No, population density is not a false argument, it's a statement of fact with necessary implications in a conversation about daily travel in the US. You can't elect to examine only the portion of the population which is most favorable to your argument.
You can make a case for it being a choice to live in suburbia instead of living in the city, but I'll counter that (in fact already did in my original post) with pointing out that it is a choice between substantially higher cost of living or else moving into high crime neighborhoods. Why anyone with the option would choose one of these is beyond me (well, I guess some people want to live in the ritzy neighborhood as a status symbol, certainly this is not an economic decision).
I don't intend to apologize for lack of public transportation infrastructure in the US, and I don't intend to apologize for it making sense to live in the suburbs from both an economic and safety sense, I am asserting these facts: 1) Public transportation is not sufficient to make it a reasonable alternative to personal transportation anywhere but in metropolitan areas, 2) To live in a metropolitan area means making the choice between high cost of living or high crime unless you get very very lucky.
In Philadelphia, SEPTA has been closing down bus and train routes because they cost more to operate than passenger fees and government financial support collectively are able to cover. This of course is a direct side-effect of urban sprawl, and it is a nasty downward spiral. However the solution is not to simply continue money sink transportation efforts, nor is it to build new transportation systems where population density is not high enough to support it. If you build it they will not come.
The one thing which is most likely to encourage more people to use public transportation is traffic congestion. Today, public transportation is both more time consuming and often still more costly. For example, for me to take the train into the city it would cost $5.50 advanced fare. But I'd still have to drive 10 miles to the nearest station, plus I'd have to pay parking fees at the station (which I think are only $1 / day fortunately). Gas is only around $3/gallon right now; with a fuel efficient car (35 mpg on my Ford), I can get to and from work more than twice on the cost it would take me to take the train one way. Even with wear and tear on the car, I could still certainly say that I'd get one round trip to work for the cost of a one-way train pass. Can't count the cost of the car itself because in the suburbs, having a car is not an option if you want to do things like get groceries or get to the train station; it's purchase cost is a given with or without using current public transportation.
Again, I'm not apologizing for the way it is, I'm just stating how it is. Where I live and where I work, it is both more economical and more convenient to take my own car, and moving to a place that makes public transportation an economic alternative is itself either not economic or dangerous.
So you're right, urban sprawl is a direct result of the inexpense of personal transportation. Whatever the cause, it doesn't change the fact that it still makes the most sense on an individual level to follow suit.
I don't know if that's true (I assume it means traveling from the farthest tip of Norway, around the peninsula), but if you want to take the extreme distances, then you should take the farthest out Aleutian island or at least Barrow Alaska =).
You have almost 4 times the population density with 113.4 people per square kilometer compared to the US's 30.6 (EU pop: 490,426,060, area: 4,324,782 sq km; US pop: 301,139,947, area: 9,826,630 sq km). You are going to have to travel on average around 1/4 the distance, and with 4 times the density, public transportation is substantially more effective, and a much higher and shorter term return on investment for taxpayer money to build the necessary infrastructure.
Thats the average price most pepole pay outside the US, so get used to it and may concider[sic] using your feet/cycle a bit more.
I would if in the US, when living outside of cities, a job that is considered close to home was not 20 miles (32km) away.
I drive 44 miles round trip to my job, and I watched for a job that close to home for 3 years while driving 150 miles round trip. It's either that or move closer to my job and pay twice as much for housing (so far driving the distance and paying for the gas is the more economic alternative) or else move into a high crime neighborhood.
I get the sense that many Europeans don't really grok the scale out here, or more specifically the population density (or lack thereof). The US is something like 2.5x the size of the entire EU, while the EU has like 1.5x the population of the US. You just have way more jobs per square kilometer, and mass transit is a lot more viable for you (there are more routes per capita because of the higher population density). I could take a bus to work, but I'd have drive to the bus stop, and on the other end, I'd have to have a car waiting for me so I could drive the remaining distance. Bus travel time would be 2x-3x as long because it isn't a direct route, and goes some other places I'm not interested in and are out of my way first. Though on nice days I suppose I could carry a bike onto the bus with me.
I guess I'm just lazy, and would rather not spend 4 hours a day commuting to and from work.
Also, at this time of year it's dark when I get to work, and dark when I leave work, so riding a bike is incredibly unsafe (there's not sidewalks unless you're in the city, and I'm not).
I don't really see where that's a problem. You accept thousands of man-hours of work in creating a CMS, and you both want it for free and also don't want to give them back the 15 hours of development you put into customizing it. Your options are to not use AGPL software or accept those terms if the author decides to release it that way.
