Do you also advocate not wearing a seatbelt? Not looking both ways while crossing the road? Driving with your eyes closed? Driving drunk?
The issue isn't that most of the time you'll be fine without a helmet, totally true.
But there is NEVER a time where you'll be ok without a helmet, but wouldn't be ok if you had been wearing one.
While I agree with you regarding the 5% of all bike rides end in accident, something that I can't disagree with is that helmets save lives. If you disagree with that, you're not paying attention and are more up in arms about some perceived threat to your rights and freedoms than you are worried about your child's safety. 90+% of fatal bicycle accidents involve people that were not wearing helmets.
Now, I get that all you morons are bummed about the big bad government trampling your rights to ride around on a bicycle without a helmet, smear your brains all over the street or whatever. But there are other laws you should be protesting:
1. There's actually a law against killing yourself. Start by protesting this, remember: defiance is the best protest. 2. The water company is legally required to purify water to 'promote public health and safety by providing pure drinking water.' WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT TO DRINK POLLUTED WATER? 3. You're not allowed to put lead in things anymore, that's fucked up. I want lead candies, paint, toys, etc. 4. By law, cigarette companies are forced to put warnings on cigarettes to decry their unhealthiness, I want to remain ignorant about the poison I'm ingesting, WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS?
The fight against helmet laws is stupid, and I really wish that everyone protesting them would start riding without helmets all the time. A little bit of Darwinism between them and a streetcar or a bus would do wonders.
The individual you know exists, but does she sit around all day eating caviar and talking to her other welfare queen friends on her platinum covered phone?
The entire Welfare Queen concept has been thoroughly debunked, time and time again, and fraudulent usage of state welfare/UI programs is less than 2% of all recipients.The stereotypical "I'm going to have more babies" person doesn't exist. Study after study proves no correlation between family size and family benefits within welfare recipients; that is, people that could get more welfare for more babies don't actually have more babies than those who are not eligible for the same.
The banking side of TARP is going to turn a profit.
Universal health care will decrease the cost of health care to the entire population, while increasing overall health. Arguing against it is short sighted and stupid.
Agreed, used to be great when it was acting in the same way that MSE does now; small, quick, light and unlike Symantec/McAfee didn't attempt to upsell you on 400 other programs to install to make your PC run better. Now it's just as bloated and ineffective as the big guys.
What is the latest version of Android? If it's not Jellybean, I'm curious as to what it is. Nothing is running on it, there's no hint that it's in use anywhere. No manufacturers are using it. The only place it exists is undoubtedly on test devices while Google works on the code.
How is the code useless for hobbyists? I'm a hobbyist, I find the code extremely useful. It would appear that the rest of the Android development community does as well, given the ROMs that are being compiled from that source tree and released to a shitload of phones.
The core Google applications are not part of Android, because Android functions perfectly without them. Saying that the lack of Google Play integration means that Android is not FOSS is like saying that because Linux is not FOSS because nvidia and AMD have closed source binaries for their drivers, or that Steam source is not available. The platform is open, the Google integrated implementation is not. The highly marketed experience is Android with Google, you get Android with Google support. The same as buying Red Hat gets you Linux with Red Hat support.
Where are you getting that OEMs pay for access? The only thing that I can see that's remotely close to this is the Nexus program, but that's Google putting out a phone. Not the OEM, and based on past releases, it doesn't even really seem to have that beneficial of an impact on the rest of the OEM's lineup. Most Samsung phones didn't get updated to GB when the Nexus S came out, most of their current lineup is no further ahead than any other manufacturer in terms of ICS rollout. Ignoring the two Samsung Nexus devices, their Jellybean support is no more advanced than any other OEM, including Motorola's lineup, which is owned by Google.
As a hobbyist, and someone that uses community based Android ROMs on my phone, I'm not really sure how you can say it's useless that the source is there. The fact that the source is there means that people are able to run the latest version of Android on phones that the manufacturer or carrier hasn't updated because the community has access to the source. Is it Google's fault that the manufacturer won't release drivers? No more than it's Linux's fault that hardware manufacturers release BLOBS instead of source for their drivers; more to the point, it doesn't mean the platform is not open source.
You're essentially saying that all Open Source is useless because not everything is open source, which is a ridiculous viewpoint.
