Sec. 35.104. SOFTWARE TO BE INCLUDED WITH SALE OF PERSONAL
2-1 COMPUTER. (a) A person in the business of selling personal
2-2 computers shall provide with each personal computer sold by that
2-3 person software that enables the purchaser of the personal computer
2-4 to automatically block or screen indecent material on the Internet.
2-5 (b) Software provided in compliance with Subsection (a)
2-6 must be compatible with any operating system that is provided by
2-7 the seller to the purchaser of the personal computer at the time of
2-8 purchase. If an operating system is not provided by the seller of
2-9 the personal computer, the software required under Subsection (a)
2-10 must be compatible with at least one operating system that may be
2-11 installed to operate on the computer.
For Windoze, just include any of the existing packages. Now, even the censorware companies don't claim 100% blockage, right? So if they want to insist on 100% automatic blocking, then you'll never sell another computer in Texas. This point is VERY important for the Linux case. Isn't there already a way in Linux to block certian IP's? If not, how hard would it be to write a daemon that dumped anything to or from a list of IP's? I'm not a coder, so I don't know the answer to that question, though I suspect the answer is, not very hard. Simply supply this daemon with a *SHORT* list of IP's, just the obvious porno sites like whitehouse.com, etc. Seems to me like that fullfils the requirement. And you can even point out that people would be able to add sites to block by simply editing the file that has the list of blocked IP's! If TX whines that it doesn't block all porno, simply point out that every vendor of censorware admits that their software doesn't block 100%, either.
Guess who those "big companies" would be that were writing the ATC software. Probably the airlines. Think they might be tempted to give their airplanes the best routes and send the competitors out to sea? Think they might write it to favor faster airplanes and deny service to General Aviation? No thanks, I think I'd rather have a disinterested third party writing the software for ATC.
And you'd lose the benifits of open-source anyways. There's only one "company" that can test the software, and that's the FAA. How many people have their own airspace in which to test out a beta version of Gnu-ATC 0.9? How can you submit bug patches when you can't run the code and use it in a real-world (or simulated real world) environment to see what the bugs are?
Sorry, there are just some things that open source software doesn't make sense for, and this is one of them. A single customer software package requiring highly customized and extremely expensive hardware to run, where a bug in the code can cause the death of close to 1000 people (think runway collision of two 747's) doesn't sound like something that would lend itself to community development.
The credit card company makes, I believe, 3% off every transaction. American Express, I heard, takes 5%. That's why some businesses refuse to take credit cards, or charge extra for credit transactions.
1) My former boss was fond of always telling us that "the graveyards are full of indespensible people". They'll make do without you.
2) The Director (reported to the General Manger, the top dog at that facility) that my former boss' boss reported to told us once that "you have to look out for yourself, the company won't do it, your boss won't do it, and you shouldn't expect your friends or your mama to do it". Did I mention this was a division of a large multi-national multi-product corporation?
Bottom line, you gotta do what's right for you. If your friends can't do what's right for them, then that is sadly their problem. You can give them advice, even point out that the proverbial writing is on the wall, but you should not sacrifice advancing yourself because they failed to take care of themselves. Obviously, you also shouldn't step on them, or intentionaly hamper their ability to advance themselves, but you have to look out for yourself first.
Your comparison is way off. You're talking about interoperability of products that are over 50 years apart in age, whereas the above poster was talking about two products made a couple years apart. All he was looking for was a simple driver to get his joystick to work under (presumably) Win95 instead of having to upgrade to Win98.
Oh, you mean like how my 4 year old (I think, maybe 5) 2/4 gig Ditto Tape Drive WON'T work under Win ME? Would THAT be a valid comparison?
FWIW, I did actualy buy the $50 Win ME upgrade. But I'm ticked my tape drive no longer works.
True, but if they stole your car after you left the windows down and the keys in the ignition then you're still a moron. No, you shouldn't be held accountable for a crime committed with the vehicle. Or should you?
Do it more than once or twice, and you will be held accountable, after a fashion. As in, it will cost you more because your theft insurance (presuming you did insure the car) will go up considerably.
But no, you should not be held legaly accountable for some shmuck stealing your car and running someone down with it, no matter if you left the thing running while you ran into the Stop-n-Go to get a six-pack. Maybe your theft insurance shouldn't pay off in that case.
...and then called the CC company to tell them he found the guy who did this
He called the wrong people. He should have called the office supply store(s?) and informed them. They are the ones from whom the merchandise was essentially stolen. It's up to them to prosecute the thieves.
Yes, I know, the office supply store(s?) had the ship to address, they could have just as easily went there to verify the stuff was there, but they didn't. They probably figured the evidence would be long gone and didn't bother. But since he went to all the trouble to verify that the stolen property was there, he probably should have told the merchant(s?).
...UK fluid ounces are 28.4ml not 29.6ml, and thus weigh almost exactly an ounce, unlike the American ones!
Wow, so they are even able to change the laws of physics in the UK? So a UK fluid ounce of mercury weighs the same ("almost exactly an ounce") as a UK fluid ounce of water? Here in America, a fluid ounce of mercury is much heavier than a fluid ounce of water.
Ok seriously though...I think the best attitude I heard was when I mentioned a friend who was part of what I thought my abe a cult.... "Just because the people who run it may be bad, doesn't make the believers wrong"
If someone believes in something - truely believes in it - then it is a religion for them. Neither you nor anyone else has ANY right to try to stop them from believeing in it or practicing their rituals - whether they be dancing around a fire in the woods or eating stale bread given to them by some weird guy with a stiff collar.
Okay, call me intolerant, but I think you've missed a very important distinction here. IMHO, the "believers" of Jim Jones who poisoned their childeren were WRONG. Not wrong for poisoning themselves, mind you, but wrong for poisoning thier children who had no say, and no understanding of what was happening. If the "believers" want to do thier part to thin out the shallow end of the gene pool by doing themselves in, I'm all for it. But they have no right to do harm to others in the name of practicing the "rituals" of their "religion".