Your argument basically disagrees with the core values of open source. "I don't want to have to share my changes to an application which was shared freely with me." You do still have a choice, and that is: build it yourself from the ground up or buy a commercial off the shelf solution.
This license has been needed for a long time. Authors of open source web applications could not use the GPL or almost any other open source license, which only grants access to modified source code if the modder distributes it as a compiled binary. Web applications don't work that way, so people unwitting enough to release an open source web app under GPL could discover that GreedyEvilCompany took their hard work, made some changes and started using it for-profit online, without contributing back to the community that created it, and without having any obligation to.
Those of us who were burned by this (I am one) have since switched to other licenses which are not as tailored toward software, such as Creative Commons ones. I use By-NC-SA, which is attribution, non-commercial, share-alike, and I describe in my license preamble that I consider using the site on a publicly accessible server to be "performance" of the work under the Creative Commons. You have to preserve my copyright, you cannot resell my software, and you have to contribute your changes back to the community. Basically the terms are the same which I abide by when I distribute it. I'm not asking anyone to do anything which I don't myself already do, and I think that anyone who has a problem with that system can choose to find another project to play with.
If you're the original author and you're not intending for it to be full open source, then you shouldn't use this license. If you're inheriting this license by using code from another project, then you should respect their wishes and contribute back to them, or else not use their work.
The idea of the authentication system being two devices being shaken together seems like a weak idea. There are plenty of times when multiple devices will undergo the same accelerations as each other, and the owners of the respective devices do not necessarily intend for them to be paired. For example, sit next to someone on a bus.
I'd rather play a game where cheating was designed out of the architecture
And I'd rather use software which doesn't have bugs. So I guess you'll never play any video games and I'll never use any software. Better close my browser!
But seriously, this is fundamentally impossible to do, even more so when it's a network based game. They can't detect speed hacks because they exploit network latency. They can't eliminate the tolerances for network latency or people will only be able to play right in the data center. They can't identify bots from real players because the bots do all the same things that real players do, and as far as the software can tell, their input is received as hardware input. They already encrypt their normal network traffic, the bots just read the encryption keys right out of memory, or read relevant game data right out of memory.
In the end, the ideal design you desire is not possible on today's hardware and without direct fiber lines to WoW's data centers, and without operating systems which protect game memory stacks from other software running on that system. Maybe once Trusted Computing takes away our individual control over our computers, but then the cheaters will just move on to using VMs or something like that.
All change requires some energy (though sometimes you get more energy back than you invested, this is the principle behind fuel). Filling a balloon is a one-time investment (given a perfect balloon that doesn't leak any of the helium). His point is that it doesn't require any energy to maintain. Another example is high orbit satellites. Their only energy expenditure is for maintaining position (which is mostly just to compensate for our inability to place them exactly enough to not drift, but also to allow for solar radiation and miscellaneous space dust altering their position a bit).
We haven't found an easy to maintain force for remaining aloft yet which is also practical for every day use. If we find something like this, all air travel will become substantially less costly from an energy perspective, and quite suddenly flying cars will become very practical. Probably the largest limiting factor then will be establishing flight patterns. Can't exactly paint lines in the air, and if the system which causes the vehicles to remain aloft fails, the consequences are a lot more serious than a car engine failing.
No one would be able to make a case where "unreasonable" failed to be violated by all private data without limit traveling through one of the largest ISP's in the world (and this is only AT&T, what are the other big boys doing?), and not even just the traffic originating from or terminating in this ISP. If reasonable includes all, then there is nothing left which is able to be unreasonable and the Amendment protects nothing: ie, because they bothered to use the word unreasonable, then therefore "all" cannot be reasonable.
This is a problem I have been noticing for other articles as well. The notability requirements have been established in certain arenas, such as Fiction (an ABSURDLY broad topic as everything in the world is either fiction or non-fiction) such that any subject which is not cite substantial third-party sources (primary sources are insufficient, even if there are dozens of them), it is not considered notable.
The policy is absurd; notability and tabloid coverage are not the same thing. Whole genres with massive followings lack any topical tabloids and so do not have an arena in which they can receive such coverage, yet they are enjoyed by tens if not hundreds of thousands of individuals. Further, this coverage needs to describe the historical significance of the subject. Not everything which is notable is necessarily historically significant. Basically anything which is not in the 0.01% of all media which is popular media fails this test, no matter its membership or subscriber base.
I know this is just an attempt at putting a quantitative measure on notability, which is a qualitative matter. But the major problem is that you're putting a quantitative measure on a qualitative property. See what I did there? The basic premise is flawed.
