Never, ever, ever post a link to a "low-traffic mailing list with some very well thought out posts" unless you want it to quickly become a troll haven.
If only they provided links to all the other blogs killed by the/. troll troopers.
My intention was for "it supports" to mean "further bolsters" or "more strongly helps" or something like that. I was trying to say that it would make the present situation worse - make it easier for these people to keep power.
Its my belief that 100% voting would either have no effect or a rather negative effect. If someone can't be bothered to vote, I assume that they must not care about the issues all that much. Therefore, I don't see how legally forcing them to vote will improve things.
As with any voting system, we want people who agree with us to vote, and we want those who don't agree to lose. Now how can we encourage this? The Democrats famously solved this by trucking senior citizens and other welfare recipients to the polling offices. I counter that I want them to stay home and not be so easily manipulated.
The Republicans are pulling another set of stunts. For them, I hope another "Watergate" scandal will erupt to force out the ugly details of senior policy makers. I believe that the politicians in both parties are deceiving the voting public; getting elected on one "platform" but always serving another.
Why do people waste so much energy trying to get children to learn what happened decades ago (or even centuries and millenia)?
1.) To let them avoid repeating the same old mistakes. 2.) To bias their perspective on the future.
Voting should not be an object lesson for school children. The restriction of voting rights to those over 18 was intended to help prevent peer-pressure-voting. (In a way similar to statutory rape is supposed to prevent the exploitation of minors.)
Why do I not support mandatory voting? Because "the unwashed masses" usually act on a deficit of information. If you haven't taken the time to research the issues/politicians, you shouldn't be voting. At best, an uneducated vote adds noise to the system. At worst, it supports the charismatic charlatans who own our political system today. (Side note: having reasons to lean one side or the other counts as slight education; just make sure your representative doesn't take advantage of you as mine seems to be doing.)
Take a look at the sharp difference in politicians and their image across some cultural changes... pre/post-railroad, pre/post-radio, and pre/post TV
In all three, reputation and character were valued more highly before the change; campaigning and appearance were valued more highly after.
I can only hope that the Internet, with its wider availability of information, can do something to reverse this trend.
You ask why the government shouldn't have access to this info. I ask why they should.
When designing a secure system, you try to minimize priviledges - if someone doesn't need access, then it is denied to them.
Likewise we need to be ever vigilant in protecting our freedom. If someone (e.g. the government) doesn't need knowledge or power, then we shouldn't let them have it.
In your example, you mention that the government now can decide when someone has exceed their financial limits. Why is that a good thing? Let the lenders sort it out and take the hit if a borrower defaults.
The more information others have about you, the more subtly they can manipulate you. Detailed information is usually used to take advantage of someone. That's why stalking is illegal in many countries. You'd find it creepy if your neighbor knew this information; why doesn't it bother you that hundreds of government beaurocrats know this for an entire country?
For every $1 a employee gets paid, a company has to shell out at least $2. Where does this money go?
Employee benefits take a huge chunk out of your paycheck - health insurance and the like aren't free - the company has to pay for them. Also, every dollar you pay in taxes is matched by the company - not in some "matching program", but simply in Social Security, unemployment benefits, and other federal taxes.
Then, after all that is said and done, the company gets around to renting/buying office space, buying support hardware, software, and books, shipping developers to conventions, hiring support staff...
Re:Keep your original goals and objectives in mind
on
Funding Open Source?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
3.) bandwidth 4.) domain names 5.) server hardware
For some people, $50+ per month can be quite a pinch.
Frequently, the need for money comes when some developer has a financial crunch and is faced with the need to work more paid hours. He can either resign from the project or ask for money.
Another common case is that the user and developer base grows and bottlenecks appear. Examples include mailing list moderation, design lead, and software repository moderation. Sometimes, these bottlenecks require someone to commit a significant chunk of time to the project. When this happens, the developers as a whole fish around for both money and someone gullible enough to drop their real job and work on the project full time.
In the end, its a developer's dream to nurture his project that leads to the desire to let it grow and the consequent need for more funding.
One caveat (on my machine at least) is that video acceleration only works for the first X session. Which really means, "start the games on:0, run the desktop on:1+"
This is due to the way my DRI drivers (dri.sf.net) work.
Umm... I hate giving my info to a trusted site when buying computer hardware at a good rate. Imagine all the kids whose parents aren't about to let them give credit card info to some random website just to get a comic.