Also, XBox live Silver is Xbox live, so yeah, there is a free version. Not as full featured as the paid for version, but it's still free, and still gives the basics. The fact that you can pay more to get more doesn't mean that there isn't a way to get it for free. To use a car analogy, you're saying that there are no cheap cars, because there are luxury ones. The fact that I could buy a Porsche doesn't mean I can't buy a Kia, or take the bus instead.
Canada is huge, but our politics are a lot more nationalistic than the US. The concept of 'state' rights is not so important here, which I suppose is why Quebec wants to secede.
I'm not advocating disarming anyone but the criminal population that uses weapons as a method to silence critics and bend others to their will. I also agree that people should be more willing to fight back, and better prepared, to protect themselves against assault. I've never been one to back down from bullies, and won't be teaching my kids that they're better off not punching someone in the mouth when they're being bullied. That said, teaching everyone how to fight may not be the best answer either, as most of the people I know that know how to fight, myself included, are less willing to walk away when we probably should; I know that's anecdotal, but it's all I've got for this point.
Regarding guns as deterrents for robberies and assaults, statistics don't show that to be the case. Excluding DC because it's a crime infested shithole, with more economic disparity and poverty than the majority of the states, the amount of legally owned guns doesn't seem to have any significant bearing on crime statistics. Montana, West Virginia and Alaska all have rates of aggravated assault higher than most of the country. Alaska is the rape capital of the US, fourth in assaults, and consistently one of the best armed states in the union.
If we compare states, Texas and California for example, with similar median incomes (50/53K), populations (25M/37M), and education (average for both), but significantly different gun laws (TX, CA) and you'll see that the gun laws don't make a huge difference in crime. In fact, as of 2008, Texas was significantly more criminal than California is, Texas #10 on most criminal overall, and California #27. Other years put them within one or two of each other, in varying orders, but comparable.
What I also found shocking, was that Texas is one of the lesser armed states in the union.
What it comes down to, is for self defence, there doesn't seem to be that much of an impact.
Do law abiding people need to have the right to keep and bear arms? Unquestionably, and well they should. But it shouldn't be thought of as a deterrent for common crime. Guns should be kept to keep the government in line.
By the same token, most places aren't countries then. Western Canada is completely different than central or Eastern, north England is different than south, etc.
Regarding the Maryland stats Baltimore City schools are 13K, but Carrol county is 11K, a significant difference, but not that significant. Carrol County is also significantly more affluent ($81K median income) than Baltimore ($39K).
Spending in most of the affluent Maryland counties seems to be significantly less than in similarly populated counties with larger lower-income families, and even by district within counties. Howard County for example has million dollar houses a ten minute walk from community housing. You have schools like Centennial, where my younger sisters went, as one of the best high schools in Maryland, and less than 4 miles away is Wilde Lake High, where less than half of the students pass standardized test. People who are financially better off have more resources, obviously, so things like reduced funding lunches aren't very common, which significantly reduces the expense per student.
Again, the issue comes back to poverty. Increasing/decreasing the amount of guns available doesn't address the issue. Arming the entire population certainly won't end gun violence.
I was looking further into the Florida/Texas comparison as well. In 2010 Florida had a murder rate of 5.2/1000 people, Texas 5.0, Maryland 7.4, none of which are have a huge variance. Certainly not one that could be attributed to shoot back legislation, because New York, with oppressive gun control laws, was a 4.9, California, with significantly more repressive gun control laws was at 4.0.
However, DC may offer a pretty good argument for arming everyone, since they were at 127.
Regardless, guns aren't the problem, I agree. But they're not the solution either.
The Switzerland argument is not very good. If you want to talk Swiss firearms laws in America, then prepare to have your home inspected regularly to ensure that your guns are stored safely and that your ammunition is sealed and unused. Given that the US generally frowns on pop government inspections of private property, I don't think that comparison is apt. Also, the Czech comparison, not so much either. While CC is legal there, the requirements for obtaining anything other than BB guns and the like are significantly higher than anything in the US, and the percentage of legally armed citizens is significantly lower, 200K out of 11M. Also, citation for widely practised? I've heard this bandied around by people who're arguing that guns aren't the problem before, but never seen anything corroborating it. But yeah, guns aren't the problem, that's true; an impoverished, uneducated population with easy access to firearms is.
Your problem is you're not grasping my post.
