Remember, the FAA is serious about no meaning no when it comes to RF emissions on planes.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the recent/. story about the FAA re-examining the usage of portable electronic devices in flight...? Nah, couldn't be.
Yes, but in this case, "enough devices" is something like 281,474,980,000,000 network interfaces, unless my math is off. That's something like 46,000 network interfaces for every man, woman and child on the planet.
Even counting every network interface in every cellphone, laptop, desktop, server, router and switch that I have ever owned, administrated or even *touched*, I don't think I'm anywhere near my share of network interfaces. While I have no doubt whatsoever that there are people whose network interface count is higher than mine, I still suspect it's safe to say that if I'm not anywhere near that count (as a network admin), then there's no way the average number of network devices in use is anywhere even remotely near that number.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
So what you're saying is that all modern crime drama use DNA evidence... but when those dramas are negatively influencing rational thought, it's those stupid Americans and their television that are causing Liverpudlian court cases to go awry. Yep, those Yanks sure are thick. And we are, but it does get tiresome when everything is our fault.
Dude, chill:) I'm a Yank too, but I didn't get that out of TFS* or anyone else's posts here. There is a difference between what is implied, and what is inferred. I think you have *inferred* far more than the author intended.
* in true/. tradition, I didn't RTFA, so if TFA more explicitly blames Americans, then I respectfully withdraw my comment.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source?...It is a flawed process and should be used as one piece of many pieces of evidence against someone. If you put that much weight on it, framing someone just became a one step process. Hopefully it will improve but just as hopefully it will always remain as one supporting piece of evidence requiring many other avenues of evidence before a conviction.
I think you answered your own question there. What I got from TFS was that despite the fact that DNA evidence "...is a flawed process..." the public's perception (which is due, in no small part, to television shows like CSI) is that it is infallible evidence. "Oh, you're DNA was present on the victim? Done deal, you're guilty."
Unfortunately, AFAIK, DNA evidence isn't a digital (i.e., yes or no) proposition, it's a matter of probability: the answer is "there is a xx% chance that this DNA belongs to the accused," where "xx" is some number less than 100. However, as long as the people on the jury believe what they see on TV, they put undue faith in DNA evidence. When the cops show up with an expert in tow saying that, in his (or her) professional opinion, there is indeed a match between the accused's DNA and the DNA found on the victim, the tendency among the CSI-brainwashed public is to automatically jump to the conclusion that the accused is guilty, ignoring all of the evidence suggesting otherwise, and neglecting to consider the possible, plausible ways in which it could have gotten there *without* the accused having committed the crime. Your exactly right -- that isn't the way it's supposed to work, and that's the point this article is bringing up.
Highway miles vs. commuting miles, maybe? I like to go explore on my bike, but the vast majority of my mileage is still stop-and-go in town, back-and-forth to work, running errands around town. <shrug> Regardless, I'm still impressed that your 'Busa gets better mileage than my Wee-Strom.
I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Either that, or you own a Prius and I touched a nerve.
In either case, what I was *trying* to say is that there are already vehicles that come close to that mandate, but they all involve some pretty significant trade-offs. As you so eloquently pointed out, a bike isn't suitable 365 days a year for everyone (however, you incorrectly assumed that I was one of the people for whom it *does* work -- nice try, but no. 61 degrees 15' N, do the math). For those who opt for a more fuel-efficient vehicle, the jury is still out on the eco-friendliness of them, and from what I can tell by frequently being stuck behind them in traffic, their performance sucks. In either case, mandating that Detroit raise the bar to 54.5 MPG isn't likely to improve either of those cases much, IMHO.
Rain isn't really a big deal. I've got a pretty decent rain suit, so I ride rain or shine. There have only been maybe two trips (in three years of motorcycle commuting) where the weather was bad enough that I wasn't really having much fine on the bike. Heat? LOL! In Anchorage, Alaska? We don't know the meaning of the word!:) Snowy? Well, yeah...you've got me there. I don't ride once the snow flies, so from November to April, I'm relegated to the Nissan:(
If your motorcycle is only getting 44MPG, I sure as hell hope it would smoke every car on the road! That thing HAD to be built purely for speed and power, completely ignoring fuel efficiency, if something that small is only getting 44MPG.
Actually, no. It's a Suzuki V-Strom, (one of) Japan's answer(s) to the BMW F650GS, F800GS and R1200GS. It's a street bike with trail pretensions, meaning it isn't particularly good at either one, although it is adequate at either (not so much for true off-road, though).