This Notability: Fiction bat has been leveled against well-written articles about current, popular, but not main-stream subjects from art, to computer gaming, to fictional prose. I'll re-assert it, not everything which is notable is necessarily main-stream or historically significant.
I don't think Wikipedia wants to be the lowest common denominator encyclopedia - that is, one which covers only the same subjects as is covered by the popular media, unless it's about a historical or non-fictional subject, but that is exactly where their current policies are taking them.
Of major significance in Wikipedia is specifically that you can find articles on subjects that other publications wouldn't have bothered to cover, but which are nonetheless important and meaningful.
Plus, and this is not really the same subject, there are way too many admins. I just checked, there are almost 1,500 users with SysOp. My coworker gave up on contributing to Wikipedia a few months back when he undid a factual misrepresentation which turns out to have been contributed by an admin, and in retaliation, that admin (he assumes since it was the next day) placed a lengthy ban on his user and network.
There should be a small handful (definitely less than 100) admins. These people should be executing the decisions of committees. Frankly, the typical actions necessary for admin (locking articles, banning users or networks, deleting articles, etc) should be acted on by the software itself after a formal review process. I don't mean a big empty edit box where people who want to contribute have to know the format codes for the type of discussion at hand, but a voting button with defined parameters for what indicates success or failure of the vote, and the software should lock/ban/delete/whatever else admins need privileges to do only after a defined period has elapsed, or a certain threshold of agreeing votes have been reached (such as 20+ votes, 75% of which agree, this facilitates the 'speedy' aspect of things).
Anyway, I digress. Wikipedia is a 200lb gorilla, and it's evident that it's too large for its maintainers to continue to maintain and also give it the level of detail that made it what it is today, the processes which are in place for these things would only work well in a smaller less military (and much much flatter) community.
All this is immaterial, it wasn't an assertion which was core to my point (I'm not sure it was an assertion at all). My point is that there are people who forsake education because they are convinced that they will hit it big in either the lottery, or with a music contract, or with a sports scholarship. For some of these people who demonstrate no natural phenomenal talent in music or sports, the odds are basically zero that they will land a contract.
But anyway: There are many types of lottery, and some of them have chances which are substantially better (but of course the payoff is also substantially lower too). Instant scratch cards, pick 3, pick 4, etc.
You get one shot at the pro's in your life, and pro positions only open a fraction of the total per year since most pro athletes are in their position for numerous years. Ignoring this though, and assuming your figures (which by your own admission also ignore factors like non-US-origin players), something is off in your calculations. 1400 / 301,139,947 = 4.65e-6
Meanwhile you can play the lottery hundreds of times a year. Let's assume that you play only 100 times per year for 10 years. This is a VERY generous assumption for those who are looking at it as an escape; the reality is that some such people will play 20-30 times per DAY, basically every spare dollar they have: as it was described to me by one individual, if they are going to make it work, they have to give it everything they have since it won't matter once they win anyway (note the assumption that they *will* win, and it is only a matter of trying hard enough - at the lottery). You're actually looking at.00629 chance of winning the lottery by your figures (or 6.29e-3). To use real figures, Power Ball, the multi-state lottery in my area which sports the biggest payouts (and hence the worst odds) has a chance of winning of 1 in 146,107,962. That's to say that continuing the same generous assumption as before about the number of plays over a life for people in the demographic I'm describing, this comes out to 6.84e-6, for the best payout for the worst lottery odds of which I am aware.
This is a cultural difference, which is not quite the same as an environmental difference. Schools that are on the outskirts of cities, which have a collection of both upper middle class, and more traditional urban kids end up with a split population. The dichotomy takes the form of a group of kids (and more meaningfully their parents) legitimately interested in the quality of education, and a different group of kids only interested in aspiring for that "lucky break" of getting a rap star, sports star, or lottery winner in the family.
Look in the suburbs of any mid sized city (close enough to bus kids out of the city and also bus kids out of the countryside) and you will see this.
What you're suggesting would require local cultural revolution. Currently that is not realistic for the demographics typically most plagued by under achievers. Those cultures are very protective, and will simply not mingle with people from a different cultural background. You get the occasional family or individual who realizes the downward spiral this represents, and they pull themselves up by the bootstraps to succeed in spite of their surroundings (and certainly this is facilitated by being in a school with decent enough programs to make it possible). However they enter a world where no culture exists for them (without enough like-minded individuals around them to really start a new culture that is close enough to their background to make their childhood friends feel comfortable with the lifestyle), and it is a choice between being an island of themselves or adopting the culture of those closest to their own aspirations (typically other middle classer's).