The entire point of my post was that arming the general citizenry isn't going to eliminate violent/gun crime. You need to look at the causes of crime, which you pretty much nailed, and eliminate those. Arming everyone while ignoring the root causes of gangs, and poverty isn't going to do a thing to the crime rate, except maybe make it tick up a few notches.
I'm personally 100% in favour of a fully armed lawful citizenry, but not as a deterrent to violent/disorganized crime. It's not a solution to that problem.
How about data on the fact that in a country where guns have proliferated (legally or not), there are more gun crimes contrasted with a country in which guns have not proliferated?
According to this, for every 100 people in the states there are 90 guns, but the US murder rate is comparable to China's (within ~500 murders annually the last 3 years, 60+% committed by guns in the US, stats not available for China), even though the US population is ONE BILLION PEOPLE SMALLER. With a murder rate 4x higher than anywhere else in the civilized world, it doesn't seem like having a well armed populace is doing much to curb gun violence.
Maryland and Detroit's gun violence is largely confined to gang activity, so arming the lawful citizenry isn't going to help much. If everyone outside of the gangs is armed, but gangs aren't shooting at non-gang members, why do the rest need to be armed? Yeah yeah, almost all of those guns are illegally owned, but rather than arming the rest of the population, why not work at disarming the criminal population?
The reason that capitol punishment is not much of a deterrent, is that people don't expect to be caught, the same reason that longer sentences generally do not decrease severe crimes, ie: murder. If a person is going to commit murder, it doesn't matter what the punishment is, they're not killing someone while thinking about what will happen when they're caught; they're thinking they're going to get away with it. Wisconsin's death penalty was revoked 150 years ago, which bears little resemblance to today's climate, and according to this article from the Wisconsin law society, it was never repealed.
I don't think a country can call itself civilized when it decides that the best way to reduce violent crime is to walk softly and carry a big stick. Why not look at eliminating the root causes of the crime, rather than enabling civilians to shoot criminals?
Who cares about video. I mean, yeah fine, it can record video, great, great great.
But if the Project Glass video is any indication of what we're going to be seeing out of these, video is about on par with the colours it comes in, in terms of importance of features.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be looking into alternative energy sources?
Private industry hasn't exactly done a whole lot to do anything other than prolong our dependence on fossil fuels. The oil, and oil related, industries are bigger than ever, more money than ever is spent on refining more and more difficult sources of crude. Oil sources that 15 years ago were thought would never be cost effective are now major suppliers in the whole chain.
Solar power has made slight inroads, but only on a personal level. There's no significant widespread power generation through solar. We're NIMBYing wind turbines. Everyone is reluctant to invest in tidal power.
Everyone just keeps pouring more and more money into oil. Spending money thinking about how to stop doing that is sensible, even if 90% of it goes nowhere. Only spending money on things that are proven to work is what got us here, if private companies aren't willing to risk failing, then fucking A rights the government should help out.
Is there a strong republican candidate? I know there's a lot of nut jobs that the vocal minority loves, but none of them have a better chance than Nader ever has.
This is incorrect. The fact that there was pinch-to-zoom 20 years ago, means that the Apple implementation is not a new, novel, non-obvious idea. If it was new, novel and non-obvious, the concept wouldn't have existed before. You're making the same mistake that the jury foreman made, thinking that each part has to be interchangeable in order to qualify as prior art. As this Groklaw article clearly points out, that's simply not the case.
The fact that the exact methodology used by the touch screens is different, doesn't mean that the idea didn't exist 20 years ago. Not only that, but pinch to zoom is about as obvious a method to zoom in when you have a tiny touch screen as there is.
Certifications don't mean you're unskilled, but they definitely don't mean you know your ass from a hole in the ground. I know two people with full MCITP:EA certs, that when asked to debug a kernel dump, they look at me and inquire as to how in the fuck they can do that when they're clearly not programmers. Likewise, the most certified person at my last job destroyed an Exchange '07 environment when a.NET update slowed down OWA, and rather than uninstalling said update, he decided that deleting the.NET config files would be a better idea.
You can't trust paper, be it a lack of, or an abundance of certificates.
My advice to the GP, ask them to explain how Windows logon works, why you have to close and reopen network files to update permissions on them, how NTFS permissions work, how to read a memory dump, and if there's a way to enable kernel debugging on production systems if you can't find the root problem otherwise.
