Just remember:
You don't extend the life of a car by driving it.
Ummm...yeah, to some extent you do. Engine cylinders, pistons, connecting rods, bearings, etc. rust if the engine isn't periodically run. Water builds up in the oil sump due to condensation, causing even more rust, if the engine isn't run long enough to come up to operating temperature. Hoses and gaskets dry out, crack and fall apart much more quickly in cars that just sit. Electromechanical contacts corrode when they aren't used. The list goes on and on and on. Unless you have taken the time to "pickle" the engine and store the car in a suitable environment, you will actually age the car quicker by just letting it sit.
Can you sum up your point, then? I observed that it seems rather ironic to me that the same guy who made such a big deal out of getting us out of war in the Middle East is now trying to weasel around the War Powers Act by engaging us in yet another Middle East country without seeking Congressional approval, a formality which even Bush -- as much as I despise him -- recognized he needed. I fail to see how anything in this thread so far refutes that point. It's possible I'm just being dense -- it happens, sometimes -- and if so, I would really appreciate the enlightenment.
GPP was right. GGPP has never been to Alaska, nor, I suspect, have you. I live there, and "underground" isn't a magical answer for any and all technical problems up here. Do you know what a thermosiphon is or when it would be used (without referencing the linked Wikipedia article)? Most of the state is either swamp, mountain or perpetually frozen (and if the perpetually frozen part thaws, it too becomes swamp).
Sorry but when you unleash the military one should not play fast an [sic] free with the rules. Every i should be dotted and every t should be crossed.
:thumb_up:
If you can't get Congress to go along with whatever military action it is you want to involve yourself in, you probably have no business being there in the first place.
Don't even get me started on the irony of the current administration wanting to get the U.S. involved in a brand new foreign war when it has still been unable to extricate us from the previous TWO foreign wars that the prior administration got us involved in -- despite campaign promises to do exactly that.
What is this obsessive need everyone has to pick inferior devices just because they are trendy?
"Inferior" is a very subjective term. A tablet is a tool, just like any other computing device. It's size, weight, portability and battery life make it ideally suited for some people in some applications. The tablet is only "inferior" if it is less suited for a particular job than a competing device. So, yeah, if you want to use Photoshop to touch up photos or you want to do some serious developer work, a tablet is certainly inferior to a good laptop. However, if you only need to run a few lightweight applications, but batter life, weight and portability are your top priorities, a tablet blows a 17 inch laptop away. Basically, you are only griping that a hammer is useless because it's not a screwdriver and that is, IMHO, just moronic.
Personally, I own a smartphone, a tablet, a netbook and several laptops. I probably wouldn't have bought the tablet, but I won it as a door prize from Dell at a conference, and I have found it to be more useful than I expected. I probably wouldn't have bought the netbook or some of the laptops either, but we got them at work for evaluation purposes. The laptops are definitely the powerhouses, but their size means I often don't take them when I leave home or the office, and the poor battery life means even if I do take them, I have to be very careful about when I use them if there's not an AC power source nearby. The phone is just a little too small to do anything more than check e-mail or run Google Navigator (and it's battery life sucks, too). The netbook is cool, but isn't powerful enough to replace the laptops and isn't portable enough to replace the tablet; in fact, it's actually easier to type on the tablet touchscreen than the abomination that Dell calls a keyboard on the Mini-9 netbook (the -10s are better, though). So guess which device I tend to almost always have with me? Yep, the tablet. "Inferior"? No, not hardly.
Do you never leave your home town? I have been hired to fly airplanes through Canada to or from Alaska a handful of times. I have taken solo camping trips. I have attended conferences or training out of town by myself. If I am a thousand miles from home, how many friends am I going to find to go have dinner with me? In that case, what exactly is the problem with using a tablet or a smartphone to occupy the time while waiting for my food to arrive?
Or are you one of those obsessive control freaks who thinks that anyone who does things a little differently than you has some kind of social problem?
Sigh...are you assuming that the only purpose for a tablet is playing "Angry Birds" and updating your Facebook status? My Android tablet is more a tool than toy.