Believe it or not, I think that a much better solution to education is for there to be a media shift. Stop excessively glamorizing sports and music stars. Fewer people make it big in these arenas than win the lottery (mostly just a guess, but I suspect it is true). Unrealistic life-objectives contributes directly to children and their parents forsaking the core values of education and instead investing all their time and effort into a chosen career path which they very nearly certainly lack probably both the natural skill and social connections to make happen.
(gotta run to work, no time to proofread this, sorry if any of it isn't structured well, spelled wrong, etc)
That wouldn't be a great idea, because the next time Apple bricks unlocked phones with an update, they might specifically target the approach used by that carrier to unlock phones, and might not be willing to unbrick them. Suddenly you'd be officially supporting a phone you don't control which has been purposely sabotaged by those who do control it. That is not a battle you can win.
The very fact that the FBI went to the effort of getting it redacted means that they certainly seem to think it's damning.
There are certainly non-physical means of torture, and threatening someone's family (in this case a very credible threat of rape, torture, and just outright ruining the lives of this guy's entire family) is a big one. It's basically, "Confess to this, or we get your family raped, tortured, and everything they have or ever will have will be destroyed."
People who are able to tolerate physical discomfort used in conventional torture will often crack when it's their loved ones who are threatened.
Aha, I knew there was something more to this than I was seeing. Thanks for the response, I think I understand now.
You're not talking about having another couple over for dinner, you're talking about throwing a royal bash where people are most likely going to get trashed college style. Most people who would have such a party probably don't care that much about the incidental damage that happens with that type of party, so picking one thing out of the hundred bad things which may happen is somewhat silly. However at such a party we're also talking about a larger scale of smoke penetration than a single cigarette.
If they lease, there may be a no smoking clause in their lease.
So you're not quite the completely unreasonable "what I want is what I should get" sort that I first made you out as =)
Still though, I think that you can't meaningfully compare smell to any other sense; like I mentioned before it's the one sense you can't reasonably ignore. Sight you can choose not to look at, or put a throw pillow over that spot or something, so the yellow couch doesn't really hold up. If you find smoke offensive (which many people do), then it's going to be a lingering offense, like someone had graffiti'd something offensive on your wall in ink that would fade over the course of a month or so, and for some reason you had to glance at it every few minutes.
Anyway, I do appreciate the real dialog in this most recent message =)
If by overstate, you mean how long a smoke smell would linger and bother me, then you're wrong, I'm not exaggerating in the least. If you smoke or even spend much time around people who do, then you cannot possibly smell cigarette residue the same as someone who doesn't. My brother in law comes to visit. He's a smoker, but he'll only smoke outside when he comes to visit. Even if the door and windows are closed, I can smell the smoke from inside the house. When he comes back in and sits on furniture, that furniture still smells of smoke two or three days later. This is not even airborne residue, this is 2nd hand smoke->residue->transferred residue.
I never accused you of smoking in the house of someone who requested you not to. I accused you of being so self-centered that you think it's an absurd request without giving any consideration to the fact that any presence on your part there at all is hospitality to begin with, and without giving any consideration to whether they have additional special considerations such as asthma, allergies, or headaches.
If having a negative physiological response to cigarette smoke is uptight, then I suppose I do fit that definition.
Meta packages are there to make it easy to install certain common sets of things. They're not necessary. Removing any member of a meta package removes the meta package also because having a meta package installed makes a statement about the availability of certain software and at certain versions. The presence of a meta package indicates a certain level of vanilla.
It's fine to remove them when upgrading a member package. If you make a number of such things, you an get back to vanilla again by installing the meta packages.
An example of where meta packages are especially beneficial is build-essential. You don't have to install gcc and make and autoconf and blah blah blah, you install build-essential, and all those packages come along for the ride. Later you decide you're done with build-essential, and you uninstall it. Those other packages were installed only to satisfy the dependency and so an autoremove will take them out.
I think he was giddy with the idea that he was worth so much money when he wrote his original post. And I don't think it was probably giddy of the "I'm rich, RICH!!" sort, but of the "My philosophies have been proven true, TRUE!!" sort. I think he wanted to say to the world, look, there is merit in the insane babble I've been preaching over the years. That's the sense I got from the post.
Or set up relay points with different ISP's - buy a rack or a few U's all around the world running nothing but off the shelf proxy software that only proxies for Google's IP addresses.
Sorry, it's for internal applications shared between teams, I don't have a public link to it.
It's basically a series of <xsl:template match="functionname"> or <xsl:template match="functionname[conditional='foo']">, with markup to describe the purpose, arguments, etc of the functions. The "all documentation" XML file is a table of contents and series of dummy calls or responses which the individual documenting xsl:templates then mark up.