Also, I know that there is a hate on for the format/reinstall path that Windows admins, myself included, often take, but ask them to justify it; if they say anything other than "It will take me significantly less time to get everything up and running 100% by format/reinstall than by troubleshooting" they can fuck off.
Certifications don't mean you're unskilled, but they definitely don't mean you know your ass from a hole in the ground.
I know two people with full MCITP:EA certs, that when asked to debug a kernel dump, they look at me and inquire as to how in the fuck they can do that when they're clearly not programmers. Likewise, the most certified person at my last job destroyed an Exchange '07 environment when a.NET update slowed down OWA, and rather than uninstalling said update, he decided that deleting the.NET config files would be a better idea.
You can't trust paper, be it a lack of, or an abundance of certificates.
My advice to the GP, ask them to explain how Windows logon works, why you have to close and reopen network files to update permissions on them, how NTFS permissions work, how to read a memory dump, and if there's a way to enable kernel debugging on production systems if you can't find the root problem otherwise. Also, I know that there is a hate on for the format/reinstall path that Windows admins, myself included, often take, but ask them to justify it; if they say anything other than "It will take me significantly less time to get everything up and running 100% by format/reinstall than by troubleshooting" they can fuck off.
You can explain 'til you're blue in the face, but they'll never get it. You're weird, it's what they like about you. It's fun, and they'll either see you play it and be interested, or shake their heads and walk away and tell the dog they don't get it either.
Thanks for pointing out the interrupt bit, didn't know that.
PS/2 has the downside of sketchy hot-plug support, which is of debatable importance. Not very if you're a gamer and leave your system set up. But it is something that hits people who never really used PS/2 keyboards/mice and are used to being able to hotswap all external hardware without issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you also advocate not wearing a seatbelt? Not looking both ways while crossing the road? Driving with your eyes closed? Driving drunk?
The issue isn't that most of the time you'll be fine without a helmet, totally true.
But there is NEVER a time where you'll be ok without a helmet, but wouldn't be ok if you had been wearing one.
While I agree with you regarding the 5% of all bike rides end in accident, something that I can't disagree with is that helmets save lives. If you disagree with that, you're not paying attention and are more up in arms about some perceived threat to your rights and freedoms than you are worried about your child's safety.
90+% of fatal bicycle accidents involve people that were not wearing helmets.
Now, I get that all you morons are bummed about the big bad government trampling your rights to ride around on a bicycle without a helmet, smear your brains all over the street or whatever. But there are other laws you should be protesting:
1. There's actually a law against killing yourself. Start by protesting this, remember: defiance is the best protest.
2. The water company is legally required to purify water to 'promote public health and safety by providing pure drinking water.' WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT TO DRINK POLLUTED WATER?
3. You're not allowed to put lead in things anymore, that's fucked up. I want lead candies, paint, toys, etc.
4. By law, cigarette companies are forced to put warnings on cigarettes to decry their unhealthiness, I want to remain ignorant about the poison I'm ingesting, WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS?
The fight against helmet laws is stupid, and I really wish that everyone protesting them would start riding without helmets all the time. A little bit of Darwinism between them and a streetcar or a bus would do wonders.
The individual you know exists, but does she sit around all day eating caviar and talking to her other welfare queen friends on her platinum covered phone?
The entire Welfare Queen concept has been thoroughly debunked, time and time again, and fraudulent usage of state welfare/UI programs is less than 2% of all recipients.The stereotypical "I'm going to have more babies" person doesn't exist. Study after study proves no correlation between family size and family benefits within welfare recipients; that is, people that could get more welfare for more babies don't actually have more babies than those who are not eligible for the same.
The scumbag portion of that 47% is the 1% who are making over $500K using loopholes to avoid paying income tax. The rest of it are paying taxes, just not income taxes and are hardworking people who are receiving tax credits, people on social security, people who don't make enough money to support their families and are eligible for tax credits. Don't look at the poor to see who's abusing the system. Generally they don't have time, or resources to figure out how to exploit things. That's the providence of the rich who can pay to have people figure out how to best exploit it.
None of this information is hard to find, so instead of saying we need to measure this, get off your ass and go and read the measurements.
The environmental toll of hog farming is massive.
The banking side of TARP is going to turn a profit.
Universal health care will decrease the cost of health care to the entire population, while increasing overall health. Arguing against it is short sighted and stupid.
