Does your car have a full-on thermostat in it? If so, count yourself lucky.
Most vehicles have a "blow air that is this hot or cold" lever or knob, which most people will set to one extreme or the other, in order to quickly adjust the temperature in the vehicle. This needs to be adjusted again, at some point, to prevent the temperature from getting uncomfortably high or low.
I know where my radio buttons are. They are real, tactile buttons, as big as my finger. I can use them without looking. Same goes for the comfort controls, windows, sunroof, headlights, turn signals, horn, hazard lights, defroster, interior lighting, and wipers. They were designed to be used without being looked at; that's why they can be used while driving.
I try not to read billboards, while driving, or as a passenger. If your product is that great, I'll find out about it through some other means. If I find out about it from a billboard, I'm probably not buying it; I'd rather have the trees that were there.
As for finding routes, I prefer to know where I'm going before I try to get there. Pull over and use your routing app. Once you have a route set, place the navigation device back on the windshield or dash mount, where you can see it and see where you are going, and follow your route.
If you're tapping buttons on your GPS while driving, I hope you drive off a cliff.
Honestly, make a valid argument.
No, if they have to look away from the road while doing something, sane people won't do it while driving.
That's the exact reason I chose a blackberry over the iPhone; tactile buttons. I can find the center mark on the 5 button, know where my finger is, and dial, without taking my eyes off the road; when hooked up to my radio, it acts as a speakerphone.
Hell, if I get a text, I can look at it while stopped at a light, and type my response, without looking at it, while driving; thanks, tactile keyboard, for giving me this ability. It's mounted where it can be glanced at for GPS use and acts as a music player, as well, with one-touch controls to change songs without looking.
If I'm parked somewhere, waiting for someone or something, I even have a few full-length feature films on the SD card that I can watch while waiting. While parked, never on the road.
People love touch screens. I don't know why. They get dirty, are always smeared with fingerprints, and can't be used without being looked at. Tactile, physical buttons are the way to go for interfaces, with very, very few, specialized exceptions. Add some common sense to a device with real buttons and we don't have these problems.
What, exactly, do they do, that is easier than sliding a latch, sliding out the old battery, and sliding the new one in? That's how every laptop I've ever had was set up.
It's about time, really, that MS quit saying "We don't want people running Linux" and started saying "If they're gonna run it, we want them running it on top of Windows".
You'd be amazed how many times I've spoken the truth on Slashdot and been modded troll.
Two bits of advice for you:
Never, ever pay your Comcast bill less than 2 days before the due date. This includes in-office cash payments. They will disconnect you for late payment and require a deposit and prepayment of service in order to reconnect, even when you show them the receipt for your on time cash payment
If you've failed at the above point and are on a prepayment account: when you are moving and need to disconnect service, call the day you make payment for your final month of service and tell them, right then, that you need to cancel service at the end of the billing period. If you do not do this, they will send the refund check to your prior service address, rather than to the billing address they ask you for when you tell them you are moving. They will sit on the check for 30 days before mailing it, then require another 30 days to pass before they are able to reissue that check and send it to the correct address. This happened to me, when I moved from MI to OH. This happened to my mother when she moved from MI to OH. This happened to the owner of my web host when he moved from city to city in MI. This is SOP for them.
That said, forgiving the fallout that happened during the 3 months after the @home network transition, my experience with Comcast actually wasn't that bad. I certainly prefer Cox, my current provider, despite the fact that people mock me every time I say so.
You fail basic logic. You can't read what you respond to or answer simple questions. You instead want to accuse others of not comprehending things.
Let's see... You claim:
You don't understand the profit motive and the fact that it exists regardless of laws.
I said:
It's not that they continuously want more, it's that they want it all. Once they have it, they can stop.
Where do I claim that this is legislated?
You claim:
You still fail to recognize the existence of environmental laws and regulations and professional licensing even after it has been pointed out.
I said:
It's my personal goal to take at least semi-decent care of the environment, and I'm certain that corporate board members share similar goals; corporations, however, do not, which is why they're legally required to do so.
I don't see where professional licensing comes into the conversation, so you might have caught me missing something there. Mind helping me out with that one?
You claim:
You are ignorant of the fact that the Federal Reserve is a corporation legally obligated to ensure full employment.
I said:
Hell, no company out there right now wants to provide full employment.
There was no mention of whether or not they are legally required to, and I never argued that they are not. In fact, I said:
Yes, other laws govern corporations
Which leaves the door open for the possibility that they are. I never argued one way or the other; you made the argument that they were required to, I never refuted it. Silent agreement. The portion of your argument that I took issue with was you saying it was a goal.
