...in the mid-80's, we used a similar device to send weather observations from the air traffic control tower I worked at (FYV) to the flight service station across the field. It would literally duplicate every stroke you made on the other end. IIRC, we called it the "electrowriter."
A few years later, they replaced it with a rebadged TI-99A that was "state of the art" for the FAA (and probably cost them thousands of dollars) where we could magically type in our ATIS report, and have them appear at the other end on a little amber monitor with attached thermal printer. High times those were!
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic. It's not clear to me how you're saving $65. The cheapest FIOS plan I've found is somewhere around $85 (and I'm sure taxes and whatnot push that up to $100 or more). In most areas, you can't get internet access via cable without a basic cable plan, so we're talking $60 or $70. I'm just not seeing the savings that people are bragging about.
Even with these numbers, I can see savings of maybe $300-$400/year, all things considered. And that might not be insignificant for some (it certainly isn't for me; that's why I've cut my addiction to a landline and saved about $600/year in the process). But come on, savings of over $1500 as one poster claims? I'm just not buying it.
...because there are a lot of commenters that are very proud of ditching cable, pay only $20/$30/$40 for Netflix/Hulu/blah blah blah...but what are you paying for internet access?
I pay $100 for my cable service, and that includes high-speed Internet (well, fast enough I can stream Netflix with no troubles). This includes a couple hundred digital channels as well. I really doubt all of you who have ditched cable are on dial-up. So let's be honest here: If you're going to tell us how much you saved by getting rid of cable, tell the whole story by telling us how much you pay for internet access.
Google only hires people who lucks out on their broken hiring process
Tell me about it. I somehow eked my way through a phone interview with them, even after the interviewer asked me a very obscure question about a very obscure RFC (no doubt a weed-out question). After they offered to fly me in for a follow-up interview, I thought about whether this really was a company I wanted to work for, and decided no, it was not.
Their loss, not mine. Never once regretted my decision.
You're simply in denial. The church's admission of many (but far from all) cases of rape, many of which resulted in priests sent elsewhere to cover it up rather than reporting them to the police, is proof for anyone but the deluded.
I've not denied anything. The term "baby rape" is nothing more than grandstanding, hyperbole with the sole purpose of stirring up emotions. It's the same as when the vets returning from Vietnam were called "baby killers." To this date, I've yet to see a single reputable source with a substantiated claim of a priest raping a baby.
I certainly believe the Church went to great pains to cover up child-abusing priests, and that they were caught doing so. But you'd be much more credible if you resisted the temptation to inject hysterics into the issue.
Your alignment with the church to attack the messenger despite the facts makes you a part of the coverup. You should see a doctor, not a priest, about your sickness.
I've already posted elsewhere (with cites) that the US Dept. of Education believes 6% to 10% of school-aged children have been molested by teachers or other school employees. Because I work for a school, and I'm Catholic, should I just check myself into a recovery program and skip the doctor referral?
I'm saddended that logic and reason have seemed to have flown the coop here. I would certainly expect more from the/. crowd.
Being a geek means you know how things really work, facts and logic in thorough detail. Your fallacies and word games are contrary to being a geek. If you were a geek about religion, you'd understand that it's superstition and power games.
Reason tells me that there's nothing lost in believing in God. It always amuses me that this freedom of choice (to believe or not to believe) seems to stick in the craw of many non-believers, as if it's a personal insult to them.
But your suggestion is that I ignore the Church's baby rape and coverup simply because the Church isn't the only one doing it. You are part of the coverup.
I didn't suggest that you ignore anything. I just suggested that you apply facts and logic to the situation, and realize that the Catholic Church is only a small part of a much larger child abuse problem. To focus on one small aspect of a larger problem is rather narrow-minded. You chip away at a granite block with a dental pick, but at the end of the day, it's still a granite block. I'm just suggestion you use something large, maybe a sledgehammer and chisel.