I do agree with your basic premise, though I would add, as long as those "rituals" do no harm to others inside or outside of the "religion".
My daughter had to do her research on my machine at home because she couldn't find enough information on the president she was writing a report on at school.
Just another example of the crummy American school system. John Hancock was never president of the United States. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, but was never president.
Or maybe that's why she couldn't seem to find any information on a President named Hancock. There wasn't one.
'The unhappy truth, the study points out, is not that there are few people available to do IT work, but that once they are hired they are often poorly managed. In addition, many IT jobs are ill-designed and boring, leading many employees to become dissatisfied and leave.'
Okay, and how exactly is this different from every other job in existence? Would you be suprised to find out the people who you precieve to be such poor managers also feel that they are poorly managed by those above them? And that their jobs are ill-designed and boring? I bet a lot of people would also be suprised to find out that if they were to become a manager, the people who work for them will probably consider them to be poor managers.
Mid-level managers are in a bad spot. Know why your manager "doesn't listen" to you? Because his manager doesn't listen to him, so he can't effect any changes. An organization can be no stronger than the person at the top. If the person at the top is a bad manager, you're screwed because his lack of management skills will force all those below him to waste all their time responding to his latest pronoucement of cluelessness.
S**t flows downhill, and it's pretty hard to turn it into flowers halfway down the hill.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were for gun control. It's just that your argument was so easily and clearly extended to gun control I just had to spout off.:)
After re-reading, I can see how you thought my comments were directed at you, however, I had _INTENDED_ for it to be an arguemnet in the wild, extending your argument for Napster.
Again, sorry, I didn't intened to direct my comments at you.
You don't. But in any truly free nation, you are innocent of any crime until you have been proven guilty. Simple use of Napster does not necessarily mean music piracy, so Metallica has no right to ban Napster, thereby punishing innocent people right along with the ones who are actually committing crimes. The US legal system was founded on the now somewhat cliched saying that it is better to let ten guilty people go free than to punish a single innocent person...
Oh, you mean like, say, a gun owner should be left alone until he actually uses the gun to infringe upon the rights of others? Gdon't go out and kill people by themselves, just like Napster doesn't go out and get illegal copies of music by iteslf. And guns have legitimate purposes, such as target shooting and self defense, just like Napster has legitimate uses. So we should punish the law-abiding gun owners in advance but not the law-abiding Napster users?
Simple use of a firearm does not necessarily mean murder, so the government has no right to ban guns, thereby punishing innocent people right along with the ones who are actually committing crimes.
The FTC is supposed to protect the consumer from things like this but I guess alot of money wins again
The FTC hasn't made a recommendation yet, though many people have posted links that they have reservations, and want assurances that the combined company will open its' cable lines to competitors.
The story is about the FCC, who, as others have also pointed out, is almost irrelevant to the issue. The FCC is primarily responsible for allocation of radio spectrum. They have other duties, but protection of consumer interests isn't one of them. That's the (supposed) job of the FTC.
re: 1; yes, and those CD's don't get updated more than about once every 2 years. Some longer than that. Some of those "updates" merely make it run on new hardware. Which I guess they would still classify as an "update"
re: 2; Actually, no. I haven't. But, I've been out of school about 10 years. Maybe things have changed.
re: 3; Yes, but an equal number who specifically said get whatever edition you could. The rest (vast majority) didn't say anything one way or another. The "latest edition" folks tended to be the authors, who were a pretty small minority.
re: 5; Again, a minority. I've had classes where I needed (and still use) all four or five books that were required. And I've had classes with NO book, or where the prof said don't bother. The point is, the website said schools would be REQUIRED to assign at least 3 texts per class, taking the decision away from the prof. I'd say my experiance was MOST classes were 1 book, probably 75% of those were actually needed. I can only remember 1 or 2 classes where there were multiple books and at least one wasn't really needed. I can't remember any class with multiple books where ALL the books were unneeded. Besides, that's what friends are for: Only buy book A and C, don't bother with B. That's only my experiance, about 10 years ago, at a California State campus. YMMV.
re: 6; The only links that work appear to be external web sites. The links on the bottom of the page that appear to be internal links don't work. I admit I didn't click on all of the links, but I should have said internal links.
It's a gut feeling. I admit a lack of evidence. But I'm cynical, and besides, since when is EVIDENCE a requirement to post on/.?:)
I could be wrong here, and I probably am, but the "Vital Source Technologies" website LOOKS like a total hoax. I mean, come on, lets THINK a little instead of immediately going into anti-capitalism knee-jerk.
1) This will create the need for 2 textbooks, the electronic and the dead tree version. Ever hear of community colleges (at least that's what they're called here in California)? Typically, a fair number of people are there because they can't afford state college. If they can't afford state, they probably can't afford fancy computers. Many community colleges offer large computer labs for the students becasue they know the students can't afford computers. Will publishers REALLY want to maintain 2 versions of the same text?
2) I _LOVE_ the part where the publisher will update the content every year as part of the licence agreement. Ever look at the copyrights for some of your books? Ever wonder if some of those guys are still ALIVE? I've studied under professors who have written books (yes,we used their books, but I got lucky, they were pretty good books), and typically, there was at least a five year span between editions. What author is going to want to work hard enough to update his or her material every year?
3) Ever have a professor who seemed to have the book MEMORIZED? They guy hasn't changed his lesson plan in 10 years, and he's retiring in 5 and doesn't want to ever change his lesson plan again. You think professors like this are going to want texts that change EVERY YEAR? NOT!
4) As someone else pointed out, Universities make $$$$$ off used books. I know I typically got less than 1/2 of what I paid for a book that was used in the first place when I sold it back. I don't think the Universities are going to want to give up that revenue stream.
5) But wait, you say, the University will REQUIRE all this due to the larger revenue stream of requiring 3 books per ciriculum. Uhhh, they _COULD_ do this now, with dead tree books. But they don't. Ever seen a university try to force professors to do something? It isn't pretty.