You over simplified. As he said, static bindings are both a blessing and a curse.
For example: Oops, sorry. Mozilla on Linux is now being compiled with gcc3.2 so you'll have to get the source and recompile to run on that older (gcc2) system... Also, your old plugins will need to be recompiled before you can use them with Mozilla on the new system - if you can find the source.
Compare and contrast: Java - install the compatibility VM; use the same binary on all platforms C - no VM; compile and distribute different binaries for each platform
As the number of platforms increases [3+ Windows code bases (9x, NT, newer), 3+ Mac bases (system...X, with or without Altivec), N *nix bases (Sun, HP, IBM, Linux*M, BSD*3)*(2+ GCC versions) = well over 10 popular platforms], you either have to manage binary chaos or you have to start distributing your code as source.
But wait! Distributing code as source requires the end user to install the compiler, and this (setting up environment variables, binary compatibility, support libraries,...) is usually harder than installing Java.
So, we're back to square 1. Lose a turn; don't pass "Go".
I can't believe others haven't been jumping all over this...
Instead of squandering untold fortunes to keep launching outdated technology, why don't we take a time-out, spend half that money on R&D for a new generation of space tech, and spend the other half to pay down our national debt/dole out benefits to the people...
I thought/.'ers wanted people to _live_ in space, not just visit occasionally. The current space program just doesn't have this in their sights. The space station is a step forward, but it does nothing to remedy the central problem of no gravity.
Where are the rotating space stations which replace gravity with centrifugal force? Where is any innovation is overall space station design? Where are new shuttle designs? They're all waiting for money which is being spent on the old tech.
I feel like we're still running DOS 5 and implementing 64-bit math in software because it would just cost too much to redesign from scratch.
Engineers and programmers unite! Its (past) time to refactor the space program.
Unless its just a cosmetic break, the astronauts probably can't do much about it. Consider: 20 man-hours/week for science. Several experiments. One breaks. What do you do? Waste a whole week fixing one lousy experiment, or collect data from the ones which work.
Your call.
I doubt they ship spare parts (pricey, and taking up precious cargo space), in case "one of the components is non-functional"...
Imagine watching Matrix Reloaded without the cheesy love scenes. Imagine a sort of "Cliff's movie notes" that helps those of us without gobs of free time to auto-skip the weak parts of any movie.
Some people are just selective about their sex and violence. Don't falsely accuse Christians of being anti-sex/violence; they just believe it should be on a less glorified, more personal level.
Case in point: find a Christian with a big family or who is an NRA member...
Actually, it shouldn't be too hard and would be a neat exploit to show off...
Of course, you'd need to write an automated client, but that's where the fame comes from.
Since free email accounts are _free_, signing up for a thousand (~5 Gigs of space) doesn't cost anything. Since the only mail which belongs in these accounts is mail which you sent, removing spam would be easy. As for an account going down, use a RAID-style redundancy pattern to allow easy recovery. Splitting large files into smaller ones and md5'ing them are easily obtained functions.
The only hard thing I forsee is making sure the hosts dont (a) shut down your accounts, (b) filter your messages as being spam, and (c) get very pissed at you.
Ahh... That's the job of another branch of the gov't -- you know, the one where they slam you for insider trading and whatnot. They can void transactions and punish you for anything you did within ~9 months _before_ filing for bankruptcy.
As usual, stockholders and employees will be the ones holding the toilet paper (stocks and pink slips), but the CEO and board of directors may be criminally liable, depending on how clean they keep themselves. For them, dirty things include selling/buying large amounts of stock, friends and relatives doing the same, authorizing bogus press releases, drastically changing the business plan without shareholder approval,...
In the end, the lawyers gorge on the ensuing feeding frenzy.
(male PBS announcer in calm voice) "When the waters are bloodied, sharks become one of nature's fiercest creatures, ravenously..."
Umm no. Cookies were never meant to be part of a secure layer. They are transmitted in plaintext over non-secure layers (e.g. http). Therefore the damage is done before your browser even saves the cookies to the hard drive.
Why not encrypt them anyway? So the user can readily verify what the cookes are storing. So the user can see where they are from, and delete cookies he doesn't like.
Encrypting cookies on the hard drive would simply treat one symptom without addressing the problem
Disclaimer: I'm an electrical engineer, not an aero engineer.
However, living in Wichita at the time, I knew several of the aero engineers who were working on the project. Without exception, they said the plane was horribly flawed - before it was even finished.