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that on pavement, I ride it as if it were a sportbike, even though I'm running 80/20 dual sport tires (thick lugs == lots of drag), and I've got all kinds of crap hanging out in the breeze (Pelican 1430 cases for saddle bags, and crashbars covering the engine and fairing). As if that wasn't enough, another V-Strom rider on a forum I hang out on described his bike, which was parked in a row of sportbikes, as "the Lurch of the family" (photo -- his Strom is the third from the left, the blue one with the gas tank that sits higher than the windscreen of the bikes on either side of it), so it's a big, draggy beast. But it suits me:)
That's may be a workable solution for you, but not everyone in the country lives in your neighborhood.
We got over 130 inches of snowfall in my home town last year. Although the muni plows streets, it doesn't plow sidewalks or bike paths until it gets around to it (read that: "maybe some time next week" after any significant snowfall). I hiked six miles home after work when my old motorcycle wouldn't start a couple of years ago; I've even roller bladed to work just for the lulz, so I'm in reasonably good shape. However, there's no way I could walk to or from work even from mid-town in the middle of winter here. You'd have to walk in the streets, and your life expectancy would drop to less than the time until spring if you were to try that here. Then there's the couple of weeks of -20F temps (plus wind chill), and...
50MPG on a 'Busa and 75MPG on a Ninja 650? Did you two break your right wrists or something?:P
I regularly get only low to mid 40's on my DL650 (not nearly as quick as either a 'Busa or a Ninja), and I have never seen higher than 60 MPG (and that, only once). Maybe it's the saddle bags, the crashbars, and/or the 80/20 dual-sport tires? Regardless, that's pretty awesome fuel consumption:thumb_up:
According to the administration, the standards will reduce dependence on foreign oil, save money at the pump, protect the environment, and everything else that sounds good in an election year.
...and make cars that perform like crap. My motorcycle gets 44MPG and will smoke every Prius or other zero emissions vehicle available to the general public (maybe not a Tesla, but I'd still take one on). Then there's the dubious "protect the environment" claim. There've been enough posts here on./ about how the batteries used in electric vehicles are actually worse for the environment than the gas-burners they are replacing, so if the auto industry goes that route to try to reach these mandates, I doubt it will be as good for the environment as our rose-glasses dreamers are suggesting.
Then again, I'm in a bit of a pissy mood today (despite my sig), so I'm probably just looking for the negative (sorry).
I can't answer for anyone else, but from my perspective, I "grew out of" it because it made no practical difference to me. Whether I am real or a figment of someone/something else's imagination is irrelevant from my point of view. So long as I perceive pain, enjoyment, etc. from my experiences, whether real or imagined, I will continue to act in a way that maximizes enjoyment and minimizes pain. If I suddenly discover irrefutable proof that I am not really "real" but that I am merely a figment of some great cosmic being's imagination, I still won't quit my job, leave my wife and daughter, or anything else *because I still perceive the world around me* -- even if it, too, is merely a figment of something else's imagination. Consequently, this line of reasoning is a dead end: it makes no practical difference to how I live my life. Therefore, I concentrate my energy on things that *do* impact my life.
Interesting concept. Can you explain *why* you believe this is so?
Most of "life" is a tornado of colliding imaginations.
I don't even know what this means...is that an attempt to be "deep" by going all metaphysical, or what? It kind of sounds like you are suggesting that all of us are just figments of someone/something's imagination. If so, well, that was an intriguing concept back when I was elementary school, but now...not so much.
Everyone thinks they're the ONE exception.
But no in [sic] ever got out of it, ever.
<shrug> But so long as life is interesting and enjoyable, what's the problem? Personally, I'm with cayenne8 on this one. If I'm healthy and fit, then I wouldn't mind having a bit more time here on earth. I'm not saying I'd like to be immortal -- as others have noted, there would still be accidental deaths, and it would suck spending millenia without your loved ones -- but if we could find a way to keep the biological machinery functional for a century or two longer, I wouldn't mind having a little more time to be in my prime before succumbing to the inevitable.
Oh, one other thing...if you like Linux, then I'd recommend getting some experience in other *Nix environments, as well. Download and try one of the *BSD's. They are a little different, but you'll pick it up pretty quickly. Try to get your hands on Solaris or OpenSolaris (is that still available?). These are easy ways for a competent Linux guy to broaden his skills without too much effort, and one of those buzzwords just might get you past the HR filters and into an interview.
Funny, but I'm not sure I agree entirely (and I say that as one who *does* work -- professionally -- with Linux on a daily basis and really doesn't like Windows all that much).