6) None of the links on the bottom of the page work.
I could be wrong. I probably am. But this smells like hoax to me, or (here I go qualifying already) at the most a straw man to gage reaction.
"Hey everyone I've got a million dollars to blow on gas"
Let me ask you this; What's a bigger status symbol, driving an SUV, or being able to afford another car to do most of your driving, while only using the SUV when you need it?
Yeah, I own an SUV, 2WD 1992 Isuzu Rodeo. Been off-road only a couple times, but I didn't buy it to go off-road anyways. My ex-wife was (still is) a horse trainer. Had that thing LOADED with tack many a time going to and from horse shows. Now that my 2nd wife and I own a house, we've used it many times to haul a load from Home Depot or Eagle. Couldn't have done it with my wife's Civic or even my dad's Camery.
Sure, I'd love a car that got better milage for that 95% of the time I don't need the size of the SUV. But we can't afford 3 cars. I live in the people's republic of California, where the registration cost of a car is based on it's selling price (Unlike enlighted states, such as Washington). And insurance is out of sight. So I guess I'm gonna keep driving the SUV, keep getting all of 15 mpg. We'll drive my wife's Civic on weekends when we're not going to Home Depot. I just can't see giving up the SUV, though. I've hauled too much stuff too many times.
What I want to know is why do small aircraft still use leaded gas.
I'm a pilot, not a chemical engineer. That being said, the main reason is, all the enignes are designed to run on leaded fuel. No problem, you say, just design them to run on unleaded. Well, no. First off, you can't just put any old engine into an airplane. You must get FAA certification of said engine at a cost of many tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. The two engine manufacturers who make almost all of the engines used in light airplanes save money by essentialy making small, incremental changes to the engines and reducing the certification burden by claiming similarity. So making a new engine that runs on unleaded is difficult from a certification basis. (this is the same reason aircraft engines use fixed-timing magnetos and electronic spark control is only now barely beginning to be seen. Cessna wanted to use electronic ignition on the new 172, but Lycoming couldn't get approval from the feds.)
Second, one of the more popular engines, the Lycoming O-360, has a 361 cubic inch displacement, and produces (in it's most common variant) 180 horsepower at 2700 rpm. This means a big bore. I'm also told this means a very high octane rating. The most common fuel used is 100LL, (100 octane Low Lead). I'm told you can't get 100 octane out of unleaded fuel. Some smaller engines that will run on 80/87 have been converted for auto gas use, but again, they are designed for leaded fuel. Larger engines can produce in excess of 300 hp, also at 2700 RPM.
Third, these engines must produce power up to about 30,000' in a turbo-charged installation, and up to 20,000' in a non-turbo-charged installation. In some turbo installations, 37"Hg of manifold pressure (or more) is allowed to be used at sea level. Again, I believe that the higher octane disussed previously is needed to produce power up in the rare air. and the higher manifold pressures.
All this being said, there are installations in experimental airplanes using off-the shelf, unleaded fuel buring, Honda car engines, mated to a gearbox, or belt-driven reduction system. The Honda engine doesn't deliver anywhere near peak power at any kind of appropriate RPM. Propellers need to spin fairly slowly (generally less than 3000 rpm for any decent size propeller) to avoid the tips going supersonic. Losses in gearboxes and other reduction systems rob power from the propeller.
Aviation fuel is glorified gasoline, but it has higher quality standards than auto gas. It's refined completely seperately from auto gas. So little avgas is made, it would be horribly expensive to change refineries over, or build new refineries. Some work is also being done with essentially diesel engines. These engines would probably burn jet fuel (glorified kerosene) because it is already being made. No new process. Jet fuel is also safer from an explosion point of view, but it's much harder on your body if it spills on you.
Jet and turbo-prop engine are currently far too expensive to use in small aircraft. And there are operational considerations, as well. Non-turbo-charged piston engines are pretty bullet-proof. Turbines can easily be damanged in starting, and one must pay closer attention to them in operation.
What's the difference between asking a woman out, buying her dinner, paying for a movie, and then going to bed, vs. just handing her the cash up front and jumping directly into bed?
Oh, yeah, that silly taxation thing again. The state gets taxes on the dinner and movie, but the prostitute probably doesn't report her income.
My, My. Aren't we the picture of racial enlightenment? I rather you just say it than use boring, trite euphemisms like this bit. I can't believe that the moderators will let something like this slip, but as soon as some one says something in defense of one of the Truly Taboo Topics, Boom: -2.
Wait, wait. Everyone's jumping on this guy assuming he's a troll. But you've missed 2 possible explanations. Isn't someone's.sig here "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity"??
Possible explanation 1: Maybe "the pot calling the kettle black" is a mostly American/European saying. (I don't know). Since/. is so international, maybe he's never heard the saying before, so he doesn't unnderstand it.
Possible explanation 2: Poor guy is a product of the American educational system and doesn't know that way back in time before aluminum, pots and kettles used to be made of cast iron, and were, well, black.
So, give him a break. Assume he doesn't know that it's a silly saying. Maybe it should be changed to be more modern. Like, oh, I don't know, "There's Clinton calling Beatty a womanizer";)
I was told that way back in the good old days, when computers were huge things that filled entire buildings and had tubes, none other than IBM produced a recording called "IBM Sings".
Seems you could make the tubes "sing" by running certain instruction combinations. Someone figured out how to string the instructions together in the right sequence to get the tubes to play recognizeable songs.
The issue I do want to address, though, is how do we prevent the innocent from stubmling across pr0n *mistakenly*? I don't want a 5 year old in my library, doing legitimate reading or, hell, reading about Pokèmon characters, I don't care, then hitting the wrong link... And don't come back trying to tell me that kind of thing doesn't happen. =)
Uhh, what $#^#$%! is a 5-year old doing, UNSUPERVISED, in a public place?!?!? There's one heck of lot worse things that can happen to an unsupervised 5-year old in a public place than stumbling across porn. Where did the idea that libraries, shopping centers, etc. were good baby-sitters come from? Dammit, if you're going to have kids, show some responsibility!