...while driving?
"Daily Roads Voyager" and "Google Navigator". Next...
While cooking?
Yes, I have looked up recipes using the web browser while cooking. Keep going...
While watching TV?
You've got me there. I don't watch TV much, so when I do, it's something I'm actually, you know, interested in watching, so no, no tablet use while watching TV.
Or while using another tablet?
Well...I only own one tablet, so technically, no. However, I have used the tablet while using my smartphone and/or (yes, "AND/or") my netbook/laptop(s). Android doesn't multitask very well, so sometimes that's the easiest way to cross-reference data across many applications (pinging a host on one device while watching a web-based monitoring tool in a browser on another and making config changes through SSH to a remote device, for example).
Her. And no, I'm not saying let your fifth grader drop out; I am saying guide your child to make wise decisions and take responsibility and ownership when they make poor choices.
Yep. And that's the lesson a zero-tolerance policy teaches kids, even though no one in a position of authority seems to realize it: if you are attacked, you might as well do as much damage to the other guy as you want, because even if all you do is restrain him so he can't hurt you, you will still face just as much punishment as if you beat him to a pulp.
Do you have any proof to back up your assertion, or are you just spouting off on-line? Because in the absence of any other evidence, I'll take the GPP's word for it. A similar situation happened to my boss's oldest soon recently. The other kids on the playground backed up his son's story (two on one, the other two started it, and my boss's son didn't really do anything more than push one of them out of the way so he could leave), but the teachers still threw the book at him.
Exactly. The real trouble is going to come when zero tolerance policies and cops mix. When I was in school (and it's still happening to day, a couple decades later) they had a 0-tolerance policy about fighting. If you got in a fight, you got suspended. Even if you got attacked, and stood there letting the guy punch you, and didn't throw a punch back, you got suspended.
+1
When you put me in a situation where I have everything to lose and nothing to gain by "doing the right thing", then how could you possibly be surprised when I stop choosing to do the right thing? That's why I dislike rules in general and zero-tolerance policies in particular. As soon as you build such policies, you have just limited your ability to handle things in the best way for that particular situation. It's stupid.
I certainly wouldn't expect a fifth grader to be mature enough to make such life critical choices on his own.
And that's why your fifth graders will never, ever learn to make good choices on their own, while my fifth grader (yes, my child really is in fifth grade) will. I know that referencing books written by pastors is a sure-fire way to get modded to oblivion here on/., but if you really think that forcing your kids to do what you think is wise is the best way of bringing them up, then I strongly suggest you read this book for a different take...and no, I don't get kickbacks, etc. from the author, publisher or anyone else.
How do you figure? Maybe I'm just not the sharpest tool in the shed (nor have I ever claimed to be) but I really don't see much difference between trusting Intel/AMD/Motorola/etc. to be honest in what they put in the chipset and in trusting Citrix (Xen)/VMWare/KVM/whatever in what they put in the software. If anything, I probably have a better chance of detecting goofiness in FOSS software than I have in a chipset (not that I'm likely to detect anything in either one, but at least I *can* look at the source in a FOSS project if I want).
Right now, we have two types [of audio connector] that work well, the 1/4" jack for pro equipment, and the 3.5mm jack for everything else.
Uh, no. Don't forget the XLR connector, the Neutrik connector, RCA connectors, 4-conductor plugs for devices that transmit mono signals as well as receive stereo signals, and I haven't even touched on optical interfaces for audio signals such as SPDIF...do I need to continue?
Slashdot Mirror
...the sword cuts both ways.
Just remember: You don't extend the life of a car by driving it.
Ummm...yeah, to some extent you do. Engine cylinders, pistons, connecting rods, bearings, etc. rust if the engine isn't periodically run. Water builds up in the oil sump due to condensation, causing even more rust, if the engine isn't run long enough to come up to operating temperature. Hoses and gaskets dry out, crack and fall apart much more quickly in cars that just sit. Electromechanical contacts corrode when they aren't used. The list goes on and on and on. Unless you have taken the time to "pickle" the engine and store the car in a suitable environment, you will actually age the car quicker by just letting it sit.