If you want to work with Linux professionally, then by all means, polish those skillsets. Maybe an RHCE or LPCE wouldn't hurt, although I don't hold either one. But the big key, IME, is not to snub other skills, either. Yes, I work in a shop that uses mostly Linux servers (even Linux-based routers, made by a company called ImageStream, who I highly recommend), but we also use Cisco routers, Brocade switches and a few Windows servers -- and I work on them all. Let's face it, most places today, IT professionals wear many hats; being a one-trick pony doesn't cut it.
I was in Austin a few years ago, and heard the comment, "Austin isn't so much a *PART* of Texas as it is *SURROUNDED* by Texas." I thought it was kind of funny, not least of all because the quote was equally applicable to my own hometown of Anchorage, substituting "Alaska" for "Texas," of course:)
Slightly off-topic: while in Austin, I heard an awesome band called "Flyjack" play at a club called (IIRC) Antone's. Whatever else you have to say about the place, it's got a killer music scene!
I thought the state motto was "Don't Mess With Texas!" Looked like it at least, as often as I saw that printed upon everything in sight, last time I was down there...
IMHO, these antennas may be as big a leap for mobile computing and remote communications as the invention of fractal antennas was for mobile phones.
I suspect not, actually.
There are certainly cases where this could be a useful technology, especially in rural or remote areas. I happen to live in a state (Alaska) that has far more area NOT covered by cellular or WiFi hot spots than IS covered by them, so I can certainly see niche use-cases for this tech. Yet I'm still skeptical that this is going to be a game-changer for mobile computing.
I rather suspect the author of TFS has never actually *USED* satellite links for any kind of Internet activity. About two years ago, the company I work for used satellite Internet to connect to a number of remote field sites. As a network administrator, I got the dubious pleasure (hah!) of trying to maintain routers, switches and even a couple of servers on the far side of that satellite link. CLI connections, like SSH, were slow...sometimes painfully so. GUI connections, like remote desktop or VNC required large doses of valium to even be tolerable (I kid, but not by much). Just to show that I'm not a high-bandwidth prima donna, I was using -- and reasonably happy with -- a 768k x 320k DSL line for my home Internet connection at the time.
Trust me -- if you have 3G, 4G or WiFi connectivity, I guarantee you will use it rather than satellite Internet. You won't save money by using satellite, and you will be very, very disappointed with your throughput.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point, and I (obviously) hadn't considered that :)
Ah. I didn't realize that. Thanks for educating me :)
Remember, the FAA is serious about no meaning no when it comes to RF emissions on planes.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the recent /. story about the FAA re-examining the usage of portable electronic devices in flight...? Nah, couldn't be.
Yes, but in this case, "enough devices" is something like 281,474,980,000,000 network interfaces, unless my math is off. That's something like 46,000 network interfaces for every man, woman and child on the planet.
Even counting every network interface in every cellphone, laptop, desktop, server, router and switch that I have ever owned, administrated or even *touched*, I don't think I'm anywhere near my share of network interfaces. While I have no doubt whatsoever that there are people whose network interface count is higher than mine, I still suspect it's safe to say that if I'm not anywhere near that count (as a network admin), then there's no way the average number of network devices in use is anywhere even remotely near that number.
So what you're saying is that all modern crime drama use DNA evidence ... but when those dramas are negatively influencing rational thought, it's those stupid Americans and their television that are causing Liverpudlian court cases to go awry. Yep, those Yanks sure are thick. And we are, but it does get tiresome when everything is our fault.
Dude, chill :) I'm a Yank too, but I didn't get that out of TFS* or anyone else's posts here. There is a difference between what is implied, and what is inferred. I think you have *inferred* far more than the author intended.
/. tradition, I didn't RTFA, so if TFA more explicitly blames Americans, then I respectfully withdraw my comment.
* in true
Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source?...It is a flawed process and should be used as one piece of many pieces of evidence against someone. If you put that much weight on it, framing someone just became a one step process. Hopefully it will improve but just as hopefully it will always remain as one supporting piece of evidence requiring many other avenues of evidence before a conviction.
I think you answered your own question there. What I got from TFS was that despite the fact that DNA evidence "...is a flawed process..." the public's perception (which is due, in no small part, to television shows like CSI) is that it is infallible evidence. "Oh, you're DNA was present on the victim? Done deal, you're guilty."