Sure, the engines may have been part of the problem, but they were a small part. The main problem was the whole design. Putting the engines _behind_ the plane on the wings where they did subjected the props to large amounts of turbulence. The engineers had to redesign the fuselage and wings to work around this problem, but it was still less efficient than a "traditional" design.
Also, the engines were on each side of the cabin - where the "big whigs" sit. Engines are noisy, so they had to put large amounts of sound-deadening material in the cabin... which adds weight... which drags the plane down... which again makes it less efficient.
As for overpriced, the Starship was the first big commercial plane to have the fuselage made out of one big piece of composite material - as Burt specified. Developing this technology and constructing a massive kiln caused several of the major expenses in the project. This expense was due to the design, not poor cost control.
I'll just sum it up again, the aero engineers hated the plane when they first saw it. The only people who believed in it were managers and other big shots who didn't have experience in the industry.
Burt Rutan designed an airplane for Beech Aircraft (now Raytheon) a few years back - the Starship.
It too looked futuristic, like nothing else. It was a disaster. Overpriced, noisy, slow, fuel hog... Only like 60 were ever built, half of them never sold, and most of the rest were quickly returned. If you walk around the plant airport, you can find them hidden in clusters of 3 (so it doesn't look as bad as a boneyard of 50;).
Burt made off with a small fortune before the failure became apparent.
Rutan's brother was involved in several failed balloon-around-the-world attempts.
Considering their past "successes", I expect this project to be "pretty" but totally unsuccessful. Good looks don't outweigh good physics.
Slashdot Mirror
Its elegant.
Our space program needs a big KISS logo.
Yeah, but decimal 132 or 891 tends to offend people, depending on how you define your states.
:P
Hint:
132 = 00100 00100
891 = 11011 11011
Besides, nearly half the states are uncomfortable for most people.
True geeks rely on their HP calc for math; manual calculation is for nerds.
You're new here, aren't you?
/. troll troopers.
Never, ever, ever post a link to a "low-traffic mailing list with some very well thought out posts" unless you want it to quickly become a troll haven.
If only they provided links to all the other blogs killed by the
The author quoted you in his story.
Lol. Good catch.
My intention was for "it supports" to mean "further bolsters" or "more strongly helps" or something like that. I was trying to say that it would make the present situation worse - make it easier for these people to keep power.
Its my belief that 100% voting would either have no effect or a rather negative effect. If someone can't be bothered to vote, I assume that they must not care about the issues all that much. Therefore, I don't see how legally forcing them to vote will improve things.
As with any voting system, we want people who agree with us to vote, and we want those who don't agree to lose. Now how can we encourage this? The Democrats famously solved this by trucking senior citizens and other welfare recipients to the polling offices. I counter that I want them to stay home and not be so easily manipulated.
The Republicans are pulling another set of stunts. For them, I hope another "Watergate" scandal will erupt to force out the ugly details of senior policy makers. I believe that the politicians in both parties are deceiving the voting public; getting elected on one "platform" but always serving another.
Why do people waste so much energy trying to get children to learn what happened decades ago (or even centuries and millenia)?
1.) To let them avoid repeating the same old mistakes.
2.) To bias their perspective on the future.
Voting should not be an object lesson for school children. The restriction of voting rights to those over 18 was intended to help prevent peer-pressure-voting. (In a way similar to statutory rape is supposed to prevent the exploitation of minors.)
Why do I not support mandatory voting? Because "the unwashed masses" usually act on a deficit of information. If you haven't taken the time to research the issues/politicians, you shouldn't be voting. At best, an uneducated vote adds noise to the system. At worst, it supports the charismatic charlatans who own our political system today. (Side note: having reasons to lean one side or the other counts as slight education; just make sure your representative doesn't take advantage of you as mine seems to be doing.)
Take a look at the sharp difference in politicians and their image across some cultural changes...
pre/post-railroad, pre/post-radio, and pre/post TV
In all three, reputation and character were valued more highly before the change; campaigning and appearance were valued more highly after.
I can only hope that the Internet, with its wider availability of information, can do something to reverse this trend.
Please.
You ask why the government shouldn't have access to this info. I ask why they should.
When designing a secure system, you try to minimize priviledges - if someone doesn't need access, then it is denied to them.
Likewise we need to be ever vigilant in protecting our freedom. If someone (e.g. the government) doesn't need knowledge or power, then we shouldn't let them have it.