Oh please. Are you really that gullible that your believe everything the mass media spoon feeds you? (I suspect you're not.)
the church blames satan/antichrist instead of the priests for the baby rape, for which the church prescribes exorcism.
Really? My copy of the Catholic Catechism states that "[i]llness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science." (para. 1673) Would you dispute the fact that pedophilia (which is present in all segments of society, BTW) is a mental illness? If not, then I'd say it's safe to say that we both can agree that the Church does not consider exorcism as a way to "cure" priests who are pedophiles. In fact, the Church's position on pedophilia is that "[c]ivil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed."
Don't believe everything you read in the media. They can't get nuclear science right; do you really think they can get religion right too?
The Vatican's Catholic Church tells everyone (and I mean everyone) that the entire reason for life is to be tempted to sin, but instead to have faith in Jesus and avoid sin. Life is a test, they say, where god tests our faith in Jesus. Pass and go to heaven; fail and go to hell.
Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that reason points us towards faith (para. 36). The Church doesn't teach us to have "blind faith" in Jesus, but to use reason towards establishing faith. This is the reason why carrying a geek card and being a Catholic are not mutually exclusive, contrary to the drivel that you might see here.
The Church doesn't teach that "life is a test." Instead, the Church teaches that God gave man free will, and that you are free to allow him in your life or not, as the case may be (para. 1). It's all about choice. There is no pass/fail test. If you choose to follow God, and to live a life that fulfills the greatest of the commandments (love God and your neighbor), then the kingdom of God is yours.
It's not a cult of baby rapers, headed by an evil pope who protected (and protects) them worldwide.
To be honest, the Catholic Church has been hemorrhaging members in the US for a long time
Thanks for contributing to the mass hypocrisy and gross misrepresentation of facts that seems to plague this discussion. I don't mean to have facts get in the way of your diatribe, but in reality the percentage of Catholics in the US has remained steady over the past 38 years (at about 25%). Since the population of the US continues to grow, this means (follow me here) that the number of Catholics in the US continues to grow as well. I'd hardly call that "hemorrhaging." For an example of "hemorrhaging," check out the Protestant numbers.
These people are ruining children's lives and we should be supporting them not laughing at their abusers from a high horse.
I'm rather confused by your statement, but I'll take a stab at it anyways. I hold a lifetime geek card, have a background in academic research, I spend every day with young adults (about 2600 of them), I was raised a Catholic, and I'm not a pedophile. I really don't need your support, and neither do the vast majority of Catholics. I think you've been brainwashed by the rampant hypocrisy and yellow journalism here and elsewhere. You probably need to just take a break from/., The Telegraph, whatever. Maybe apply a rational thought process (which I would expect from any self-proclaimed geek-card carrier) to the entire "issue" and come up with your own conclusions. I think you'll find that the "issue" is vastly overblown by the media intent on selling papers.
The Telegraph as an accuratenewssource? I would expect better from the/. crowd. But hey, since Catholicism is such an easy target, why not throw away sense and reason and engage in a littlehypocrisy?
I'll second this. Most consumer laptops are very cheaply made, with lots of plastic (read: doesn't stand up well to any sort of accidental abuse). After quite a bit of research, I ended up getting a Dell Latitude E6500...metal case, *very* sturdy palmrests, just a really comfortable machine. Normally I don't recommend extended warranties, but the Dell extended warranties (at least the business-class warranties) are hard to beat, and will pay for themselves the first time something goes south.
Munger said it, not Buffett. In fact, Munger was referring to the pay-per-click business model, with no mention made of Android, Chrome, or other free offerings. I stand by my original position that the/. article is nothing more than a Google shill at work.
This is not what Buffett meant, and anyone who follows Buffett knows that "moats" are the IP, patents, and low-cost advantages (among other things) that protect a company's business assets. Chrome OS, Android, etc. do nothing to "widen the moat" (other than maybe some name recognition). Slashdot editors: Please do your jobs and edit. This is a bad article that deserves to be ignored as worthless drivel by a Google shill.