Unfortunately, AFAIK, DNA evidence isn't a digital (i.e., yes or no) proposition, it's a matter of probability: the answer is "there is a xx% chance that this DNA belongs to the accused," where "xx" is some number less than 100. However, as long as the people on the jury believe what they see on TV, they put undue faith in DNA evidence. When the cops show up with an expert in tow saying that, in his (or her) professional opinion, there is indeed a match between the accused's DNA and the DNA found on the victim, the tendency among the CSI-brainwashed public is to automatically jump to the conclusion that the accused is guilty, ignoring all of the evidence suggesting otherwise, and neglecting to consider the possible, plausible ways in which it could have gotten there *without* the accused having committed the crime. Your exactly right -- that isn't the way it's supposed to work, and that's the point this article is bringing up.
Yeah, I get the picture :)
Highway miles vs. commuting miles, maybe? I like to go explore on my bike, but the vast majority of my mileage is still stop-and-go in town, back-and-forth to work, running errands around town. <shrug> Regardless, I'm still impressed that your 'Busa gets better mileage than my Wee-Strom.
I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Either that, or you own a Prius and I touched a nerve.
In either case, what I was *trying* to say is that there are already vehicles that come close to that mandate, but they all involve some pretty significant trade-offs. As you so eloquently pointed out, a bike isn't suitable 365 days a year for everyone (however, you incorrectly assumed that I was one of the people for whom it *does* work -- nice try, but no. 61 degrees 15' N, do the math). For those who opt for a more fuel-efficient vehicle, the jury is still out on the eco-friendliness of them, and from what I can tell by frequently being stuck behind them in traffic, their performance sucks. In either case, mandating that Detroit raise the bar to 54.5 MPG isn't likely to improve either of those cases much, IMHO.
Rain isn't really a big deal. I've got a pretty decent rain suit, so I ride rain or shine. There have only been maybe two trips (in three years of motorcycle commuting) where the weather was bad enough that I wasn't really having much fine on the bike. Heat? LOL! In Anchorage, Alaska? We don't know the meaning of the word! :) Snowy? Well, yeah...you've got me there. I don't ride once the snow flies, so from November to April, I'm relegated to the Nissan :(
If your motorcycle is only getting 44MPG, I sure as hell hope it would smoke every car on the road! That thing HAD to be built purely for speed and power, completely ignoring fuel efficiency, if something that small is only getting 44MPG.
Actually, no. It's a Suzuki V-Strom, (one of) Japan's answer(s) to the BMW F650GS, F800GS and R1200GS. It's a street bike with trail pretensions, meaning it isn't particularly good at either one, although it is adequate at either (not so much for true off-road, though).
:)
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that on pavement, I ride it as if it were a sportbike, even though I'm running 80/20 dual sport tires (thick lugs == lots of drag), and I've got all kinds of crap hanging out in the breeze (Pelican 1430 cases for saddle bags, and crashbars covering the engine and fairing). As if that wasn't enough, another V-Strom rider on a forum I hang out on described his bike, which was parked in a row of sportbikes, as "the Lurch of the family" (photo -- his Strom is the third from the left, the blue one with the gas tank that sits higher than the windscreen of the bikes on either side of it), so it's a big, draggy beast. But it suits me
That's may be a workable solution for you, but not everyone in the country lives in your neighborhood.
We got over 130 inches of snowfall in my home town last year. Although the muni plows streets, it doesn't plow sidewalks or bike paths until it gets around to it (read that: "maybe some time next week" after any significant snowfall). I hiked six miles home after work when my old motorcycle wouldn't start a couple of years ago; I've even roller bladed to work just for the lulz, so I'm in reasonably good shape. However, there's no way I could walk to or from work even from mid-town in the middle of winter here. You'd have to walk in the streets, and your life expectancy would drop to less than the time until spring if you were to try that here. Then there's the couple of weeks of -20F temps (plus wind chill), and...
50MPG on a 'Busa and 75MPG on a Ninja 650? Did you two break your right wrists or something? :P
:thumb_up:
I regularly get only low to mid 40's on my DL650 (not nearly as quick as either a 'Busa or a Ninja), and I have never seen higher than 60 MPG (and that, only once). Maybe it's the saddle bags, the crashbars, and/or the 80/20 dual-sport tires? Regardless, that's pretty awesome fuel consumption
According to the administration, the standards will reduce dependence on foreign oil, save money at the pump, protect the environment, and everything else that sounds good in an election year.
Then again, I'm in a bit of a pissy mood today (despite my sig), so I'm probably just looking for the negative (sorry).