Slashdot Mirror
No, population density is not a false argument, it's a statement of fact with necessary implications in a conversation about daily travel in the US. You can't elect to examine only the portion of the population which is most favorable to your argument.
You can make a case for it being a choice to live in suburbia instead of living in the city, but I'll counter that (in fact already did in my original post) with pointing out that it is a choice between substantially higher cost of living or else moving into high crime neighborhoods. Why anyone with the option would choose one of these is beyond me (well, I guess some people want to live in the ritzy neighborhood as a status symbol, certainly this is not an economic decision).
I don't intend to apologize for lack of public transportation infrastructure in the US, and I don't intend to apologize for it making sense to live in the suburbs from both an economic and safety sense, I am asserting these facts: 1) Public transportation is not sufficient to make it a reasonable alternative to personal transportation anywhere but in metropolitan areas, 2) To live in a metropolitan area means making the choice between high cost of living or high crime unless you get very very lucky.
In Philadelphia, SEPTA has been closing down bus and train routes because they cost more to operate than passenger fees and government financial support collectively are able to cover. This of course is a direct side-effect of urban sprawl, and it is a nasty downward spiral. However the solution is not to simply continue money sink transportation efforts, nor is it to build new transportation systems where population density is not high enough to support it. If you build it they will not come.
The one thing which is most likely to encourage more people to use public transportation is traffic congestion. Today, public transportation is both more time consuming and often still more costly. For example, for me to take the train into the city it would cost $5.50 advanced fare. But I'd still have to drive 10 miles to the nearest station, plus I'd have to pay parking fees at the station (which I think are only $1 / day fortunately). Gas is only around $3/gallon right now; with a fuel efficient car (35 mpg on my Ford), I can get to and from work more than twice on the cost it would take me to take the train one way. Even with wear and tear on the car, I could still certainly say that I'd get one round trip to work for the cost of a one-way train pass. Can't count the cost of the car itself because in the suburbs, having a car is not an option if you want to do things like get groceries or get to the train station; it's purchase cost is a given with or without using current public transportation.
Again, I'm not apologizing for the way it is, I'm just stating how it is. Where I live and where I work, it is both more economical and more convenient to take my own car, and moving to a place that makes public transportation an economic alternative is itself either not economic or dangerous.
So you're right, urban sprawl is a direct result of the inexpense of personal transportation. Whatever the cause, it doesn't change the fact that it still makes the most sense on an individual level to follow suit.
I don't know if that's true (I assume it means traveling from the farthest tip of Norway, around the peninsula), but if you want to take the extreme distances, then you should take the farthest out Aleutian island or at least Barrow Alaska =).
You have almost 4 times the population density with 113.4 people per square kilometer compared to the US's 30.6 (EU pop: 490,426,060, area: 4,324,782 sq km; US pop: 301,139,947, area: 9,826,630 sq km). You are going to have to travel on average around 1/4 the distance, and with 4 times the density, public transportation is substantially more effective, and a much higher and shorter term return on investment for taxpayer money to build the necessary infrastructure.
I drive 44 miles round trip to my job, and I watched for a job that close to home for 3 years while driving 150 miles round trip. It's either that or move closer to my job and pay twice as much for housing (so far driving the distance and paying for the gas is the more economic alternative) or else move into a high crime neighborhood.
I get the sense that many Europeans don't really grok the scale out here, or more specifically the population density (or lack thereof). The US is something like 2.5x the size of the entire EU, while the EU has like 1.5x the population of the US. You just have way more jobs per square kilometer, and mass transit is a lot more viable for you (there are more routes per capita because of the higher population density). I could take a bus to work, but I'd have drive to the bus stop, and on the other end, I'd have to have a car waiting for me so I could drive the remaining distance. Bus travel time would be 2x-3x as long because it isn't a direct route, and goes some other places I'm not interested in and are out of my way first. Though on nice days I suppose I could carry a bike onto the bus with me.
I guess I'm just lazy, and would rather not spend 4 hours a day commuting to and from work.
Also, at this time of year it's dark when I get to work, and dark when I leave work, so riding a bike is incredibly unsafe (there's not sidewalks unless you're in the city, and I'm not).
I don't really see where that's a problem. You accept thousands of man-hours of work in creating a CMS, and you both want it for free and also don't want to give them back the 15 hours of development you put into customizing it. Your options are to not use AGPL software or accept those terms if the author decides to release it that way.
Your argument basically disagrees with the core values of open source. "I don't want to have to share my changes to an application which was shared freely with me." You do still have a choice, and that is: build it yourself from the ground up or buy a commercial off the shelf solution.