In your example, you mention that the government now can decide when someone has exceed their financial limits. Why is that a good thing? Let the lenders sort it out and take the hit if a borrower defaults.
The more information others have about you, the more subtly they can manipulate you. Detailed information is usually used to take advantage of someone. That's why stalking is illegal in many countries. You'd find it creepy if your neighbor knew this information; why doesn't it bother you that hundreds of government beaurocrats know this for an entire country?
For every $1 a employee gets paid, a company has to shell out at least $2. Where does this money go?
Employee benefits take a huge chunk out of your paycheck - health insurance and the like aren't free - the company has to pay for them. Also, every dollar you pay in taxes is matched by the company - not in some "matching program", but simply in Social Security, unemployment benefits, and other federal taxes.
Then, after all that is said and done, the company gets around to renting/buying office space, buying support hardware, software, and books, shipping developers to conventions, hiring support staff...
3.) bandwidth
4.) domain names
5.) server hardware
For some people, $50+ per month can be quite a pinch.
Frequently, the need for money comes when some developer has a financial crunch and is faced with the need to work more paid hours. He can either resign from the project or ask for money.
Another common case is that the user and developer base grows and bottlenecks appear. Examples include mailing list moderation, design lead, and software repository moderation. Sometimes, these bottlenecks require someone to commit a significant chunk of time to the project. When this happens, the developers as a whole fish around for both money and someone gullible enough to drop their real job and work on the project full time.
In the end, its a developer's dream to nurture his project that leads to the desire to let it grow and the consequent need for more funding.
One caveat (on my machine at least) is that video acceleration only works for the first X session. Which really means, "start the games on :0, run the desktop on :1+"
This is due to the way my DRI drivers (dri.sf.net) work.
Slackware 9.0 works out of the box - no config changes needed for the VC's past 7.
:1 brings X up on VC8...
All I do is login to console 2, and startx
Ummm... that makes little to no sense.
Case 1) the photons reflect off the craft, you see a color shift.
Case 2) the photons pass by the craft untouched, you still see a color shift.
Now why is the color shift due to a change in energy? Where did you get your explanation from?
Umm... I hate giving my info to a trusted site when buying computer hardware at a good rate. Imagine all the kids whose parents aren't about to let them give credit card info to some random website just to get a comic.
You over simplified. As he said, static bindings are both a blessing and a curse.
...X, with or without Altivec), N *nix bases (Sun, HP, IBM, Linux*M, BSD*3)*(2+ GCC versions) = well over 10 popular platforms], you either have to manage binary chaos or you have to start distributing your code as source.
...) is usually harder than installing Java.
For example: Oops, sorry. Mozilla on Linux is now being compiled with gcc3.2 so you'll have to get the source and recompile to run on that older (gcc2) system... Also, your old plugins will need to be recompiled before you can use them with Mozilla on the new system - if you can find the source.
Compare and contrast:
Java - install the compatibility VM; use the same binary on all platforms
C - no VM; compile and distribute different binaries for each platform
As the number of platforms increases [3+ Windows code bases (9x, NT, newer), 3+ Mac bases (system
But wait! Distributing code as source requires the end user to install the compiler, and this (setting up environment variables, binary compatibility, support libraries,
So, we're back to square 1.
Lose a turn; don't pass "Go".
0x110 0x157 0x167 0x144 0x171 0x041
I can't believe others haven't been jumping all over this...
/.'ers wanted people to _live_ in space, not just visit occasionally. The current space program just doesn't have this in their sights. The space station is a step forward, but it does nothing to remedy the central problem of no gravity.
Instead of squandering untold fortunes to keep launching outdated technology, why don't we take a time-out, spend half that money on R&D for a new generation of space tech, and spend the other half to pay down our national debt/dole out benefits to the people...
I thought
Where are the rotating space stations which replace gravity with centrifugal force? Where is any innovation is overall space station design? Where are new shuttle designs? They're all waiting for money which is being spent on the old tech.
I feel like we're still running DOS 5 and implementing 64-bit math in software because it would just cost too much to redesign from scratch.
Engineers and programmers unite! Its (past) time to refactor the space program.
Unless its just a cosmetic break, the astronauts probably can't do much about it. Consider: 20 man-hours/week for science. Several experiments. One breaks. What do you do? Waste a whole week fixing one lousy experiment, or collect data from the ones which work.