The question was; how to keep newspapers relevant. MY answer is a vast improvement in QUALITY, UNBIASED reporting.
QUALITY - I can't count how many times I've read a story that I knew at least a little about (I witnessed it, it's an aviation story, etc) and the story has got several key points COMPLETELY wrong. As in, not even close. Aviation, especially crashes, seem to bring out the worst reporting. The newspapers seem to believe they aren't required to have experts in every field to review stories. I think they are. When I read several stories that contain errors that I know about, it sure makes me wonder about the stories I read that I don't know anything about. How much of those stories is right? Going by what I've seen so far, I'd say less than 50%
BIAS - I think we're slowly returing to the days of yellow journalism. Reporters bias shows up in many stories today, be it abortion, gun control, WTO protests, what have you. You can tell 3 paragraphs into the story which side the reporter sympathises with. Opinion belongs in the opinon section. I've heard reporters claim "but we're human, of course we have biases, we can't completly cover up our biases." Funny, these are usually the same reporters who slam cops for not being 100% perfect 100% of the time. And yes, I do believe reporting is as important as policework, so integrity and honesty are just as important. Sure it's tough to set aside your views to write a fair, balanced story, but as mom used to say, if it ain't worth doing well, it ain't worth doing at all. Good reporting keeps a free country free. If noone respects the press, the politicos are free to do as they please, assured that press reports will be disbelieved.
But I agree with several posters who have stated that newspaper is MUCH eaiser to read than a computer screen. True, stories on the net are much more focused, and because I can go to specialty sites (AVWeb, for instance, for aviation information, here for tech information, etc), I have a better feeling about the quality of stories. But a newspaper is much easier to read, I can flip through, scan the headlines, and read a paragraph or two to see if I'm interested. Sure I _COULD_ do this on the net, except that in the time it takes me to retrieve the first story I have interest in, I could have gone through the front page and perused maybe 10 stories. And I find a newspaper to be a much more user-friendly medium.
So _MY_ answer to the question is (1) Hire a panel of experts to act as editors and get the story right; and (2) be aware of, and strive to eliminate bias outside of the opinion section.
{RANTMODE ON - feel free to ignore the rest} Finally, I must really take exception to the statement "Technology [is] perhaps the central social issue of our times - and without a doubt the biggest ongoing story in America and much of the world" EVERYONE has thier own idea of what the biggest issue is, and they don't always agree. I don't think you can OBJECTIVELY declare one issue to be the biggest issue. For me, the biggest issue is the appalling lack of common curtosey, decency, and respect for our fellow human beings that is so prevelant today. Technology has absolutely zero to do with the fact that a large segment of our population (at least out here in Lost Angel-sleeze) doesn't give a rat's pituty about what effect his actions have on the next guy. But I'm sure that other people have just as valid reasons to see other issues as "the most important". I can think of several off the top of my head that _I_ would rate way above technology. The disintegration of the employer/employee social contract; increasing political corruption; trade/immigration barriers (or lack thereof); growing instability in many governments around the globe - all spring to mind. Technology is mostly about toys. Toys are fun, toys AREN'T a social issue. Toys don't matter. (RANTMODE OPF)
If you leave the keys in your car and the car unlocked, and it is used in a bank robbery, then you should certainly expect to be asked some pretty hard questions by the police, who will take some convincing of the genuineness of the theft. If it happens over and over again, you may end up being injuncted by the bank to secure your car, at the very least. If you continued not to secure your car, you could in principle be hit with the bill for the next bank robbery (I doubt this has ever actually happened, but analogous cases certainly have)
Security is a community responsibility, and the law of the land recognises that fact. We have to live in a world of men, not of laws, and to go about your life as if everyone else is law-abiding is an act of stupidity bordering on (occasionally crossing into) culpability.
Who says I have theft insurance on my unlocked, keys in the igition, car? I know plenty of people who only have the minimum insurance required by law (I happen to live in California, where you have to have a minimum of liability insurance, unless you're here illegally anyways, but that's a different rant). And that doesn't include theft insurance. And at least one of them leave the car unlocked with the keys in it all the time. It's a junker he paid mayber $200 for. Why should he pay for theft insurance? And why should the cops suspect him if his car was stolen and used in a robbery? I have only anecdotel evidence (and I can't spell either:( ), but it seems every time I read about a robbery and getaway chase, sure enough, the car is stolen.
It isn't against the law to fail to secure your car. I am aware of the principle of "attractive nucience", but I doubt any ordinary car has ever been declared to be one. I'm not sure I _WANT_ to live in a society where it's against the law to fail to lock your car. Being able to be sued for injury due to an "attractive nucience" that the injured person had to climb a locked, barbed wire fence to get to is insane enough!
Security is not completely a community responsibility. If your neighbor sees someone breaking into your house while you're on vacation, they have a moral, not legal responsibility to call the cops. You can't sue them if they fail to call the cops.
Finally, all of our security can backfire. More than one pundit has put forth that the rise in carjacking is at least partially a result of cars being so hard to steal (due to alarms, kill switches, LoJack), that the criminals have to resort to stealing cars that are already running. I'm not sure I entirely disagree with that train of thought. Do we now sue the makers of alarms and kill switches for precipitating the rise in carjacking?
My point is that I'm tired of blaming the victim, or an innocent (if stupid) bystander for the actions of the criminal. Dammit, the gun didn't make the robber shoot the clerk, the car didn't make the drunk wipe out an entire family (neither did the bottle), and the unprotected computers didn't make the script kiddies launch a DoS attack! The availability of any of these items is inconsequential to their misuse. THE CRIMINALS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIER OWN BEHAVIOR!!
Slashdot Mirror
The requirements are so vague it's laughable;
Sec. 35.104. SOFTWARE TO BE INCLUDED WITH SALE OF PERSONAL2-1 COMPUTER. (a) A person in the business of selling personal
2-2 computers shall provide with each personal computer sold by that
2-3 person software that enables the purchaser of the personal computer
2-4 to automatically block or screen indecent material on the Internet.