This license has been needed for a long time. Authors of open source web applications could not use the GPL or almost any other open source license, which only grants access to modified source code if the modder distributes it as a compiled binary. Web applications don't work that way, so people unwitting enough to release an open source web app under GPL could discover that GreedyEvilCompany took their hard work, made some changes and started using it for-profit online, without contributing back to the community that created it, and without having any obligation to.
Those of us who were burned by this (I am one) have since switched to other licenses which are not as tailored toward software, such as Creative Commons ones. I use By-NC-SA, which is attribution, non-commercial, share-alike, and I describe in my license preamble that I consider using the site on a publicly accessible server to be "performance" of the work under the Creative Commons. You have to preserve my copyright, you cannot resell my software, and you have to contribute your changes back to the community. Basically the terms are the same which I abide by when I distribute it. I'm not asking anyone to do anything which I don't myself already do, and I think that anyone who has a problem with that system can choose to find another project to play with.
If you're the original author and you're not intending for it to be full open source, then you shouldn't use this license. If you're inheriting this license by using code from another project, then you should respect their wishes and contribute back to them, or else not use their work.
The idea of the authentication system being two devices being shaken together seems like a weak idea. There are plenty of times when multiple devices will undergo the same accelerations as each other, and the owners of the respective devices do not necessarily intend for them to be paired. For example, sit next to someone on a bus.
But seriously, this is fundamentally impossible to do, even more so when it's a network based game. They can't detect speed hacks because they exploit network latency. They can't eliminate the tolerances for network latency or people will only be able to play right in the data center. They can't identify bots from real players because the bots do all the same things that real players do, and as far as the software can tell, their input is received as hardware input. They already encrypt their normal network traffic, the bots just read the encryption keys right out of memory, or read relevant game data right out of memory.
In the end, the ideal design you desire is not possible on today's hardware and without direct fiber lines to WoW's data centers, and without operating systems which protect game memory stacks from other software running on that system. Maybe once Trusted Computing takes away our individual control over our computers, but then the cheaters will just move on to using VMs or something like that.
All change requires some energy (though sometimes you get more energy back than you invested, this is the principle behind fuel). Filling a balloon is a one-time investment (given a perfect balloon that doesn't leak any of the helium). His point is that it doesn't require any energy to maintain. Another example is high orbit satellites. Their only energy expenditure is for maintaining position (which is mostly just to compensate for our inability to place them exactly enough to not drift, but also to allow for solar radiation and miscellaneous space dust altering their position a bit).
We haven't found an easy to maintain force for remaining aloft yet which is also practical for every day use. If we find something like this, all air travel will become substantially less costly from an energy perspective, and quite suddenly flying cars will become very practical. Probably the largest limiting factor then will be establishing flight patterns. Can't exactly paint lines in the air, and if the system which causes the vehicles to remain aloft fails, the consequences are a lot more serious than a car engine failing.
No one would be able to make a case where "unreasonable" failed to be violated by all private data without limit traveling through one of the largest ISP's in the world (and this is only AT&T, what are the other big boys doing?), and not even just the traffic originating from or terminating in this ISP. If reasonable includes all, then there is nothing left which is able to be unreasonable and the Amendment protects nothing: ie, because they bothered to use the word unreasonable, then therefore "all" cannot be reasonable.
That ought to be good to get her a little one-on-one time the next time she flies with it!
This is a problem I have been noticing for other articles as well. The notability requirements have been established in certain arenas, such as Fiction (an ABSURDLY broad topic as everything in the world is either fiction or non-fiction) such that any subject which is not cite substantial third-party sources (primary sources are insufficient, even if there are dozens of them), it is not considered notable.
The policy is absurd; notability and tabloid coverage are not the same thing. Whole genres with massive followings lack any topical tabloids and so do not have an arena in which they can receive such coverage, yet they are enjoyed by tens if not hundreds of thousands of individuals. Further, this coverage needs to describe the historical significance of the subject. Not everything which is notable is necessarily historically significant. Basically anything which is not in the 0.01% of all media which is popular media fails this test, no matter its membership or subscriber base.
I know this is just an attempt at putting a quantitative measure on notability, which is a qualitative matter. But the major problem is that you're putting a quantitative measure on a qualitative property. See what I did there? The basic premise is flawed.
This Notability: Fiction bat has been leveled against well-written articles about current, popular, but not main-stream subjects from art, to computer gaming, to fictional prose. I'll re-assert it, not everything which is notable is necessarily main-stream or historically significant.
