-write the results and send them in, then immediately wipe the hard drive and reinstall the operating system. Okay, I'm being facetious with that, but if they're willing to do this sort of thing on the web where we can catch them, what's to stop them from doing it with their binary distributions where catching them in the act might not be so easy?
Then what color is the New York Times? :)
And that's any different from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN???
Oh, they lean the other way, so they're okay in most people's books! Got it!
Okay, my bad. I didn't RTFA and assumed that the RIAA was responsible for this action. My bad. Guilty as charged. (When it comes to punishing the hell out of consumers and music, one just about can always assume that the RIAA is to blame.)
But regardless of whether or not this is done my the RIAA or a similar organization, this is completely inexcusable.
What the hell is this kind of crap?
I don't know about anyone else, but I am always downloading lots of stuff that are FREE and LEGAL! Whether that constitutes Linux ISO images, Solaris patches, or whatever, there are a ton of things out there that are completely legal and take up gobs of bandwidth! Streaming media (radio or TV stations), game patches, game mods, on-line gaming, and so forth are completely legal and will consume bandwidth! If you leave a high-bitrate, streaming media download running all month, you bet that's going to look like a lot of bandwidth, but that does not infer illegal activities!
Even if many downloads are not legal (*cough*newsgroups*cough*), what makes them assume that the downloads are of MUSIC? A massive download of the latest National Geographic bazillion-CD set will completely spike monthly bandwidth; but it has absolutely nothing to do with music, regardless of it being an illegal download!
Who the f*ck are the RIAA to assume that (excessive_bandwith == piracy || excessive == MUSIC_piracy)?
The arrogance of even drafting such a "code of conduct" is beyond comprehension!
No, they're probably assuming that the extra one hour of darkness in the morning would be slept through. For those people who wake up when the sun is already up, they might not have much of a need to turn the lights on an hour earlier if the sun is either still up or just breaking, even with the hour difference. You're assuming that one hour in the morning is the difference between total darkness and total light. That's not always going to be the case.
My guess is that they believe that you would not need to turn the lights on for another hour at night thus saving 1 hour of electricity, assuming that we would sleep through the extra hour of darkness in the morning. So, they're equating the lowered use of electricity with lower use of fuels to generate that electricity.
But that's just my guess. Just more "feel good" policy to make it seem to us like they're doing something.
Admittedly, the extra two months would be nice as far as I'm concerned. I hate getting home when it's dark as it reserves any necessary outdoor work until (A) days off or (B) the weekends.
Or even worse ...
"I saw that Star Trek episode where two nanites had sex and reproduced like rabbits! They had to shoot the computer! And then they, like, started talkin' and stuff, and that dude had to apologize.. Well, shit, I ain't wanna apologize to some sex-maniac robots who want to take over my computer! No way, man! None of this nanotechnology for me! I don't wanna shoot my 'puter neither!
I saw it on TV, so it's gotta be true!"
I love how everyone who finds it necessary to comment on the sig never seems to take into consideration that some people have their own *NIX workstations at work. ;)
Actually, what you said is only partially true. You're discounting power saving features in most PCs and PC-based operating systems that can shut down idle drives. By pushing swap/virtual memory to another drive, that drive will probably stay up and running due to paging in/out, but the main data drive would have a much better chance of being spun down when not in use. This happened multiple times on a PC that had three drives in it. The main drive (which was also swap) never slowed down, but the two data drives frequently had the chance to shut down, sometimes for hours on end.