2-5 (b) Software provided in compliance with Subsection (a)
2-6 must be compatible with any operating system that is provided by
2-7 the seller to the purchaser of the personal computer at the time of
2-8 purchase. If an operating system is not provided by the seller of
2-9 the personal computer, the software required under Subsection (a)
2-10 must be compatible with at least one operating system that may be
2-11 installed to operate on the computer.
For Windoze, just include any of the existing packages. Now, even the censorware companies don't claim 100% blockage, right? So if they want to insist on 100% automatic blocking, then you'll never sell another computer in Texas. This point is VERY important for the Linux case. Isn't there already a way in Linux to block certian IP's? If not, how hard would it be to write a daemon that dumped anything to or from a list of IP's? I'm not a coder, so I don't know the answer to that question, though I suspect the answer is, not very hard. Simply supply this daemon with a *SHORT* list of IP's, just the obvious porno sites like whitehouse.com, etc. Seems to me like that fullfils the requirement. And you can even point out that people would be able to add sites to block by simply editing the file that has the list of blocked IP's! If TX whines that it doesn't block all porno, simply point out that every vendor of censorware admits that their software doesn't block 100%, either.
Not on your (mine actually) life!
Guess who those "big companies" would be that were writing the ATC software. Probably the airlines. Think they might be tempted to give their airplanes the best routes and send the competitors out to sea? Think they might write it to favor faster airplanes and deny service to General Aviation? No thanks, I think I'd rather have a disinterested third party writing the software for ATC.
And you'd lose the benifits of open-source anyways. There's only one "company" that can test the software, and that's the FAA. How many people have their own airspace in which to test out a beta version of Gnu-ATC 0.9? How can you submit bug patches when you can't run the code and use it in a real-world (or simulated real world) environment to see what the bugs are?
Sorry, there are just some things that open source software doesn't make sense for, and this is one of them. A single customer software package requiring highly customized and extremely expensive hardware to run, where a bug in the code can cause the death of close to 1000 people (think runway collision of two 747's) doesn't sound like something that would lend itself to community development.
The credit card company makes, I believe, 3% off every transaction. American Express, I heard, takes 5%. That's why some businesses refuse to take credit cards, or charge extra for credit transactions.
1) My former boss was fond of always telling us that "the graveyards are full of indespensible people". They'll make do without you.
2) The Director (reported to the General Manger, the top dog at that facility) that my former boss' boss reported to told us once that "you have to look out for yourself, the company won't do it, your boss won't do it, and you shouldn't expect your friends or your mama to do it". Did I mention this was a division of a large multi-national multi-product corporation?
Bottom line, you gotta do what's right for you. If your friends can't do what's right for them, then that is sadly their problem. You can give them advice, even point out that the proverbial writing is on the wall, but you should not sacrifice advancing yourself because they failed to take care of themselves. Obviously, you also shouldn't step on them, or intentionaly hamper their ability to advance themselves, but you have to look out for yourself first.
Your comparison is way off. You're talking about interoperability of products that are over 50 years apart in age, whereas the above poster was talking about two products made a couple years apart. All he was looking for was a simple driver to get his joystick to work under (presumably) Win95 instead of having to upgrade to Win98.
Oh, you mean like how my 4 year old (I think, maybe 5) 2/4 gig Ditto Tape Drive WON'T work under Win ME? Would THAT be a valid comparison?
FWIW, I did actualy buy the $50 Win ME upgrade. But I'm ticked my tape drive no longer works.
True, but if they stole your car after you left the windows down and the keys in the ignition then you're still a moron. No, you shouldn't be held accountable for a crime committed with the vehicle. Or should you?
Do it more than once or twice, and you will be held accountable, after a fashion. As in, it will cost you more because your theft insurance (presuming you did insure the car) will go up considerably.
But no, you should not be held legaly accountable for some shmuck stealing your car and running someone down with it, no matter if you left the thing running while you ran into the Stop-n-Go to get a six-pack. Maybe your theft insurance shouldn't pay off in that case.
...and then called the CC company to tell them he found the guy who did this
He called the wrong people. He should have called the office supply store(s?) and informed them. They are the ones from whom the merchandise was essentially stolen. It's up to them to prosecute the thieves.
Yes, I know, the office supply store(s?) had the ship to address, they could have just as easily went there to verify the stuff was there, but they didn't. They probably figured the evidence would be long gone and didn't bother. But since he went to all the trouble to verify that the stolen property was there, he probably should have told the merchant(s?).
...UK fluid ounces are 28.4ml not 29.6ml, and thus weigh almost exactly an ounce, unlike the American ones!
Wow, so they are even able to change the laws of physics in the UK? So a UK fluid ounce of mercury weighs the same ("almost exactly an ounce") as a UK fluid ounce of water? Here in America, a fluid ounce of mercury is much heavier than a fluid ounce of water.
I'm impressed.
Ok seriously though...I think the best attitude I heard was when I mentioned a friend who was part of what I thought my abe a cult.... "Just because the people who run it may be bad, doesn't make the believers wrong"
If someone believes in something - truely believes in it - then it is a religion for them. Neither you nor anyone else has ANY right to try to stop them from believeing in it or practicing their rituals - whether they be dancing around a fire in the woods or eating stale bread given to them by some weird guy with a stiff collar.
Okay, call me intolerant, but I think you've missed a very important distinction here. IMHO, the "believers" of Jim Jones who poisoned their childeren were WRONG. Not wrong for poisoning themselves, mind you, but wrong for poisoning thier children who had no say, and no understanding of what was happening. If the "believers" want to do thier part to thin out the shallow end of the gene pool by doing themselves in, I'm all for it. But they have no right to do harm to others in the name of practicing the "rituals" of their "religion".
I do agree with your basic premise, though I would add, as long as those "rituals" do no harm to others inside or outside of the "religion".
My daughter had to do her research on my machine at home because she couldn't find enough information on the president she was writing a report on at school.