Agreed, used to be great when it was acting in the same way that MSE does now; small, quick, light and unlike Symantec/McAfee didn't attempt to upsell you on 400 other programs to install to make your PC run better. Now it's just as bloated and ineffective as the big guys.
I would.
What is the latest version of Android? If it's not Jellybean, I'm curious as to what it is. Nothing is running on it, there's no hint that it's in use anywhere. No manufacturers are using it. The only place it exists is undoubtedly on test devices while Google works on the code.
How is the code useless for hobbyists? I'm a hobbyist, I find the code extremely useful. It would appear that the rest of the Android development community does as well, given the ROMs that are being compiled from that source tree and released to a shitload of phones.
The core Google applications are not part of Android, because Android functions perfectly without them. Saying that the lack of Google Play integration means that Android is not FOSS is like saying that because Linux is not FOSS because nvidia and AMD have closed source binaries for their drivers, or that Steam source is not available. The platform is open, the Google integrated implementation is not. The highly marketed experience is Android with Google, you get Android with Google support. The same as buying Red Hat gets you Linux with Red Hat support.
Where are you getting that OEMs pay for access? The only thing that I can see that's remotely close to this is the Nexus program, but that's Google putting out a phone. Not the OEM, and based on past releases, it doesn't even really seem to have that beneficial of an impact on the rest of the OEM's lineup. Most Samsung phones didn't get updated to GB when the Nexus S came out, most of their current lineup is no further ahead than any other manufacturer in terms of ICS rollout. Ignoring the two Samsung Nexus devices, their Jellybean support is no more advanced than any other OEM, including Motorola's lineup, which is owned by Google.
As a hobbyist, and someone that uses community based Android ROMs on my phone, I'm not really sure how you can say it's useless that the source is there. The fact that the source is there means that people are able to run the latest version of Android on phones that the manufacturer or carrier hasn't updated because the community has access to the source. Is it Google's fault that the manufacturer won't release drivers? No more than it's Linux's fault that hardware manufacturers release BLOBS instead of source for their drivers; more to the point, it doesn't mean the platform is not open source.
You're essentially saying that all Open Source is useless because not everything is open source, which is a ridiculous viewpoint.
Also, XBox live Silver is Xbox live, so yeah, there is a free version. Not as full featured as the paid for version, but it's still free, and still gives the basics. The fact that you can pay more to get more doesn't mean that there isn't a way to get it for free. To use a car analogy, you're saying that there are no cheap cars, because there are luxury ones. The fact that I could buy a Porsche doesn't mean I can't buy a Kia, or take the bus instead.
Canada is huge, but our politics are a lot more nationalistic than the US. The concept of 'state' rights is not so important here, which I suppose is why Quebec wants to secede.
I'm not advocating disarming anyone but the criminal population that uses weapons as a method to silence critics and bend others to their will. I also agree that people should be more willing to fight back, and better prepared, to protect themselves against assault. I've never been one to back down from bullies, and won't be teaching my kids that they're better off not punching someone in the mouth when they're being bullied. That said, teaching everyone how to fight may not be the best answer either, as most of the people I know that know how to fight, myself included, are less willing to walk away when we probably should; I know that's anecdotal, but it's all I've got for this point.
Regarding guns as deterrents for robberies and assaults, statistics don't show that to be the case. Excluding DC because it's a crime infested shithole, with more economic disparity and poverty than the majority of the states, the amount of legally owned guns doesn't seem to have any significant bearing on crime statistics. Montana, West Virginia and Alaska all have rates of aggravated assault higher than most of the country. Alaska is the rape capital of the US, fourth in assaults, and consistently one of the best armed states in the union.
If we compare states, Texas and California for example, with similar median incomes (50/53K), populations (25M/37M), and education (average for both), but significantly different gun laws (TX, CA) and you'll see that the gun laws don't make a huge difference in crime. In fact, as of 2008, Texas was significantly more criminal than California is, Texas #10 on most criminal overall, and California #27. Other years put them within one or two of each other, in varying orders, but comparable.
What I also found shocking, was that Texas is one of the lesser armed states in the union.
What it comes down to, is for self defence, there doesn't seem to be that much of an impact.
Do law abiding people need to have the right to keep and bear arms? Unquestionably, and well they should. But it shouldn't be thought of as a deterrent for common crime. Guns should be kept to keep the government in line.