The US and the UK are particularly good at draining other countries of already well-educated people, but this doesn't mean that the US or the UK have performed the academic preparation necessary to produce excellent researchers.
OpenNIC already does this. OpenNIC is totally independent of ICANN, and can resolve names to IP addresses without consulting the ICANN root zone. They've been doing it for 10+ years, with 40+ servers spread across the globe, both hemispheres. The solution is out there; folks just need to take advantage of it.
>>>The other alternative is keeping a transponder in your car... not really my cup of tea.
So, you pay 150% more than a tolltag customer because...well, I'm not too sure. They know who you are and where you live (obviously), so why would a tolltag not be your "cup of tea"?
If you really relished your privacy, you simply wouldn't use the NTTA tollroads...
...so that newest posts are first? I've always browsed comments this way, and indeed this should be the default if you really want fair and balanced moderation.
The slider bar is rather unintuitive...I just want to be able to view 3+ comments and never see anything associated with lower-rated comments. Now, I'm getting an "unresponsive script" when I muck with the slider control.
I'll be turning in my geek card now, as I really can't figure this out.
Slashdot Mirror
...in the mid-80's, we used a similar device to send weather observations from the air traffic control tower I worked at (FYV) to the flight service station across the field. It would literally duplicate every stroke you made on the other end. IIRC, we called it the "electrowriter."
A few years later, they replaced it with a rebadged TI-99A that was "state of the art" for the FAA (and probably cost them thousands of dollars) where we could magically type in our ATIS report, and have them appear at the other end on a little amber monitor with attached thermal printer. High times those were!
OK, I see now.
Actually, I wish the cable companies would let you just buy internet access without cable access. Now *that* would be some savings (about $50/month).
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic. It's not clear to me how you're saving $65. The cheapest FIOS plan I've found is somewhere around $85 (and I'm sure taxes and whatnot push that up to $100 or more). In most areas, you can't get internet access via cable without a basic cable plan, so we're talking $60 or $70. I'm just not seeing the savings that people are bragging about.
Even with these numbers, I can see savings of maybe $300-$400/year, all things considered. And that might not be insignificant for some (it certainly isn't for me; that's why I've cut my addiction to a landline and saved about $600/year in the process). But come on, savings of over $1500 as one poster claims? I'm just not buying it.
...because there are a lot of commenters that are very proud of ditching cable, pay only $20/$30/$40 for Netflix/Hulu/blah blah blah...but what are you paying for internet access?
I pay $100 for my cable service, and that includes high-speed Internet (well, fast enough I can stream Netflix with no troubles). This includes a couple hundred digital channels as well. I really doubt all of you who have ditched cable are on dial-up. So let's be honest here: If you're going to tell us how much you saved by getting rid of cable, tell the whole story by telling us how much you pay for internet access.
Google only hires people who lucks out on their broken hiring process
Tell me about it. I somehow eked my way through a phone interview with them, even after the interviewer asked me a very obscure question about a very obscure RFC (no doubt a weed-out question). After they offered to fly me in for a follow-up interview, I thought about whether this really was a company I wanted to work for, and decided no, it was not.
Their loss, not mine. Never once regretted my decision.
From the summary:
using it to destroy a small target vessel
From the article:
disabled a small target vessel
Big difference between "disable" and "destroy."
You're simply in denial. The church's admission of many (but far from all) cases of rape, many of which resulted in priests sent elsewhere to cover it up rather than reporting them to the police, is proof for anyone but the deluded.
I've not denied anything. The term "baby rape" is nothing more than grandstanding, hyperbole with the sole purpose of stirring up emotions. It's the same as when the vets returning from Vietnam were called "baby killers." To this date, I've yet to see a single reputable source with a substantiated claim of a priest raping a baby.