Just another example of the crummy American school system. John Hancock was never president of the United States. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, but was never president.
Or maybe that's why she couldn't seem to find any information on a President named Hancock. There wasn't one.
'The unhappy truth, the study points out, is not that there are few people available to do IT work, but that once they are hired they are often poorly managed. In addition, many IT jobs are ill-designed and boring, leading many employees to become dissatisfied and leave.'
Okay, and how exactly is this different from every other job in existence? Would you be suprised to find out the people who you precieve to be such poor managers also feel that they are poorly managed by those above them? And that their jobs are ill-designed and boring? I bet a lot of people would also be suprised to find out that if they were to become a manager, the people who work for them will probably consider them to be poor managers.
Mid-level managers are in a bad spot. Know why your manager "doesn't listen" to you? Because his manager doesn't listen to him, so he can't effect any changes. An organization can be no stronger than the person at the top. If the person at the top is a bad manager, you're screwed because his lack of management skills will force all those below him to waste all their time responding to his latest pronoucement of cluelessness.
S**t flows downhill, and it's pretty hard to turn it into flowers halfway down the hill.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were for gun control. It's just that your argument was so easily and clearly extended to gun control I just had to spout off. :)
After re-reading, I can see how you thought my comments were directed at you, however, I had _INTENDED_ for it to be an arguemnet in the wild, extending your argument for Napster.
Again, sorry, I didn't intened to direct my comments at you.
You don't. But in any truly free nation, you are innocent of any crime until you have been proven guilty. Simple use of Napster does not necessarily mean music piracy, so Metallica has no right to ban Napster, thereby punishing innocent people right along with the ones who are actually committing crimes. The US legal system was founded on the now somewhat cliched saying that it is better to let ten guilty people go free than to punish a single innocent person ...
Oh, you mean like, say, a gun owner should be left alone until he actually uses the gun to infringe upon the rights of others? Gdon't go out and kill people by themselves, just like Napster doesn't go out and get illegal copies of music by iteslf. And guns have legitimate purposes, such as target shooting and self defense, just like Napster has legitimate uses. So we should punish the law-abiding gun owners in advance but not the law-abiding Napster users?
Simple use of a firearm does not necessarily mean murder, so the government has no right to ban guns, thereby punishing innocent people right along with the ones who are actually committing crimes.
Sounds right to me.
The FTC is supposed to protect the consumer from things like this but I guess alot of money wins again
The FTC hasn't made a recommendation yet, though many people have posted links that they have reservations, and want assurances that the combined company will open its' cable lines to competitors.
The story is about the FCC, who, as others have also pointed out, is almost irrelevant to the issue. The FCC is primarily responsible for allocation of radio spectrum. They have other duties, but protection of consumer interests isn't one of them. That's the (supposed) job of the FTC.
Clear as mud?
re: 1; yes, and those CD's don't get updated more than about once every 2 years. Some longer than that. Some of those "updates" merely make it run on new hardware. Which I guess they would still classify as an "update"
/.? :)
re: 2; Actually, no. I haven't. But, I've been out of school about 10 years. Maybe things have changed.
re: 3; Yes, but an equal number who specifically said get whatever edition you could. The rest (vast majority) didn't say anything one way or another. The "latest edition" folks tended to be the authors, who were a pretty small minority.
re: 5; Again, a minority. I've had classes where I needed (and still use) all four or five books that were required. And I've had classes with NO book, or where the prof said don't bother. The point is, the website said schools would be REQUIRED to assign at least 3 texts per class, taking the decision away from the prof. I'd say my experiance was MOST classes were 1 book, probably 75% of those were actually needed. I can only remember 1 or 2 classes where there were multiple books and at least one wasn't really needed. I can't remember any class with multiple books where ALL the books were unneeded. Besides, that's what friends are for: Only buy book A and C, don't bother with B. That's only my experiance, about 10 years ago, at a California State campus. YMMV.
re: 6; The only links that work appear to be external web sites. The links on the bottom of the page that appear to be internal links don't work. I admit I didn't click on all of the links, but I should have said internal links.
It's a gut feeling. I admit a lack of evidence. But I'm cynical, and besides, since when is EVIDENCE a requirement to post on
I could be wrong here, and I probably am, but the "Vital Source Technologies" website LOOKS like a total hoax. I mean, come on, lets THINK a little instead of immediately going into anti-capitalism knee-jerk.
1) This will create the need for 2 textbooks, the electronic and the dead tree version. Ever hear of community colleges (at least that's what they're called here in California)? Typically, a fair number of people are there because they can't afford state college. If they can't afford state, they probably can't afford fancy computers. Many community colleges offer large computer labs for the students becasue they know the students can't afford computers. Will publishers REALLY want to maintain 2 versions of the same text?
2) I _LOVE_ the part where the publisher will update the content every year as part of the licence agreement. Ever look at the copyrights for some of your books? Ever wonder if some of those guys are still ALIVE? I've studied under professors who have written books (yes,we used their books, but I got lucky, they were pretty good books), and typically, there was at least a five year span between editions. What author is going to want to work hard enough to update his or her material every year?
3) Ever have a professor who seemed to have the book MEMORIZED? They guy hasn't changed his lesson plan in 10 years, and he's retiring in 5 and doesn't want to ever change his lesson plan again. You think professors like this are going to want texts that change EVERY YEAR? NOT!
4) As someone else pointed out, Universities make $$$$$ off used books. I know I typically got less than 1/2 of what I paid for a book that was used in the first place when I sold it back. I don't think the Universities are going to want to give up that revenue stream.
5) But wait, you say, the University will REQUIRE all this due to the larger revenue stream of requiring 3 books per ciriculum. Uhhh, they _COULD_ do this now, with dead tree books. But they don't. Ever seen a university try to force professors to do something? It isn't pretty.
6) None of the links on the bottom of the page work.
I could be wrong. I probably am. But this smells like hoax to me, or (here I go qualifying already) at the most a straw man to gage reaction.