By the same token, most places aren't countries then. Western Canada is completely different than central or Eastern, north England is different than south, etc.
Regarding the Maryland stats Baltimore City schools are 13K, but Carrol county is 11K, a significant difference, but not that significant. Carrol County is also significantly more affluent ($81K median income) than Baltimore ($39K).
Spending in most of the affluent Maryland counties seems to be significantly less than in similarly populated counties with larger lower-income families, and even by district within counties. Howard County for example has million dollar houses a ten minute walk from community housing. You have schools like Centennial, where my younger sisters went, as one of the best high schools in Maryland, and less than 4 miles away is Wilde Lake High, where less than half of the students pass standardized test. People who are financially better off have more resources, obviously, so things like reduced funding lunches aren't very common, which significantly reduces the expense per student.
Again, the issue comes back to poverty. Increasing/decreasing the amount of guns available doesn't address the issue. Arming the entire population certainly won't end gun violence.
I was looking further into the Florida/Texas comparison as well. In 2010 Florida had a murder rate of 5.2/1000 people, Texas 5.0, Maryland 7.4, none of which are have a huge variance. Certainly not one that could be attributed to shoot back legislation, because New York, with oppressive gun control laws, was a 4.9, California, with significantly more repressive gun control laws was at 4.0.
However, DC may offer a pretty good argument for arming everyone, since they were at 127.
Regardless, guns aren't the problem, I agree. But they're not the solution either.
This type of retort is why there's a gun control argument.
The Switzerland argument is not very good. If you want to talk Swiss firearms laws in America, then prepare to have your home inspected regularly to ensure that your guns are stored safely and that your ammunition is sealed and unused. Given that the US generally frowns on pop government inspections of private property, I don't think that comparison is apt. Also, the Czech comparison, not so much either. While CC is legal there, the requirements for obtaining anything other than BB guns and the like are significantly higher than anything in the US, and the percentage of legally armed citizens is significantly lower, 200K out of 11M. Also, citation for widely practised? I've heard this bandied around by people who're arguing that guns aren't the problem before, but never seen anything corroborating it. But yeah, guns aren't the problem, that's true; an impoverished, uneducated population with easy access to firearms is.
Your problem is you're not grasping my post.
The entire point of my post was that arming the general citizenry isn't going to eliminate violent/gun crime. You need to look at the causes of crime, which you pretty much nailed, and eliminate those. Arming everyone while ignoring the root causes of gangs, and poverty isn't going to do a thing to the crime rate, except maybe make it tick up a few notches.
I'm personally 100% in favour of a fully armed lawful citizenry, but not as a deterrent to violent/disorganized crime. It's not a solution to that problem.
How about data on the fact that in a country where guns have proliferated (legally or not), there are more gun crimes contrasted with a country in which guns have not proliferated?
According to this, for every 100 people in the states there are 90 guns, but the US murder rate is comparable to China's (within ~500 murders annually the last 3 years, 60+% committed by guns in the US, stats not available for China), even though the US population is ONE BILLION PEOPLE SMALLER. With a murder rate 4x higher than anywhere else in the civilized world, it doesn't seem like having a well armed populace is doing much to curb gun violence.
Maryland and Detroit's gun violence is largely confined to gang activity, so arming the lawful citizenry isn't going to help much. If everyone outside of the gangs is armed, but gangs aren't shooting at non-gang members, why do the rest need to be armed? Yeah yeah, almost all of those guns are illegally owned, but rather than arming the rest of the population, why not work at disarming the criminal population?
The reason that capitol punishment is not much of a deterrent, is that people don't expect to be caught, the same reason that longer sentences generally do not decrease severe crimes, ie: murder. If a person is going to commit murder, it doesn't matter what the punishment is, they're not killing someone while thinking about what will happen when they're caught; they're thinking they're going to get away with it. Wisconsin's death penalty was revoked 150 years ago, which bears little resemblance to today's climate, and according to this article from the Wisconsin law society, it was never repealed.
I don't think a country can call itself civilized when it decides that the best way to reduce violent crime is to walk softly and carry a big stick. Why not look at eliminating the root causes of the crime, rather than enabling civilians to shoot criminals?
Who cares about video. I mean, yeah fine, it can record video, great, great great.
But if the Project Glass video is any indication of what we're going to be seeing out of these, video is about on par with the colours it comes in, in terms of importance of features.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be looking into alternative energy sources?
