I listened to loud music when I was younger. I'm 25 now, and I keep ear protection in my car, just in case I ever need it. I have a relatively mild case of tinnitus now, though my hearing is still rather acute, except for quiet sounds in the same range as my tinnitus.
I went to an audiologist, and they said my hearing was fine. I have a really hard time understanding words in a noisy environment or through a cell phone. Again, I think it's because I can't hear soft sounds that are in the frequency of my ringing. A lot of the formants of typical human speech probably fall into that range. So I definitely hear you talking, I just can't figure out what the words are. I don't have a problem in a reasonably quiet setting with most speakers, though.
Anyway, I never realized exactly what kind or how much damage I was doing to my hearing. I think this is the case with most young people. I am very careful to protect my hearing now, and I really hope I don't start suffering from serious hearing as I age.
I wish I had mod points. There is so much truth to this. I have the same experiences as the GP, and I do live in a red state (Nashville, TN). It's the idea that the wealthy folks are royalty, and the average folks are their peasants or serfs. I hear a lot of people here go on about "entitlement" programs, but in my experience, it's usually only the rich ones that really feel entitled to anything. I used to work in an expensive salon in the Green Hills area, and those clients were so overbearing. I ultimately quit because they really weren't worth dealing with.
I mean, there are very very few "wealth-neutral" systems that people engage in. The highway system is one of them. Generally, people with more money get "better" everything -- but put them on the road and they're just another person trying to get from points A to point B.
It's the difference between a hologram and Data. Data was a true AI. The holograms were just programmed to pass the Turing test. Sure, the writers took some liberty with this sometimes, but it's generally true throughout the series. With Voyager in particular, one major ongoing story element was the progression of the holographic doctor into a "true" AI.
Some Voyager episodes also demonstrate the "newer" models of the EMH which are less AI-like and more the just-pass-a-Turing-test type, because the first gen EMH doctors (the ones played by Robert Picardo) were generally not well liked.
To contrast, Data actually struggled sometimes to "pass the Turing test" in some ways. He didn't (initially)have emotions or think like human beings. He often had a hard time relating to and understanding humans. In some ways, he was much more like a Vulcan -- a race that, while completely intelligent, actually might not be able to pass a Turing test under certain circumstances. (I can see "That is an illogical question," as a common answer -- much like talking to SmarterChild on AIM.)
Look at it like this: hardware == automobile; software == human choices and decisions.
Right, and which one of your analogies gets a patent (hint: automobile)? Which one gets a copyright (hint: human ideas/decisions)? I think you'll find you just stated my position.
I think we'll be seeing problems from GM crops around that time. I don't trust those new proteins and neither should you (mad cow disease anyone?). Of course, I am not again GM crops, only the very rudimentary kind that we are able to make with yesterday's science.
Of course by the time we figure that out, poor control conditions used in experiments will have cross pollinated to even the "organic" cousins, so that we're all doomed. Not just the poor folks who can only afford the cheap stuff.
The name Pidgin actually makes a lot of sense, and fits the app perfectly. I think it's one of the most cleverly named apps. Alas, though, it required legal action for them to change it from the previous "GAIM" which was pretty GAY.
Animals are killed and eaten in the natural, untouched-by-humans wild all the time. I don't get the "OMG YOU KILL ANIMALS" argument. That's natural. That's what happens to prey animals. They are killed and eaten.
Compared to being ripped apart by a predator's claws and eaten alive, I think our methods are humane.
I don't know. I think "evil" is pretty accurately characterized by subsidizing you own existence with the work of others. That's really all shareholders are doing.
They would have been demonized by the administration for not "supporting the troops" by signing the spending bill. The spin would have made it look like they were trying to starve out our soldiers to make a political point -- because we know Bush wouldn't have brought them home without a budget. He would have stubbornly put them at risk by leaving them there without resources. However he wouldn't have taken the blame -- the democrats in congress would have, for not approving the funding.
Ultimately, the obstructionist tactic isn't very useful if the other side isn't willing to budge. The Republicans could have filibustered everything that wasn't Bush's preferred version of the bill, practically tying up the senate until somebody backed down.
This sort of "mutilation without regard for their health" happens to prey animals in the wild every day, far from the intervention of humankind.
Who knew?!
We, as humans, are still evil and horrible for doing it. Yet we need to protect the endangered lions and tigers and bears so they can continue on with their mutilations of prey animals, I suppose.
That would be the typical PETA stance on the issue, wouldn't it?