I can't answer for anyone else, but from my perspective, I "grew out of" it because it made no practical difference to me. Whether I am real or a figment of someone/something else's imagination is irrelevant from my point of view. So long as I perceive pain, enjoyment, etc. from my experiences, whether real or imagined, I will continue to act in a way that maximizes enjoyment and minimizes pain. If I suddenly discover irrefutable proof that I am not really "real" but that I am merely a figment of some great cosmic being's imagination, I still won't quit my job, leave my wife and daughter, or anything else *because I still perceive the world around me* -- even if it, too, is merely a figment of something else's imagination. Consequently, this line of reasoning is a dead end: it makes no practical difference to how I live my life. Therefore, I concentrate my energy on things that *do* impact my life.
c) all of the above.
Sounds like an ideal solution: you get to stay young for an entire lifetime, yet the world still doesn't end up overpopulated :P
Dying is what makes us real.
Interesting concept. Can you explain *why* you believe this is so?
Most of "life" is a tornado of colliding imaginations.
I don't even know what this means...is that an attempt to be "deep" by going all metaphysical, or what? It kind of sounds like you are suggesting that all of us are just figments of someone/something's imagination. If so, well, that was an intriguing concept back when I was elementary school, but now...not so much.
Everyone thinks they're the ONE exception.
But no in [sic] ever got out of it, ever.
<shrug> But so long as life is interesting and enjoyable, what's the problem? Personally, I'm with cayenne8 on this one. If I'm healthy and fit, then I wouldn't mind having a bit more time here on earth. I'm not saying I'd like to be immortal -- as others have noted, there would still be accidental deaths, and it would suck spending millenia without your loved ones -- but if we could find a way to keep the biological machinery functional for a century or two longer, I wouldn't mind having a little more time to be in my prime before succumbing to the inevitable.
Oh, one other thing...if you like Linux, then I'd recommend getting some experience in other *Nix environments, as well. Download and try one of the *BSD's. They are a little different, but you'll pick it up pretty quickly. Try to get your hands on Solaris or OpenSolaris (is that still available?). These are easy ways for a competent Linux guy to broaden his skills without too much effort, and one of those buzzwords just might get you past the HR filters and into an interview.
Funny, but I'm not sure I agree entirely (and I say that as one who *does* work -- professionally -- with Linux on a daily basis and really doesn't like Windows all that much).
If you want to work with Linux professionally, then by all means, polish those skillsets. Maybe an RHCE or LPCE wouldn't hurt, although I don't hold either one. But the big key, IME, is not to snub other skills, either. Yes, I work in a shop that uses mostly Linux servers (even Linux-based routers, made by a company called ImageStream, who I highly recommend), but we also use Cisco routers, Brocade switches and a few Windows servers -- and I work on them all. Let's face it, most places today, IT professionals wear many hats; being a one-trick pony doesn't cut it.
I was shooting for a laugh, but apparently I missed the mark, lol.
I was in Austin a few years ago, and heard the comment, "Austin isn't so much a *PART* of Texas as it is *SURROUNDED* by Texas." I thought it was kind of funny, not least of all because the quote was equally applicable to my own hometown of Anchorage, substituting "Alaska" for "Texas," of course :)
Slightly off-topic: while in Austin, I heard an awesome band called "Flyjack" play at a club called (IIRC) Antone's. Whatever else you have to say about the place, it's got a killer music scene!
I thought the state motto was "Don't Mess With Texas!" Looked like it at least, as often as I saw that printed upon everything in sight, last time I was down there...
IMHO, these antennas may be as big a leap for mobile computing and remote communications as the invention of fractal antennas was for mobile phones.
I suspect not, actually.
There are certainly cases where this could be a useful technology, especially in rural or remote areas. I happen to live in a state (Alaska) that has far more area NOT covered by cellular or WiFi hot spots than IS covered by them, so I can certainly see niche use-cases for this tech. Yet I'm still skeptical that this is going to be a game-changer for mobile computing.
I rather suspect the author of TFS has never actually *USED* satellite links for any kind of Internet activity. About two years ago, the company I work for used satellite Internet to connect to a number of remote field sites. As a network administrator, I got the dubious pleasure (hah!) of trying to maintain routers, switches and even a couple of servers on the far side of that satellite link. CLI connections, like SSH, were slow...sometimes painfully so. GUI connections, like remote desktop or VNC required large doses of valium to even be tolerable (I kid, but not by much). Just to show that I'm not a high-bandwidth prima donna, I was using -- and reasonably happy with -- a 768k x 320k DSL line for my home Internet connection at the time.
Trust me -- if you have 3G, 4G or WiFi connectivity, I guarantee you will use it rather than satellite Internet. You won't save money by using satellite, and you will be very, very disappointed with your throughput.
Point taken, on both counts.
Oops...you are correct. My apologies.