You claim:
And you are somehow convinced that US corporations might be able to completely automate their workforces in contravention to the mandate of the US central bank.
I said:
Every corporation out there would be more than happy to replace their entire workforce with machines, bleed us dry of what little cash we have left, and let us wither away. Then, they'd have a relatively small number of bodies (the other corporations) to bleed money from.
The keyword here is "would". I highlighted it, for your convenience. I never said they could; I never insinuated at the possibility. I merely mentioned that they would if they could.
And, as for this remark:
You are a complete, blithering idiot who should have given up on whatever point it is you're trying to make several posts ago.
The ability to debate an issue without resorting to insults and name calling is a sign of intelligence and character. Two traits you have just proven yourself to lack. You have proven, time and again, throughout this thread, that you do not comprehend what I am saying; you have also failed to argue any of the points I have made, opting to muddy the waters by bringing other, irrelevant (non)facts to the table.
Please, do come back when you can provide a legitimate, to the point argument. I would love to hear it.
To say that corporations seek profit because they are greedy bastards is one thing. It's probably even correct.
But to pretend that corporations seek profit because it's the law is clearly just bullshit
Further,
Did you even read the original post you responded to?
I read the portion I just quoted; which is apparently more than you, yourself, read. As for the rest, you do know what TL;DR means, don't you?
You do realize that it was bistromath007, not me, who made the original assertion, right? I also hope you noticed that he/she never asserted that corporations were bound only by on law, or only had one goal; only that there is only one law which provides that corporation with a goal. Thus far (and even after having gone back and read your TL;DR), you have yet to satisfactorily prove otherwise.
It's not my goal to pay taxes or have people compete with me for the wages I need. I hardly see how, just because you say it is so, it becomes a corporation's goal to do either of those things. It's my personal goal to take at least semi-decent care of the environment, and I'm certain that corporate board members share similar goals; corporations, however, do not, which is why they're legally required to do so. Hell, no company out there right now wants to provide full employment.
Every corporation out there would be more than happy to replace their entire workforce with machines, bleed us dry of what little cash we have left, and let us wither away. Then, they'd have a relatively small number of bodies (the other corporations) to bleed money from.
It's not that they continuously want more, it's that they want it all. Once they have it, they can stop.
Board members can be held legally accountable to shareholders if profit expectations are not met. I'd say pretty damned well that this makes making money for shareholders a legally enforced goal of a corporation. As for the rest of your post, TL;DR.
Is it a corporation's goal to pay taxes? Abide by environmental regulations? Not stifle competition? Provide full employment? Are these goals? No, just laws. By law, a corporations' only goal is to make money for shareholders.
Yes, other laws govern corporations, but only one provides a goal.
I'll concede on that point. On modern systems, it's negligible. More hardware DOES still mean more bus traffic, however; that RAID card does use bus bandwidth to report status, as well. Unless, of course, you're not running any sort of daemon to monitor the status of the disks in your array; a highly unrecommended configuration, at any rate.
And still nobody can legitimately attack my point about increasing the number of possible points of failure.
Data still travels the bus to control the card. Unless you're removing the onboard SATA controller... which is onboard... presumably you're not ignoring its existence...
Additional hardware on a bus leads to... oh fuck it, here's a car analogy.
I have one road. On that road, I have one car; this car can do whetever it pleases, whenever it pleases. When I add another car, both cars now have to watch out for each other, or they'll eventually crash.
This is traffic.
Also, yes, the more parts, the more points of failure.
I hope you enjoyed your meal; now, please, go troll elsewhere. I hear 4chan is nice this time of year.
You also have twice as many points of failure. Three times as many, if you count the RAID controller. Four, if you count the firmware in the RAID controller. Five, if you consider the increased load on your PSU, having to power the additional drive and RAID controller.
That's ignoring the additional traffic on the bus. That RAID controller doesn't work on FM[1], you know. Then again, it probably doesn't matter; it's not like you'd want faster disk access in a machine being used for video or audio capture, where bus congestion may be an issue.
Oh... That's precisely where you'd want it. Well, there, and servers; again, bus-congestion could be a bitch.
Slashdot Mirror
Does your car have a full-on thermostat in it? If so, count yourself lucky.
Most vehicles have a "blow air that is this hot or cold" lever or knob, which most people will set to one extreme or the other, in order to quickly adjust the temperature in the vehicle. This needs to be adjusted again, at some point, to prevent the temperature from getting uncomfortably high or low.
I know where my radio buttons are. They are real, tactile buttons, as big as my finger. I can use them without looking. Same goes for the comfort controls, windows, sunroof, headlights, turn signals, horn, hazard lights, defroster, interior lighting, and wipers. They were designed to be used without being looked at; that's why they can be used while driving.