Can you sum up your point, then? I observed that it seems rather ironic to me that the same guy who made such a big deal out of getting us out of war in the Middle East is now trying to weasel around the War Powers Act by engaging us in yet another Middle East country without seeking Congressional approval, a formality which even Bush -- as much as I despise him -- recognized he needed. I fail to see how anything in this thread so far refutes that point. It's possible I'm just being dense -- it happens, sometimes -- and if so, I would really appreciate the enlightenment.
In the permafrost?
GPP was right. GGPP has never been to Alaska, nor, I suspect, have you. I live there, and "underground" isn't a magical answer for any and all technical problems up here. Do you know what a thermosiphon is or when it would be used (without referencing the linked Wikipedia article)? Most of the state is either swamp, mountain or perpetually frozen (and if the perpetually frozen part thaws, it too becomes swamp).
Campaign promises were not to extract ourselves from both wars -- only one of them.
'Kay. I stand corrected. From which war did we manage to extricate ourselves?
Should have listened to the details closer.
Well, maybe. But since I pretty much figured he was lying no matter what he said, there really didn't seem to be much point.
Sorry but when you unleash the military one should not play fast an [sic] free with the rules. Every i should be dotted and every t should be crossed.
:thumb_up:
If you can't get Congress to go along with whatever military action it is you want to involve yourself in, you probably have no business being there in the first place.
Don't even get me started on the irony of the current administration wanting to get the U.S. involved in a brand new foreign war when it has still been unable to extricate us from the previous TWO foreign wars that the prior administration got us involved in -- despite campaign promises to do exactly that.
Maybe I should have double-checked your username before replying. Of course a zombie braintrust is going to want friends to eat...with :P
What is this obsessive need everyone has to pick inferior devices just because they are trendy?
"Inferior" is a very subjective term. A tablet is a tool, just like any other computing device. It's size, weight, portability and battery life make it ideally suited for some people in some applications. The tablet is only "inferior" if it is less suited for a particular job than a competing device. So, yeah, if you want to use Photoshop to touch up photos or you want to do some serious developer work, a tablet is certainly inferior to a good laptop. However, if you only need to run a few lightweight applications, but batter life, weight and portability are your top priorities, a tablet blows a 17 inch laptop away. Basically, you are only griping that a hammer is useless because it's not a screwdriver and that is, IMHO, just moronic.
Personally, I own a smartphone, a tablet, a netbook and several laptops. I probably wouldn't have bought the tablet, but I won it as a door prize from Dell at a conference, and I have found it to be more useful than I expected. I probably wouldn't have bought the netbook or some of the laptops either, but we got them at work for evaluation purposes. The laptops are definitely the powerhouses, but their size means I often don't take them when I leave home or the office, and the poor battery life means even if I do take them, I have to be very careful about when I use them if there's not an AC power source nearby. The phone is just a little too small to do anything more than check e-mail or run Google Navigator (and it's battery life sucks, too). The netbook is cool, but isn't powerful enough to replace the laptops and isn't portable enough to replace the tablet; in fact, it's actually easier to type on the tablet touchscreen than the abomination that Dell calls a keyboard on the Mini-9 netbook (the -10s are better, though). So guess which device I tend to almost always have with me? Yep, the tablet. "Inferior"? No, not hardly.
Wish I had mod points. You, sir, just made my day. Nicely done.
Do you never leave your home town? I have been hired to fly airplanes through Canada to or from Alaska a handful of times. I have taken solo camping trips. I have attended conferences or training out of town by myself. If I am a thousand miles from home, how many friends am I going to find to go have dinner with me? In that case, what exactly is the problem with using a tablet or a smartphone to occupy the time while waiting for my food to arrive?
Or are you one of those obsessive control freaks who thinks that anyone who does things a little differently than you has some kind of social problem?
...while driving?
"Daily Roads Voyager" and "Google Navigator". Next...
While cooking?