Private industry hasn't exactly done a whole lot to do anything other than prolong our dependence on fossil fuels. The oil, and oil related, industries are bigger than ever, more money than ever is spent on refining more and more difficult sources of crude. Oil sources that 15 years ago were thought would never be cost effective are now major suppliers in the whole chain.
Solar power has made slight inroads, but only on a personal level. There's no significant widespread power generation through solar. We're NIMBYing wind turbines. Everyone is reluctant to invest in tidal power.
Everyone just keeps pouring more and more money into oil. Spending money thinking about how to stop doing that is sensible, even if 90% of it goes nowhere. Only spending money on things that are proven to work is what got us here, if private companies aren't willing to risk failing, then fucking A rights the government should help out.
IPv6 is incredibly confusing. I know how to set up a subnet for 172.20.18.0/24. Subnetting DEAD:BEEF:FEED:BEAD::1/56 is nonsense.
Is there a strong republican candidate? I know there's a lot of nut jobs that the vocal minority loves, but none of them have a better chance than Nader ever has.
This is incorrect. The fact that there was pinch-to-zoom 20 years ago, means that the Apple implementation is not a new, novel, non-obvious idea. If it was new, novel and non-obvious, the concept wouldn't have existed before. You're making the same mistake that the jury foreman made, thinking that each part has to be interchangeable in order to qualify as prior art. As this Groklaw article clearly points out, that's simply not the case.
The fact that the exact methodology used by the touch screens is different, doesn't mean that the idea didn't exist 20 years ago. Not only that, but pinch to zoom is about as obvious a method to zoom in when you have a tiny touch screen as there is.
Bah, ugly formatting, sorry for double reply.
Certifications don't mean you're unskilled, but they definitely don't mean you know your ass from a hole in the ground. I know two people with full MCITP:EA certs, that when asked to debug a kernel dump, they look at me and inquire as to how in the fuck they can do that when they're clearly not programmers. Likewise, the most certified person at my last job destroyed an Exchange '07 environment when a .NET update slowed down OWA, and rather than uninstalling said update, he decided that deleting the .NET config files would be a better idea.
You can't trust paper, be it a lack of, or an abundance of certificates.
My advice to the GP, ask them to explain how Windows logon works, why you have to close and reopen network files to update permissions on them, how NTFS permissions work, how to read a memory dump, and if there's a way to enable kernel debugging on production systems if you can't find the root problem otherwise.
Also, I know that there is a hate on for the format/reinstall path that Windows admins, myself included, often take, but ask them to justify it; if they say anything other than "It will take me significantly less time to get everything up and running 100% by format/reinstall than by troubleshooting" they can fuck off.
Certifications don't mean you're unskilled, but they definitely don't mean you know your ass from a hole in the ground. I know two people with full MCITP:EA certs, that when asked to debug a kernel dump, they look at me and inquire as to how in the fuck they can do that when they're clearly not programmers. Likewise, the most certified person at my last job destroyed an Exchange '07 environment when a .NET update slowed down OWA, and rather than uninstalling said update, he decided that deleting the .NET config files would be a better idea.
You can't trust paper, be it a lack of, or an abundance of certificates.
My advice to the GP, ask them to explain how Windows logon works, why you have to close and reopen network files to update permissions on them, how NTFS permissions work, how to read a memory dump, and if there's a way to enable kernel debugging on production systems if you can't find the root problem otherwise. Also, I know that there is a hate on for the format/reinstall path that Windows admins, myself included, often take, but ask them to justify it; if they say anything other than "It will take me significantly less time to get everything up and running 100% by format/reinstall than by troubleshooting" they can fuck off.
Goddamn you.
You can explain 'til you're blue in the face, but they'll never get it. You're weird, it's what they like about you. It's fun, and they'll either see you play it and be interested, or shake their heads and walk away and tell the dog they don't get it either.
Purchasing services doesn't mean you're being anti-competitive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
Typing, sure. Gaming? Happens rather frequently.
Thanks for pointing out the interrupt bit, didn't know that.
PS/2 has the downside of sketchy hot-plug support, which is of debatable importance. Not very if you're a gamer and leave your system set up. But it is something that hits people who never really used PS/2 keyboards/mice and are used to being able to hotswap all external hardware without issue.