I don't think Wikipedia wants to be the lowest common denominator encyclopedia - that is, one which covers only the same subjects as is covered by the popular media, unless it's about a historical or non-fictional subject, but that is exactly where their current policies are taking them.
Of major significance in Wikipedia is specifically that you can find articles on subjects that other publications wouldn't have bothered to cover, but which are nonetheless important and meaningful.
Plus, and this is not really the same subject, there are way too many admins. I just checked, there are almost 1,500 users with SysOp. My coworker gave up on contributing to Wikipedia a few months back when he undid a factual misrepresentation which turns out to have been contributed by an admin, and in retaliation, that admin (he assumes since it was the next day) placed a lengthy ban on his user and network.
There should be a small handful (definitely less than 100) admins. These people should be executing the decisions of committees. Frankly, the typical actions necessary for admin (locking articles, banning users or networks, deleting articles, etc) should be acted on by the software itself after a formal review process. I don't mean a big empty edit box where people who want to contribute have to know the format codes for the type of discussion at hand, but a voting button with defined parameters for what indicates success or failure of the vote, and the software should lock/ban/delete/whatever else admins need privileges to do only after a defined period has elapsed, or a certain threshold of agreeing votes have been reached (such as 20+ votes, 75% of which agree, this facilitates the 'speedy' aspect of things).
Anyway, I digress. Wikipedia is a 200lb gorilla, and it's evident that it's too large for its maintainers to continue to maintain and also give it the level of detail that made it what it is today, the processes which are in place for these things would only work well in a smaller less military (and much much flatter) community.
All this is immaterial, it wasn't an assertion which was core to my point (I'm not sure it was an assertion at all). My point is that there are people who forsake education because they are convinced that they will hit it big in either the lottery, or with a music contract, or with a sports scholarship. For some of these people who demonstrate no natural phenomenal talent in music or sports, the odds are basically zero that they will land a contract.
.00629 chance of winning the lottery by your figures (or 6.29e-3). To use real figures, Power Ball, the multi-state lottery in my area which sports the biggest payouts (and hence the worst odds) has a chance of winning of 1 in 146,107,962. That's to say that continuing the same generous assumption as before about the number of plays over a life for people in the demographic I'm describing, this comes out to 6.84e-6, for the best payout for the worst lottery odds of which I am aware.
But anyway:
There are many types of lottery, and some of them have chances which are substantially better (but of course the payoff is also substantially lower too). Instant scratch cards, pick 3, pick 4, etc.
You get one shot at the pro's in your life, and pro positions only open a fraction of the total per year since most pro athletes are in their position for numerous years. Ignoring this though, and assuming your figures (which by your own admission also ignore factors like non-US-origin players), something is off in your calculations. 1400 / 301,139,947 = 4.65e-6
Meanwhile you can play the lottery hundreds of times a year. Let's assume that you play only 100 times per year for 10 years. This is a VERY generous assumption for those who are looking at it as an escape; the reality is that some such people will play 20-30 times per DAY, basically every spare dollar they have: as it was described to me by one individual, if they are going to make it work, they have to give it everything they have since it won't matter once they win anyway (note the assumption that they *will* win, and it is only a matter of trying hard enough - at the lottery). You're actually looking at
This is a cultural difference, which is not quite the same as an environmental difference. Schools that are on the outskirts of cities, which have a collection of both upper middle class, and more traditional urban kids end up with a split population. The dichotomy takes the form of a group of kids (and more meaningfully their parents) legitimately interested in the quality of education, and a different group of kids only interested in aspiring for that "lucky break" of getting a rap star, sports star, or lottery winner in the family.
Look in the suburbs of any mid sized city (close enough to bus kids out of the city and also bus kids out of the countryside) and you will see this.
What you're suggesting would require local cultural revolution. Currently that is not realistic for the demographics typically most plagued by under achievers. Those cultures are very protective, and will simply not mingle with people from a different cultural background. You get the occasional family or individual who realizes the downward spiral this represents, and they pull themselves up by the bootstraps to succeed in spite of their surroundings (and certainly this is facilitated by being in a school with decent enough programs to make it possible). However they enter a world where no culture exists for them (without enough like-minded individuals around them to really start a new culture that is close enough to their background to make their childhood friends feel comfortable with the lifestyle), and it is a choice between being an island of themselves or adopting the culture of those closest to their own aspirations (typically other middle classer's).
Believe it or not, I think that a much better solution to education is for there to be a media shift. Stop excessively glamorizing sports and music stars. Fewer people make it big in these arenas than win the lottery (mostly just a guess, but I suspect it is true). Unrealistic life-objectives contributes directly to children and their parents forsaking the core values of education and instead investing all their time and effort into a chosen career path which they very nearly certainly lack probably both the natural skill and social connections to make happen.