Yes, I have looked up recipes using the web browser while cooking. Keep going...
While watching TV?
You've got me there. I don't watch TV much, so when I do, it's something I'm actually, you know, interested in watching, so no, no tablet use while watching TV.
Or while using another tablet?
Well...I only own one tablet, so technically, no. However, I have used the tablet while using my smartphone and/or (yes, "AND/or") my netbook/laptop(s). Android doesn't multitask very well, so sometimes that's the easiest way to cross-reference data across many applications (pinging a host on one device while watching a web-based monitoring tool in a browser on another and making config changes through SSH to a remote device, for example).
"Condemnation before investigation is the height of ignorance." --B. Franklin
Congratulations, sir. Knee jerk reaction much?
Her. And no, I'm not saying let your fifth grader drop out; I am saying guide your child to make wise decisions and take responsibility and ownership when they make poor choices.
We could do better...but seriously, there are far worse places than the U.S. Ever been to Singapore?
Yep. And that's the lesson a zero-tolerance policy teaches kids, even though no one in a position of authority seems to realize it: if you are attacked, you might as well do as much damage to the other guy as you want, because even if all you do is restrain him so he can't hurt you, you will still face just as much punishment as if you beat him to a pulp.
Do you have any proof to back up your assertion, or are you just spouting off on-line? Because in the absence of any other evidence, I'll take the GPP's word for it. A similar situation happened to my boss's oldest soon recently. The other kids on the playground backed up his son's story (two on one, the other two started it, and my boss's son didn't really do anything more than push one of them out of the way so he could leave), but the teachers still threw the book at him.
Exactly. The real trouble is going to come when zero tolerance policies and cops mix. When I was in school (and it's still happening to day, a couple decades later) they had a 0-tolerance policy about fighting. If you got in a fight, you got suspended. Even if you got attacked, and stood there letting the guy punch you, and didn't throw a punch back, you got suspended.
+1
When you put me in a situation where I have everything to lose and nothing to gain by "doing the right thing", then how could you possibly be surprised when I stop choosing to do the right thing? That's why I dislike rules in general and zero-tolerance policies in particular. As soon as you build such policies, you have just limited your ability to handle things in the best way for that particular situation. It's stupid.
Ummm...did you check your sig before posting that comment?
I certainly wouldn't expect a fifth grader to be mature enough to make such life critical choices on his own.
And that's why your fifth graders will never, ever learn to make good choices on their own, while my fifth grader (yes, my child really is in fifth grade) will. I know that referencing books written by pastors is a sure-fire way to get modded to oblivion here on /., but if you really think that forcing your kids to do what you think is wise is the best way of bringing them up, then I strongly suggest you read this book for a different take...and no, I don't get kickbacks, etc. from the author, publisher or anyone else.
You forgot this one: suspending kids for "improper behaviour" (oh, the irony) while at home (IIRC, they accused him of taking drugs -- which actually turned out to be candy rather than drugs -- although I cannot find a link to verify that right now).
...which doesn't work on my Android phone :(
How do you figure? Maybe I'm just not the sharpest tool in the shed (nor have I ever claimed to be) but I really don't see much difference between trusting Intel/AMD/Motorola/etc. to be honest in what they put in the chipset and in trusting Citrix (Xen)/VMWare/KVM/whatever in what they put in the software. If anything, I probably have a better chance of detecting goofiness in FOSS software than I have in a chipset (not that I'm likely to detect anything in either one, but at least I *can* look at the source in a FOSS project if I want).
Ya think?!?!
If you had an elastic holding the phone against the side of your face while you drove you wouldn't need a bluetooth headset.
Probably be kind of hard to place calls that way, though :D
Right now, we have two types [of audio connector] that work well, the 1/4" jack for pro equipment, and the 3.5mm jack for everything else.
Uh, no. Don't forget the XLR connector, the Neutrik connector, RCA connectors, 4-conductor plugs for devices that transmit mono signals as well as receive stereo signals, and I haven't even touched on optical interfaces for audio signals such as SPDIF...do I need to continue?