I try not to read billboards, while driving, or as a passenger. If your product is that great, I'll find out about it through some other means. If I find out about it from a billboard, I'm probably not buying it; I'd rather have the trees that were there.
As for finding routes, I prefer to know where I'm going before I try to get there. Pull over and use your routing app. Once you have a route set, place the navigation device back on the windshield or dash mount, where you can see it and see where you are going, and follow your route.
If you're tapping buttons on your GPS while driving, I hope you drive off a cliff.
Honestly, make a valid argument.
No, if they have to look away from the road while doing something, sane people won't do it while driving.
That's the exact reason I chose a blackberry over the iPhone; tactile buttons. I can find the center mark on the 5 button, know where my finger is, and dial, without taking my eyes off the road; when hooked up to my radio, it acts as a speakerphone.
Hell, if I get a text, I can look at it while stopped at a light, and type my response, without looking at it, while driving; thanks, tactile keyboard, for giving me this ability. It's mounted where it can be glanced at for GPS use and acts as a music player, as well, with one-touch controls to change songs without looking.
If I'm parked somewhere, waiting for someone or something, I even have a few full-length feature films on the SD card that I can watch while waiting. While parked, never on the road.
People love touch screens. I don't know why. They get dirty, are always smeared with fingerprints, and can't be used without being looked at. Tactile, physical buttons are the way to go for interfaces, with very, very few, specialized exceptions. Add some common sense to a device with real buttons and we don't have these problems.
So, Anon was trollin' again?
The more I lurk on/b/ and the more I read the comments here, the more similarities I see.
What, exactly, do they do, that is easier than sliding a latch, sliding out the old battery, and sliding the new one in? That's how every laptop I've ever had was set up.
Serious question here, I really want to know.
It's about time, really, that MS quit saying "We don't want people running Linux" and started saying "If they're gonna run it, we want them running it on top of Windows".
meh... closing tag fail.
You'd be amazed how many times I've spoken the truth on Slashdot and been modded troll.
Two bits of advice for you:
Never, ever pay your Comcast bill less than 2 days before the due date. This includes in-office cash payments. They will disconnect you for late payment and require a deposit and prepayment of service in order to reconnect, even when you show them the receipt for your on time cash payment
If you've failed at the above point and are on a prepayment account: when you are moving and need to disconnect service, call the day you make payment for your final month of service and tell them, right then, that you need to cancel service at the end of the billing period. If you do not do this, they will send the refund check to your prior service address, rather than to the billing address they ask you for when you tell them you are moving. They will sit on the check for 30 days before mailing it, then require another 30 days to pass before they are able to reissue that check and send it to the correct address. This happened to me, when I moved from MI to OH. This happened to my mother when she moved from MI to OH. This happened to the owner of my web host when he moved from city to city in MI. This is SOP for them.
That said, forgiving the fallout that happened during the 3 months after the @home network transition, my experience with Comcast actually wasn't that bad. I certainly prefer Cox, my current provider, despite the fact that people mock me every time I say so.
Insightful?
I think I'll troll more.
I'm lucky...Comcast Cable
Wow, FairPoint does suck.
You fail basic logic. You can't read what you respond to or answer simple questions. You instead want to accuse others of not comprehending things.
Let's see... You claim:
You don't understand the profit motive and the fact that it exists regardless of laws.
I said:
It's not that they continuously want more, it's that they want it all. Once they have it, they can stop.
Where do I claim that this is legislated?
You claim:
You still fail to recognize the existence of environmental laws and regulations and professional licensing even after it has been pointed out.
I said:
It's my personal goal to take at least semi-decent care of the environment, and I'm certain that corporate board members share similar goals; corporations, however, do not, which is why they're legally required to do so .
I don't see where professional licensing comes into the conversation, so you might have caught me missing something there. Mind helping me out with that one?
You claim:
You are ignorant of the fact that the Federal Reserve is a corporation legally obligated to ensure full employment.
I said:
Hell, no company out there right now wants to provide full employment.
There was no mention of whether or not they are legally required to, and I never argued that they are not. In fact, I said:
Yes, other laws govern corporations
Which leaves the door open for the possibility that they are. I never argued one way or the other; you made the argument that they were required to, I never refuted it. Silent agreement. The portion of your argument that I took issue with was you saying it was a goal.
You claim:
And you are somehow convinced that US corporations might be able to completely automate their workforces in contravention to the mandate of the US central bank.
I said:
Every corporation out there would be more than happy to replace their entire workforce with machines, bleed us dry of what little cash we have left, and let us wither away. Then, they'd have a relatively small number of bodies (the other corporations) to bleed money from.