As for your comment to racism: black folks and white folks are, for the most part (in the USA), culturally different. Any animosity between the cultures (not races) is due almost exclusively to those differences. It just so happens that it's easy to correlate race with culture, and that's by skin color.
It's all about actions, not skin color. When you try to pass cultural friction off as being about skin color, you're really missing the whole point of why it exists, and thus you'll never make any progress toward positive change.
In other words, if every black person in the world woke up with milky white skin, the problem would NOT go away. You would still have a huge cultural divide to reconcile.
There IS such a thing as true racism, where some people hate other people because of their race, or the color of their skin, but it is very, very rare. For most people, "racism" is just the subconscious correlation of skin color and culture.
If you don't know how to tell the difference, you might try a test: "Do you know any decent, likable black/white people?" If the answer is yes, then that person isn't really racist, because race isn't the ultimate determining factor in how they feel about a person. Likely, the persons they have identified as liking from that particular race have qualities (NOT skin color) that seem more palatable.
I thought cognitive dissonance was when someone held two conflicting beliefs. If they find some way to reconcile them, there's no dissonance anymore.
For example, "I trust the science and technology in my car with my life on a daily basis, but I refuse to trust the same science and technology when it tells me the earth is older than six thousand years."
Admittedly, that one is a little obtuse. Sometimes people have two very obvious conflicting beliefs, and that just makes my head hurt. I can't think of an example right now, because I try not to think about them.
Because corporations want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to pay the programmers a one-time flat rate, but own the patents of their creations so they they can rake in the profit forever after.
At least the recording industry gives a royalty to artists and songwriters.
In my opinion, it all needs to go away, and everything should become commission based. If it takes 1000 man hours to get a piece of software, then you pay that much for it. The end. If someone else can use that same piece of software, then -- oh wonder of wonders -- they don't have to pay anything for it because no work is being expended to recreate it.
Now that I think of it, that's one of the main tenants that makes open source work.
I think the same idea could apply to art, too. If it takes 1000 artist hours to make a record, then, wouldn't you know, that's what you pay them for it. You know, like the cost of a live concert. I don't understand the "work once/ profit many" mentality. It's essentially a really obfuscated slavery system, where lots of people never have to work (read: contribute to society), because they are multiplying the work they -- or someone else for them -- has already done.
At least relative to most programmers, who happen to be smart. Not all brilliant, but smart. Even people who can only write shitty little VB apps are generally ahead of the curve, if not by much.
Do you have a Terminal Services server running somewhere on your domain? Or an old box lying around somewhere? Maybe you could remote desktop in and use Outlook in Windows without actually having to virtualize it on your own hardware.
Another idea -- could you forward all your email to another POP-accessible account and check it from that?
1) Comcast is many times the only realistic choice. This is in part due to a government-granted monopoly.
2) A lot of the infrastructure was subsidized by tax dollars. So in some sense, you have already paid for the infrastructure.
3) Even if Comcast DID start losing their customers en masse, there is no promise they'd change their policies -- for reasons 1 and 2. They have a monopoly. More likely, it would just hurt the overall economy, and Comcast would respond by laying people off to cut costs.
4) Even if Comcast DID start losing their customers and they DID decide to change their business practice, it would ONLY be until they had built up a large customer base again. Then you'd see them go right back to their old tricks. It would be this constant tug-of-war with the consumer, and I'm not sure that benefits anyone, either.
5) Even if you do have a competitor in your area, points 1-4 probably apply to them as well. So they aren't likely to offer significantly better service. At best you can have a "lesser or two evils" scenario.
They don't offer you "whatever you want", the offer you something like 6mpbs downstream and 512 kbps upstream. No one is asking for unlimited amounts of bandwidth, just what was advertised.
I don't think 54 bucks for a guaranteed 100 mpbs connection is that expensive. I pay more than that a months for a lot less. I know, I know -- you are talking about a LAN. But still...
Even with what you describe, dedicated bandwidth is only 7x more expensive. I charge you to find any replacement for cable internet that allows you unlimited use of guaranteed bandwidth for only 7x the price. You're looking at getting a partial DS-3 or bonded DS-1's, or maybe fiber if it's available in your area. Either one is going to cost you WAY more than $350/month ($50 x7).
Slashdot Mirror
I listened to loud music when I was younger. I'm 25 now, and I keep ear protection in my car, just in case I ever need it. I have a relatively mild case of tinnitus now, though my hearing is still rather acute, except for quiet sounds in the same range as my tinnitus.