"Hey everyone I've got a million dollars to blow on gas"
Let me ask you this; What's a bigger status symbol, driving an SUV, or being able to afford another car to do most of your driving, while only using the SUV when you need it?
Yeah, I own an SUV, 2WD 1992 Isuzu Rodeo. Been off-road only a couple times, but I didn't buy it to go off-road anyways. My ex-wife was (still is) a horse trainer. Had that thing LOADED with tack many a time going to and from horse shows. Now that my 2nd wife and I own a house, we've used it many times to haul a load from Home Depot or Eagle. Couldn't have done it with my wife's Civic or even my dad's Camery.
Sure, I'd love a car that got better milage for that 95% of the time I don't need the size of the SUV. But we can't afford 3 cars. I live in the people's republic of California, where the registration cost of a car is based on it's selling price (Unlike enlighted states, such as Washington). And insurance is out of sight. So I guess I'm gonna keep driving the SUV, keep getting all of 15 mpg. We'll drive my wife's Civic on weekends when we're not going to Home Depot. I just can't see giving up the SUV, though. I've hauled too much stuff too many times.
What I want to know is why do small aircraft still use leaded gas.
/.
I'm a pilot, not a chemical engineer. That being said, the main reason is, all the enignes are designed to run on leaded fuel. No problem, you say, just design them to run on unleaded. Well, no. First off, you can't just put any old engine into an airplane. You must get FAA certification of said engine at a cost of many tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. The two engine manufacturers who make almost all of the engines used in light airplanes save money by essentialy making small, incremental changes to the engines and reducing the certification burden by claiming similarity. So making a new engine that runs on unleaded is difficult from a certification basis. (this is the same reason aircraft engines use fixed-timing magnetos and electronic spark control is only now barely beginning to be seen. Cessna wanted to use electronic ignition on the new 172, but Lycoming couldn't get approval from the feds.)
Second, one of the more popular engines, the Lycoming O-360, has a 361 cubic inch displacement, and produces (in it's most common variant) 180 horsepower at 2700 rpm. This means a big bore. I'm also told this means a very high octane rating. The most common fuel used is 100LL, (100 octane Low Lead). I'm told you can't get 100 octane out of unleaded fuel. Some smaller engines that will run on 80/87 have been converted for auto gas use, but again, they are designed for leaded fuel. Larger engines can produce in excess of 300 hp, also at 2700 RPM.
Third, these engines must produce power up to about 30,000' in a turbo-charged installation, and up to 20,000' in a non-turbo-charged installation. In some turbo installations, 37"Hg of manifold pressure (or more) is allowed to be used at sea level. Again, I believe that the higher octane disussed previously is needed to produce power up in the rare air. and the higher manifold pressures.
All this being said, there are installations in experimental airplanes using off-the shelf, unleaded fuel buring, Honda car engines, mated to a gearbox, or belt-driven reduction system. The Honda engine doesn't deliver anywhere near peak power at any kind of appropriate RPM. Propellers need to spin fairly slowly (generally less than 3000 rpm for any decent size propeller) to avoid the tips going supersonic. Losses in gearboxes and other reduction systems rob power from the propeller.
Aviation fuel is glorified gasoline, but it has higher quality standards than auto gas. It's refined completely seperately from auto gas. So little avgas is made, it would be horribly expensive to change refineries over, or build new refineries. Some work is also being done with essentially diesel engines. These engines would probably burn jet fuel (glorified kerosene) because it is already being made. No new process. Jet fuel is also safer from an explosion point of view, but it's much harder on your body if it spills on you.
Jet and turbo-prop engine are currently far too expensive to use in small aircraft. And there are operational considerations, as well. Non-turbo-charged piston engines are pretty bullet-proof. Turbines can easily be damanged in starting, and one must pay closer attention to them in operation.
Finally, a subject I know a little bit about on
Here's another what's the difference;
What's the difference between asking a woman out, buying her dinner, paying for a movie, and then going to bed, vs. just handing her the cash up front and jumping directly into bed?
Oh, yeah, that silly taxation thing again. The state gets taxes on the dinner and movie, but the prostitute probably doesn't report her income.
Now that's the pot calling the kettle black!
.sig here "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity"??
/. is so international, maybe he's never heard the saying before, so he doesn't unnderstand it.
;)
My, My. Aren't we the picture of racial enlightenment? I rather you just say it than use boring, trite euphemisms like this bit. I can't believe that the moderators will let something like this slip, but as soon as some one says something in defense of one of the Truly Taboo Topics, Boom: -2.
Wait, wait. Everyone's jumping on this guy assuming he's a troll. But you've missed 2 possible explanations. Isn't someone's
Possible explanation 1: Maybe "the pot calling the kettle black" is a mostly American/European saying. (I don't know). Since
Possible explanation 2: Poor guy is a product of the American educational system and doesn't know that way back in time before aluminum, pots and kettles used to be made of cast iron, and were, well, black.
So, give him a break. Assume he doesn't know that it's a silly saying. Maybe it should be changed to be more modern. Like, oh, I don't know, "There's Clinton calling Beatty a womanizer"
I was told that way back in the good old days, when computers were huge things that filled entire buildings and had tubes, none other than IBM produced a recording called "IBM Sings".
Seems you could make the tubes "sing" by running certain instruction combinations. Someone figured out how to string the instructions together in the right sequence to get the tubes to play recognizeable songs.
Don't know if it's true or not though....
The issue I do want to address, though, is how do we prevent the innocent from stubmling across pr0n *mistakenly*? I don't want a 5 year old in my library, doing legitimate reading or, hell, reading about Pokèmon characters, I don't care, then hitting the wrong link... And don't come back trying to tell me that kind of thing doesn't happen. =)
Uhh, what $#^#$%! is a 5-year old doing, UNSUPERVISED, in a public place?!?!? There's one heck of lot worse things that can happen to an unsupervised 5-year old in a public place than stumbling across porn. Where did the idea that libraries, shopping centers, etc. were good baby-sitters come from? Dammit, if you're going to have kids, show some responsibility!