The keyword here is "would". I highlighted it, for your convenience. I never said they could; I never insinuated at the possibility. I merely mentioned that they would if they could.
And, as for this remark:
You are a complete, blithering idiot who should have given up on whatever point it is you're trying to make several posts ago.
The ability to debate an issue without resorting to insults and name calling is a sign of intelligence and character. Two traits you have just proven yourself to lack. You have proven, time and again, throughout this thread, that you do not comprehend what I am saying; you have also failed to argue any of the points I have made, opting to muddy the waters by bringing other, irrelevant (non)facts to the table.
Please, do come back when you can provide a legitimate, to the point argument. I would love to hear it.
Did I even once contradict this?
Yes, here:
To say that corporations seek profit because they are greedy bastards is one thing. It's probably even correct.
But to pretend that corporations seek profit because it's the law is clearly just bullshit
Further,
Did you even read the original post you responded to?
I read the portion I just quoted; which is apparently more than you, yourself, read. As for the rest, you do know what TL;DR means, don't you?
You do realize that it was bistromath007, not me, who made the original assertion, right? I also hope you noticed that he/she never asserted that corporations were bound only by on law, or only had one goal; only that there is only one law which provides that corporation with a goal. Thus far (and even after having gone back and read your TL;DR), you have yet to satisfactorily prove otherwise.
It's not my goal to pay taxes or have people compete with me for the wages I need. I hardly see how, just because you say it is so, it becomes a corporation's goal to do either of those things. It's my personal goal to take at least semi-decent care of the environment, and I'm certain that corporate board members share similar goals; corporations, however, do not, which is why they're legally required to do so. Hell, no company out there right now wants to provide full employment.
Every corporation out there would be more than happy to replace their entire workforce with machines, bleed us dry of what little cash we have left, and let us wither away. Then, they'd have a relatively small number of bodies (the other corporations) to bleed money from.
It's not that they continuously want more, it's that they want it all. Once they have it, they can stop.
Board members can be held legally accountable to shareholders if profit expectations are not met. I'd say pretty damned well that this makes making money for shareholders a legally enforced goal of a corporation. As for the rest of your post, TL;DR.
Comprehension.
Is it a corporation's goal to pay taxes? Abide by environmental regulations? Not stifle competition? Provide full employment? Are these goals? No, just laws. By law, a corporations' only goal is to make money for shareholders.
Yes, other laws govern corporations, but only one provides a goal.
Wouldn't know, I never post as AC.
That's awesome. That's just... Awesome. There are no other words to describe the fact that you took the time to think up that reply.
You, sir, are a winner. Your prize? One Internet.
On a side note, I recently purchased an ACME Klein Bottle. You really should get one.
I'll concede on that point. On modern systems, it's negligible. More hardware DOES still mean more bus traffic, however; that RAID card does use bus bandwidth to report status, as well. Unless, of course, you're not running any sort of daemon to monitor the status of the disks in your array; a highly unrecommended configuration, at any rate.
And still nobody can legitimately attack my point about increasing the number of possible points of failure.
that's when you turn adblock on for /. for a few days while they sort their shit out
Data still travels the bus to control the card. Unless you're removing the onboard SATA controller... which is onboard... presumably you're not ignoring its existence...
Additional hardware on a bus leads to... oh fuck it, here's a car analogy.
I have one road. On that road, I have one car; this car can do whetever it pleases, whenever it pleases. When I add another car, both cars now have to watch out for each other, or they'll eventually crash.
This is traffic.
Also, yes, the more parts, the more points of failure.
I hope you enjoyed your meal; now, please, go troll elsewhere. I hear 4chan is nice this time of year.
You also have twice as many points of failure. Three times as many, if you count the RAID controller. Four, if you count the firmware in the RAID controller. Five, if you consider the increased load on your PSU, having to power the additional drive and RAID controller.
That's ignoring the additional traffic on the bus. That RAID controller doesn't work on FM[1], you know. Then again, it probably doesn't matter; it's not like you'd want faster disk access in a machine being used for video or audio capture, where bus congestion may be an issue.
Oh... That's precisely where you'd want it. Well, there, and servers; again, bus-congestion could be a bitch.
[1] F*cking Magic
Click the score. Insightful mods do affect karma.
Try turning off NoScript.
I use that as well. Advertising trolls deserve as much feeding as forum trolls.
It's not 6.40" from his butt hole if it's in his butt hole.
Wow. I wasn't karma-whoring with that post, but I'll take it.
Now... the post I made below this one... THAT was karma-whoring.