(gotta run to work, no time to proofread this, sorry if any of it isn't structured well, spelled wrong, etc)
That wouldn't be a great idea, because the next time Apple bricks unlocked phones with an update, they might specifically target the approach used by that carrier to unlock phones, and might not be willing to unbrick them. Suddenly you'd be officially supporting a phone you don't control which has been purposely sabotaged by those who do control it. That is not a battle you can win.
The very fact that the FBI went to the effort of getting it redacted means that they certainly seem to think it's damning.
There are certainly non-physical means of torture, and threatening someone's family (in this case a very credible threat of rape, torture, and just outright ruining the lives of this guy's entire family) is a big one. It's basically, "Confess to this, or we get your family raped, tortured, and everything they have or ever will have will be destroyed."
People who are able to tolerate physical discomfort used in conventional torture will often crack when it's their loved ones who are threatened.
Aha, I knew there was something more to this than I was seeing. Thanks for the response, I think I understand now.
You're not talking about having another couple over for dinner, you're talking about throwing a royal bash where people are most likely going to get trashed college style. Most people who would have such a party probably don't care that much about the incidental damage that happens with that type of party, so picking one thing out of the hundred bad things which may happen is somewhat silly. However at such a party we're also talking about a larger scale of smoke penetration than a single cigarette.
If they lease, there may be a no smoking clause in their lease.
So you're not quite the completely unreasonable "what I want is what I should get" sort that I first made you out as =)
Still though, I think that you can't meaningfully compare smell to any other sense; like I mentioned before it's the one sense you can't reasonably ignore. Sight you can choose not to look at, or put a throw pillow over that spot or something, so the yellow couch doesn't really hold up. If you find smoke offensive (which many people do), then it's going to be a lingering offense, like someone had graffiti'd something offensive on your wall in ink that would fade over the course of a month or so, and for some reason you had to glance at it every few minutes.
Anyway, I do appreciate the real dialog in this most recent message =)
Hehe, well defended! Look, a distraction! =D
If your friends tolerate it, more power to them.
If by overstate, you mean how long a smoke smell would linger and bother me, then you're wrong, I'm not exaggerating in the least. If you smoke or even spend much time around people who do, then you cannot possibly smell cigarette residue the same as someone who doesn't. My brother in law comes to visit. He's a smoker, but he'll only smoke outside when he comes to visit. Even if the door and windows are closed, I can smell the smoke from inside the house. When he comes back in and sits on furniture, that furniture still smells of smoke two or three days later. This is not even airborne residue, this is 2nd hand smoke->residue->transferred residue.
I never accused you of smoking in the house of someone who requested you not to. I accused you of being so self-centered that you think it's an absurd request without giving any consideration to the fact that any presence on your part there at all is hospitality to begin with, and without giving any consideration to whether they have additional special considerations such as asthma, allergies, or headaches.
If having a negative physiological response to cigarette smoke is uptight, then I suppose I do fit that definition.
Meta packages are there to make it easy to install certain common sets of things. They're not necessary. Removing any member of a meta package removes the meta package also because having a meta package installed makes a statement about the availability of certain software and at certain versions. The presence of a meta package indicates a certain level of vanilla.
It's fine to remove them when upgrading a member package. If you make a number of such things, you an get back to vanilla again by installing the meta packages.
An example of where meta packages are especially beneficial is build-essential. You don't have to install gcc and make and autoconf and blah blah blah, you install build-essential, and all those packages come along for the ride. Later you decide you're done with build-essential, and you uninstall it. Those other packages were installed only to satisfy the dependency and so an autoremove will take them out.
It dropped to $36.74 on the 6-month-versary. For his 150,000 shares that's still a valuation of $5.5 million.
I think he was giddy with the idea that he was worth so much money when he wrote his original post. And I don't think it was probably giddy of the "I'm rich, RICH!!" sort, but of the "My philosophies have been proven true, TRUE!!" sort. I think he wanted to say to the world, look, there is merit in the insane babble I've been preaching over the years. That's the sense I got from the post.
Or set up relay points with different ISP's - buy a rack or a few U's all around the world running nothing but off the shelf proxy software that only proxies for Google's IP addresses.
Or Google Analytics.
Sorry, it's for internal applications shared between teams, I don't have a public link to it.
It's basically a series of <xsl:template match="functionname"> or <xsl:template match="functionname[conditional='foo']">, with markup to describe the purpose, arguments, etc of the functions. The "all documentation" XML file is a table of contents and series of dummy calls or responses which the individual documenting xsl:templates then mark up.