The question was; how to keep newspapers relevant. MY answer is a vast improvement in QUALITY, UNBIASED reporting.
QUALITY - I can't count how many times I've read a story that I knew at least a little about (I witnessed it, it's an aviation story, etc) and the story has got several key points COMPLETELY wrong. As in, not even close. Aviation, especially crashes, seem to bring out the worst reporting. The newspapers seem to believe they aren't required to have experts in every field to review stories. I think they are. When I read several stories that contain errors that I know about, it sure makes me wonder about the stories I read that I don't know anything about. How much of those stories is right? Going by what I've seen so far, I'd say less than 50%
BIAS - I think we're slowly returing to the days of yellow journalism. Reporters bias shows up in many stories today, be it abortion, gun control, WTO protests, what have you. You can tell 3 paragraphs into the story which side the reporter sympathises with. Opinion belongs in the opinon section. I've heard reporters claim "but we're human, of course we have biases, we can't completly cover up our biases." Funny, these are usually the same reporters who slam cops for not being 100% perfect 100% of the time. And yes, I do believe reporting is as important as policework, so integrity and honesty are just as important. Sure it's tough to set aside your views to write a fair, balanced story, but as mom used to say, if it ain't worth doing well, it ain't worth doing at all. Good reporting keeps a free country free. If noone respects the press, the politicos are free to do as they please, assured that press reports will be disbelieved.
But I agree with several posters who have stated that newspaper is MUCH eaiser to read than a computer screen. True, stories on the net are much more focused, and because I can go to specialty sites (AVWeb, for instance, for aviation information, here for tech information, etc), I have a better feeling about the quality of stories. But a newspaper is much easier to read, I can flip through, scan the headlines, and read a paragraph or two to see if I'm interested. Sure I _COULD_ do this on the net, except that in the time it takes me to retrieve the first story I have interest in, I could have gone through the front page and perused maybe 10 stories. And I find a newspaper to be a much more user-friendly medium.
So _MY_ answer to the question is (1) Hire a panel of experts to act as editors and get the story right; and (2) be aware of, and strive to eliminate bias outside of the opinion section.
{RANTMODE ON - feel free to ignore the rest}
Finally, I must really take exception to the statement "Technology [is] perhaps the central social issue of our times - and without a doubt the biggest ongoing story in America and much of the world" EVERYONE has thier own idea of what the biggest issue is, and they don't always agree. I don't think you can OBJECTIVELY declare one issue to be the biggest issue. For me, the biggest issue is the appalling lack of common curtosey, decency, and respect for our fellow human beings that is so prevelant today. Technology has absolutely zero to do with the fact that a large segment of our population (at least out here in Lost Angel-sleeze) doesn't give a rat's pituty about what effect his actions have on the next guy. But I'm sure that other people have just as valid reasons to see other issues as "the most important". I can think of several off the top of my head that _I_ would rate way above technology. The disintegration of the employer/employee social contract; increasing political corruption; trade/immigration barriers (or lack thereof); growing instability in many governments around the globe - all spring to mind. Technology is mostly about toys. Toys are fun, toys AREN'T a social issue. Toys don't matter.
(RANTMODE OPF)
The REAL reason people are spending so much time online ....
They're reading Jon Katz postings on Slashdot! It can take up to 5 minutes just to read his posting, let alone all the comments.
And then if you post, you write, hit preview, fix and add stuff, spin, rinse, repeat.
If you leave the keys in your car and the car unlocked, and it is used in a bank robbery, then you should certainly expect to be asked some pretty hard questions by the police, who will take some convincing of the genuineness of the theft. If it happens over and over again, you may end up being injuncted by the bank to secure your car, at the very least. If you continued not to secure your car, you could in principle be hit with the bill for the next bank robbery (I doubt this has ever actually happened, but analogous cases certainly have)
:( ), but it seems every time I read about a robbery and getaway chase, sure enough, the car is stolen.
Security is a community responsibility, and the law of the land recognises that fact. We have to live in a world of men, not of laws, and to go about your life as if everyone else is law-abiding is an act of stupidity bordering on (occasionally crossing into) culpability.
Who says I have theft insurance on my unlocked, keys in the igition, car? I know plenty of people who only have the minimum insurance required by law (I happen to live in California, where you have to have a minimum of liability insurance, unless you're here illegally anyways, but that's a different rant). And that doesn't include theft insurance. And at least one of them leave the car unlocked with the keys in it all the time. It's a junker he paid mayber $200 for. Why should he pay for theft insurance? And why should the cops suspect him if his car was stolen and used in a robbery? I have only anecdotel evidence (and I can't spell either
It isn't against the law to fail to secure your car. I am aware of the principle of "attractive nucience", but I doubt any ordinary car has ever been declared to be one. I'm not sure I _WANT_ to live in a society where it's against the law to fail to lock your car. Being able to be sued for injury due to an "attractive nucience" that the injured person had to climb a locked, barbed wire fence to get to is insane enough!
Security is not completely a community responsibility. If your neighbor sees someone breaking into your house while you're on vacation, they have a moral, not legal responsibility to call the cops. You can't sue them if they fail to call the cops.
Finally, all of our security can backfire. More than one pundit has put forth that the rise in carjacking is at least partially a result of cars being so hard to steal (due to alarms, kill switches, LoJack), that the criminals have to resort to stealing cars that are already running. I'm not sure I entirely disagree with that train of thought. Do we now sue the makers of alarms and kill switches for precipitating the rise in carjacking?
My point is that I'm tired of blaming the victim, or an innocent (if stupid) bystander for the actions of the criminal. Dammit, the gun didn't make the robber shoot the clerk, the car didn't make the drunk wipe out an entire family (neither did the bottle), and the unprotected computers didn't make the script kiddies launch a DoS attack! The availability of any of these items is inconsequential to their misuse. THE CRIMINALS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIER OWN BEHAVIOR!!
'nuff said.