I went to an audiologist, and they said my hearing was fine. I have a really hard time understanding words in a noisy environment or through a cell phone. Again, I think it's because I can't hear soft sounds that are in the frequency of my ringing. A lot of the formants of typical human speech probably fall into that range. So I definitely hear you talking, I just can't figure out what the words are. I don't have a problem in a reasonably quiet setting with most speakers, though.
Anyway, I never realized exactly what kind or how much damage I was doing to my hearing. I think this is the case with most young people. I am very careful to protect my hearing now, and I really hope I don't start suffering from serious hearing as I age.
I wish I had mod points. There is so much truth to this. I have the same experiences as the GP, and I do live in a red state (Nashville, TN). It's the idea that the wealthy folks are royalty, and the average folks are their peasants or serfs. I hear a lot of people here go on about "entitlement" programs, but in my experience, it's usually only the rich ones that really feel entitled to anything. I used to work in an expensive salon in the Green Hills area, and those clients were so overbearing. I ultimately quit because they really weren't worth dealing with.
I mean, there are very very few "wealth-neutral" systems that people engage in. The highway system is one of them. Generally, people with more money get "better" everything -- but put them on the road and they're just another person trying to get from points A to point B.
Sarah Palin, is that you?
Star Trek reference:
It's the difference between a hologram and Data. Data was a true AI. The holograms were just programmed to pass the Turing test. Sure, the writers took some liberty with this sometimes, but it's generally true throughout the series. With Voyager in particular, one major ongoing story element was the progression of the holographic doctor into a "true" AI.
Some Voyager episodes also demonstrate the "newer" models of the EMH which are less AI-like and more the just-pass-a-Turing-test type, because the first gen EMH doctors (the ones played by Robert Picardo) were generally not well liked.
To contrast, Data actually struggled sometimes to "pass the Turing test" in some ways. He didn't (initially)have emotions or think like human beings. He often had a hard time relating to and understanding humans. In some ways, he was much more like a Vulcan -- a race that, while completely intelligent, actually might not be able to pass a Turing test under certain circumstances. (I can see "That is an illogical question," as a common answer -- much like talking to SmarterChild on AIM.)
You have it right. The software is just an idea.
Look at it like this: hardware == automobile; software == human choices and decisions.
Right, and which one of your analogies gets a patent (hint: automobile)? Which one gets a copyright (hint: human ideas/decisions)? I think you'll find you just stated my position.
I think we'll be seeing problems from GM crops around that time. I don't trust those new proteins and neither should you (mad cow disease anyone?). Of course, I am not again GM crops, only the very rudimentary kind that we are able to make with yesterday's science.
Of course by the time we figure that out, poor control conditions used in experiments will have cross pollinated to even the "organic" cousins, so that we're all doomed. Not just the poor folks who can only afford the cheap stuff.
Also less commonly know as 791652's disease.
The name Pidgin actually makes a lot of sense, and fits the app perfectly. I think it's one of the most cleverly named apps. Alas, though, it required legal action for them to change it from the previous "GAIM" which was pretty GAY.
Animals are killed and eaten in the natural, untouched-by-humans wild all the time. I don't get the "OMG YOU KILL ANIMALS" argument. That's natural. That's what happens to prey animals. They are killed and eaten.
Compared to being ripped apart by a predator's claws and eaten alive, I think our methods are humane.
I don't know. I think "evil" is pretty accurately characterized by subsidizing you own existence with the work of others. That's really all shareholders are doing.
I think that's only true if you have a space faring vessel. :p
To be fair, this it matters if you're in a swing state.
Either way, she's gonna need lots of lipstick.
They would have been demonized by the administration for not "supporting the troops" by signing the spending bill. The spin would have made it look like they were trying to starve out our soldiers to make a political point -- because we know Bush wouldn't have brought them home without a budget. He would have stubbornly put them at risk by leaving them there without resources. However he wouldn't have taken the blame -- the democrats in congress would have, for not approving the funding.
Ultimately, the obstructionist tactic isn't very useful if the other side isn't willing to budge. The Republicans could have filibustered everything that wasn't Bush's preferred version of the bill, practically tying up the senate until somebody backed down.
This sort of "mutilation without regard for their health" happens to prey animals in the wild every day, far from the intervention of humankind.
Who knew?!
We, as humans, are still evil and horrible for doing it. Yet we need to protect the endangered lions and tigers and bears so they can continue on with their mutilations of prey animals, I suppose.
That would be the typical PETA stance on the issue, wouldn't it?
As for your comment to racism: black folks and white folks are, for the most part (in the USA), culturally different. Any animosity between the cultures (not races) is due almost exclusively to those differences. It just so happens that it's easy to correlate race with culture, and that's by skin color.