I certainly believe the Church went to great pains to cover up child-abusing priests, and that they were caught doing so. But you'd be much more credible if you resisted the temptation to inject hysterics into the issue.
Your alignment with the church to attack the messenger despite the facts makes you a part of the coverup. You should see a doctor, not a priest, about your sickness.
I've already posted elsewhere (with cites) that the US Dept. of Education believes 6% to 10% of school-aged children have been molested by teachers or other school employees. Because I work for a school, and I'm Catholic, should I just check myself into a recovery program and skip the doctor referral?
I'm saddended that logic and reason have seemed to have flown the coop here. I would certainly expect more from the /. crowd.
Being a geek means you know how things really work, facts and logic in thorough detail. Your fallacies and word games are contrary to being a geek. If you were a geek about religion, you'd understand that it's superstition and power games.
Reason tells me that there's nothing lost in believing in God. It always amuses me that this freedom of choice (to believe or not to believe) seems to stick in the craw of many non-believers, as if it's a personal insult to them.
But your suggestion is that I ignore the Church's baby rape and coverup simply because the Church isn't the only one doing it. You are part of the coverup.
I didn't suggest that you ignore anything. I just suggested that you apply facts and logic to the situation, and realize that the Catholic Church is only a small part of a much larger child abuse problem. To focus on one small aspect of a larger problem is rather narrow-minded. You chip away at a granite block with a dental pick, but at the end of the day, it's still a granite block. I'm just suggestion you use something large, maybe a sledgehammer and chisel.
You are going to hell.
Your guess is as good as mine.
It's well documented that priests rape babies.
Oh please. Are you really that gullible that your believe everything the mass media spoon feeds you? (I suspect you're not.)
the church blames satan/antichrist instead of the priests for the baby rape, for which the church prescribes exorcism.
Really? My copy of the Catholic Catechism states that "[i]llness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science." (para. 1673) Would you dispute the fact that pedophilia (which is present in all segments of society, BTW) is a mental illness? If not, then I'd say it's safe to say that we both can agree that the Church does not consider exorcism as a way to "cure" priests who are pedophiles. In fact, the Church's position on pedophilia is that "[c]ivil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed."
Don't believe everything you read in the media. They can't get nuclear science right; do you really think they can get religion right too?
The Vatican's Catholic Church tells everyone (and I mean everyone) that the entire reason for life is to be tempted to sin, but instead to have faith in Jesus and avoid sin. Life is a test, they say, where god tests our faith in Jesus. Pass and go to heaven; fail and go to hell.
Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that reason points us towards faith (para. 36). The Church doesn't teach us to have "blind faith" in Jesus, but to use reason towards establishing faith. This is the reason why carrying a geek card and being a Catholic are not mutually exclusive, contrary to the drivel that you might see here.
The Church doesn't teach that "life is a test." Instead, the Church teaches that God gave man free will, and that you are free to allow him in your life or not, as the case may be (para. 1). It's all about choice. There is no pass/fail test. If you choose to follow God, and to live a life that fulfills the greatest of the commandments (love God and your neighbor), then the kingdom of God is yours.
It's not a cult of baby rapers, headed by an evil pope who protected (and protects) them worldwide.
I realize this is sarcasm on your part, but you might be interest in knowing that the US Dept. of Education estimates between 6% and 10% of school-aged children have been molested by teachers and other school employees. Considering there are about 74 million school-aged children in the US, I'd say the child molestation epidemic in the US public school system is a vastly larger problem than that of the Catholic Church. Maybe you should devote your energy towards that cover-up.
To be honest, the Catholic Church has been hemorrhaging members in the US for a long time
Thanks for contributing to the mass hypocrisy and gross misrepresentation of facts that seems to plague this discussion. I don't mean to have facts get in the way of your diatribe, but in reality the percentage of Catholics in the US has remained steady over the past 38 years (at about 25%). Since the population of the US continues to grow, this means (follow me here) that the number of Catholics in the US continues to grow as well. I'd hardly call that "hemorrhaging." For an example of "hemorrhaging," check out the Protestant numbers.