Your call.
I doubt they ship spare parts (pricey, and taking up precious cargo space), in case "one of the components is non-functional"...
Imagine watching Matrix Reloaded without the cheesy love scenes. Imagine a sort of "Cliff's movie notes" that helps those of us without gobs of free time to auto-skip the weak parts of any movie.
Some people are just selective about their sex and violence. Don't falsely accuse Christians of being anti-sex/violence; they just believe it should be on a less glorified, more personal level.
Case in point: find a Christian with a big family or who is an NRA member...
Actually, it shouldn't be too hard and would be a neat exploit to show off...
Of course, you'd need to write an automated client, but that's where the fame comes from.
Since free email accounts are _free_, signing up for a thousand (~5 Gigs of space) doesn't cost anything. Since the only mail which belongs in these accounts is mail which you sent, removing spam would be easy. As for an account going down, use a RAID-style redundancy pattern to allow easy recovery. Splitting large files into smaller ones and md5'ing them are easily obtained functions.
The only hard thing I forsee is making sure the hosts dont (a) shut down your accounts, (b) filter your messages as being spam, and (c) get very pissed at you.
Viability is not the point - bragging rights are.
Ahh...
...
..."
That's the job of another branch of the gov't -- you know, the one where they slam you for insider trading and whatnot. They can void transactions and punish you for anything you did within ~9 months _before_ filing for bankruptcy.
As usual, stockholders and employees will be the ones holding the toilet paper (stocks and pink slips), but the CEO and board of directors may be criminally liable, depending on how clean they keep themselves. For them, dirty things include selling/buying large amounts of stock, friends and relatives doing the same, authorizing bogus press releases, drastically changing the business plan without shareholder approval,
In the end, the lawyers gorge on the ensuing feeding frenzy.
(male PBS announcer in calm voice) "When the waters are bloodied, sharks become one of nature's fiercest creatures, ravenously
Final breakdown.
Video: Microsoft MPEG-4 Video Codec V3
Audio: Voxware MetaSound ACS96V2 96.1 kbps, 44 kHz, Stereo
Actually, it appears to be "MP43 - Microsoft MPEG-4 V3"... whatever that is.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm going to have to track the codec down myself. And I've got Windows Media Player 9 running on WinXP.
Umm no. Cookies were never meant to be part of a secure layer. They are transmitted in plaintext over non-secure layers (e.g. http). Therefore the damage is done before your browser even saves the cookies to the hard drive.
Why not encrypt them anyway? So the user can readily verify what the cookes are storing. So the user can see where they are from, and delete cookies he doesn't like.
Encrypting cookies on the hard drive would simply treat one symptom without addressing the problem
Disclaimer: I'm an electrical engineer, not an aero engineer.
However, living in Wichita at the time, I knew several of the aero engineers who were working on the project. Without exception, they said the plane was horribly flawed - before it was even finished.
Sure, the engines may have been part of the problem, but they were a small part. The main problem was the whole design. Putting the engines _behind_ the plane on the wings where they did subjected the props to large amounts of turbulence. The engineers had to redesign the fuselage and wings to work around this problem, but it was still less efficient than a "traditional" design.
Also, the engines were on each side of the cabin - where the "big whigs" sit. Engines are noisy, so they had to put large amounts of sound-deadening material in the cabin... which adds weight... which drags the plane down... which again makes it less efficient.
As for overpriced, the Starship was the first big commercial plane to have the fuselage made out of one big piece of composite material - as Burt specified. Developing this technology and constructing a massive kiln caused several of the major expenses in the project. This expense was due to the design, not poor cost control.
I'll just sum it up again, the aero engineers hated the plane when they first saw it. The only people who believed in it were managers and other big shots who didn't have experience in the industry.
Burt Rutan designed an airplane for Beech Aircraft (now Raytheon) a few years back - the Starship.
;).
It too looked futuristic, like nothing else.
It was a disaster. Overpriced, noisy, slow, fuel hog...
Only like 60 were ever built, half of them never sold, and most of the rest were quickly returned. If you walk around the plant airport, you can find them hidden in clusters of 3 (so it doesn't look as bad as a boneyard of 50
Burt made off with a small fortune before the failure became apparent.
Rutan's brother was involved in several failed balloon-around-the-world attempts.
Considering their past "successes", I expect this project to be "pretty" but totally unsuccessful. Good looks don't outweigh good physics.