It's all about actions, not skin color. When you try to pass cultural friction off as being about skin color, you're really missing the whole point of why it exists, and thus you'll never make any progress toward positive change.
In other words, if every black person in the world woke up with milky white skin, the problem would NOT go away. You would still have a huge cultural divide to reconcile.
There IS such a thing as true racism, where some people hate other people because of their race, or the color of their skin, but it is very, very rare. For most people, "racism" is just the subconscious correlation of skin color and culture.
If you don't know how to tell the difference, you might try a test: "Do you know any decent, likable black/white people?" If the answer is yes, then that person isn't really racist, because race isn't the ultimate determining factor in how they feel about a person. Likely, the persons they have identified as liking from that particular race have qualities (NOT skin color) that seem more palatable.
I thought cognitive dissonance was when someone held two conflicting beliefs. If they find some way to reconcile them, there's no dissonance anymore.
For example, "I trust the science and technology in my car with my life on a daily basis, but I refuse to trust the same science and technology when it tells me the earth is older than six thousand years."
Admittedly, that one is a little obtuse. Sometimes people have two very obvious conflicting beliefs, and that just makes my head hurt. I can't think of an example right now, because I try not to think about them.
And you got modded Insightful.
That's the funniest part.
Because it's so true.
Because corporations want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to pay the programmers a one-time flat rate, but own the patents of their creations so they they can rake in the profit forever after.
At least the recording industry gives a royalty to artists and songwriters.
In my opinion, it all needs to go away, and everything should become commission based. If it takes 1000 man hours to get a piece of software, then you pay that much for it. The end. If someone else can use that same piece of software, then -- oh wonder of wonders -- they don't have to pay anything for it because no work is being expended to recreate it.
Now that I think of it, that's one of the main tenants that makes open source work.
I think the same idea could apply to art, too. If it takes 1000 artist hours to make a record, then, wouldn't you know, that's what you pay them for it. You know, like the cost of a live concert. I don't understand the "work once/ profit many" mentality. It's essentially a really obfuscated slavery system, where lots of people never have to work (read: contribute to society), because they are multiplying the work they -- or someone else for them -- has already done.
The code does nothing but sit.
The hardware does stuff. No one has ever taken issue with hardware patents, I don't think.
Well is you want to turn this into a science lesson then you should add that the membrane is semi-permeable and only allows some particles across.
He did. He said osmosis is diffusion of water across a membrane. That staisfies your qualification of "only allows some particles across."
To be fair, though, 50% of people are idiots.
At least relative to most programmers, who happen to be smart. Not all brilliant, but smart. Even people who can only write shitty little VB apps are generally ahead of the curve, if not by much.
Do you have a Terminal Services server running somewhere on your domain? Or an old box lying around somewhere? Maybe you could remote desktop in and use Outlook in Windows without actually having to virtualize it on your own hardware.
Another idea -- could you forward all your email to another POP-accessible account and check it from that?
Stupid idea for a lot of reasons:
1) Comcast is many times the only realistic choice. This is in part due to a government-granted monopoly.
2) A lot of the infrastructure was subsidized by tax dollars. So in some sense, you have already paid for the infrastructure.
3) Even if Comcast DID start losing their customers en masse, there is no promise they'd change their policies -- for reasons 1 and 2. They have a monopoly. More likely, it would just hurt the overall economy, and Comcast would respond by laying people off to cut costs.
4) Even if Comcast DID start losing their customers and they DID decide to change their business practice, it would ONLY be until they had built up a large customer base again. Then you'd see them go right back to their old tricks. It would be this constant tug-of-war with the consumer, and I'm not sure that benefits anyone, either.
5) Even if you do have a competitor in your area, points 1-4 probably apply to them as well. So they aren't likely to offer significantly better service. At best you can have a "lesser or two evils" scenario.
They don't offer you "whatever you want", the offer you something like 6mpbs downstream and 512 kbps upstream. No one is asking for unlimited amounts of bandwidth, just what was advertised.
I don't think 54 bucks for a guaranteed 100 mpbs connection is that expensive. I pay more than that a months for a lot less. I know, I know -- you are talking about a LAN. But still...
Even with what you describe, dedicated bandwidth is only 7x more expensive. I charge you to find any replacement for cable internet that allows you unlimited use of guaranteed bandwidth for only 7x the price. You're looking at getting a partial DS-3 or bonded DS-1's, or maybe fiber if it's available in your area. Either one is going to cost you WAY more than $350/month ($50 x7).