These people are ruining children's lives and we should be supporting them not laughing at their abusers from a high horse.
I'm rather confused by your statement, but I'll take a stab at it anyways. I hold a lifetime geek card, have a background in academic research, I spend every day with young adults (about 2600 of them), I was raised a Catholic, and I'm not a pedophile. I really don't need your support, and neither do the vast majority of Catholics. I think you've been brainwashed by the rampant hypocrisy and yellow journalism here and elsewhere. You probably need to just take a break from /., The Telegraph, whatever. Maybe apply a rational thought process (which I would expect from any self-proclaimed geek-card carrier) to the entire "issue" and come up with your own conclusions. I think you'll find that the "issue" is vastly overblown by the media intent on selling papers.
If the Catholic church can get away with an apology for the rape of countless young boys and girls on behalf of its members
The Catholic Church doesn't hold a monopoly on molestation cover-ups.
In all fairness, we should tackle the Boy Scout molestation cover-up next. Or maybe a discussion of child molestation in the Australian Anglican Church? Or hey, what about the Episcopal Church's child molestation run in the '70s and '80s?
The hypocrisy here would make me sick if it wasn't so damn funny.
If anyone is interested in exorcism, become a priest and rape a baby.
Cite needed. And The Telegraph and Wikipedia don't count.
The Telegraph as an accurate news source? I would expect better from the /. crowd. But hey, since Catholicism is such an easy target, why not throw away sense and reason and engage in a little hypocrisy?
I'll second this. Most consumer laptops are very cheaply made, with lots of plastic (read: doesn't stand up well to any sort of accidental abuse). After quite a bit of research, I ended up getting a Dell Latitude E6500...metal case, *very* sturdy palmrests, just a really comfortable machine. Normally I don't recommend extended warranties, but the Dell extended warranties (at least the business-class warranties) are hard to beat, and will pay for themselves the first time something goes south.
Munger said it, not Buffett. In fact, Munger was referring to the pay-per-click business model, with no mention made of Android, Chrome, or other free offerings. I stand by my original position that the /. article is nothing more than a Google shill at work.
This is not what Buffett meant, and anyone who follows Buffett knows that "moats" are the IP, patents, and low-cost advantages (among other things) that protect a company's business assets. Chrome OS, Android, etc. do nothing to "widen the moat" (other than maybe some name recognition). Slashdot editors: Please do your jobs and edit. This is a bad article that deserves to be ignored as worthless drivel by a Google shill.
The US and the UK are particularly good at draining other countries of already well-educated people, but this doesn't mean that the US or the UK have performed the academic preparation necessary to produce excellent researchers.
Cite needed.
Oh, how I long for the days of "news for nerds, stuff that matters."
This is a crap submission for a crap article. Nobody I know is confused about what an "app" is.
OpenNIC already does this. OpenNIC is totally independent of ICANN, and can resolve names to IP addresses without consulting the ICANN root zone. They've been doing it for 10+ years, with 40+ servers spread across the globe, both hemispheres. The solution is out there; folks just need to take advantage of it.
I want to know the bloody details of the wireless mesh.
Here's a place to start: HSMM-MESH
>>>The other alternative is keeping a transponder in your car... not really my cup of tea.
So, you pay 150% more than a tolltag customer because...well, I'm not too sure. They know who you are and where you live (obviously), so why would a tolltag not be your "cup of tea"?
If you really relished your privacy, you simply wouldn't use the NTTA tollroads...
...so that newest posts are first? I've always browsed comments this way, and indeed this should be the default if you really want fair and balanced moderation.
The slider bar is rather unintuitive...I just want to be able to view 3+ comments and never see anything associated with lower-rated comments. Now, I'm getting an "unresponsive script" when I muck with the slider control.
I'll be turning in my geek card now, as I really can't figure this out.