A local community's police force (well, back in Maine which is my home - I'm just not there at the moment) was going to get an armored personnel carrier for their tiny police department, care of Uncle Sam. The locals found out about it, before it happened, and went ape shit and pretty much told them to go pound sand. The local police department did not get their toy.
The local college had, for some reason, M16s issued - but no training. They had 7 of them issued, one broke, and was sent back. Again, the town found out and went ape shit. The campus police had a total of three members (and one lady on maternity leave). They sheepishly sent back the remaining six M16s. That's the same town that had the same police department, by the way.
Also, those were not AR-15s. They were select fire (full automatic, single, and three round burst) with the four position selector. (There was a picture of one on the local newspaper's website.) One of them was, supposedly (I did not see a picture) equipped with the M203 which is a 40 mm grenade launcher. It is doubtful that this was equipped so that they could fire fragmentation grenades - it was, presumably, meant to be used for smoke and CS gas grenade use. However, the mechanism is the same for all types so who knows?
I also do not know if that last part is truthful - it was based on a comment from someone who works there, was not a campus police officer, and was not an official comment but a comment to the story itself on the site. The veracity of that fact is in doubt though they described the grenade launcher (well enough so that I knew what it was they spoke of) as they claimed they had seen it. They did not claim that they knew what it was, what it was for, or how it worked or anything. So, it's not like they said, "It had the affixed M203." They described it, in some detail, but those details could have easily been gleaned from a Google Image Search, the poster could have been anyone, and it might have been a complete work of fiction.
At any rate, they not only sent them back - they did so a bit sheepishly and had someone come pick them up from the Reserve unit down in Augusta (IIRC) and even had a picture of them turning them meeting. They did not show the weapons being turned over in the picture, so who knows? Even if they had shown it, who knows?
But, if you find your local police force is becoming too militarized and the citizens can be convinced to voice their outrage then it would appear that you can successfully get them to back down from taking those actions. Remember, the police work for you. More importantly, do not let the police forget who they work for. I can't say that it will work everywhere but I can say that it worked in one area. I'm also given to understand that a town in New Hampshire made them send back their toys as well.
In that case, I believe they had multiple toys - up to, and including, one of those special bomb-resistant vehicles meant to be used for transporting a small number of troops through IED infested streets as well as having a turret from which a person might perch and shoot people with a mounted 50 cal. I have no idea if they had the M2. I think it might have been Keene, NH and that they, too, made them get rid of their toys. Hell, Keene's much bigger than Farmington, Maine. I think it was Keene, at any rate. If not, it might have been one of the smaller towns up in the White Mountains - maybe Jefferson? That was a couple of years back, as I recall.
If you live in one of those towns, get your neighbors interested and fight back. Tell them no, that they're not allowed to have it. Raise a stink. Get the newspaper involved. I have no idea if this is true or not but I'd like to HOPE that most people would tell their police departments that they can't have them - if they know that they can do so and make them listen.
You called them a dumbshit and then went on to say that it's not legal for them to store the meta data on the outside of your letter.
The USPS takes a photograph of every single letter and package sent and then stores that data for 30 days, unless there's a call to save it for longer. They then freely provide this information to the police, without a warrant. It's considered public information.
Didn't they, the phone companies, already get money for this a long time ago and never really acted on it? Weren't they collecting a tax, not forwarding it to the government, and meant to use those funds to expand the network? I could have sworn this was true but I'd not know the name of the tax so I'm not really sure how to reasonably quickly Google the information.
That said, if they did (and I'm pretty sure they did - and I'm pretty sure they did not spend that money on increasing access) then I'm not sure why they should actually get more. They were paid to do this once already. They should be mandated to do so, with no extra fees added to the customers, because they were supposed to have done this already. This should not be a talking point all these years later - this should be a null problem, a solved problem.
Also, I'd not have expected them to provide me with broadband, by any terrestrial means, at my home location. I'm in an unincorporated township, almost 25 miles from the center from the nearest village, and in a *very* remote area.
However, they *did* provide me with said service BUT I had to pay for it, at least in part. It was about $30k USD for the installation and was actually less than the quoted price for an ISDN line was and I was tired of being unable to get decent service from satellite and they did not yet offer the wireless service that Hussey Communications now offers in some nearby areas - they do not offer it in my area because we've already been provided service because I paid for it - though my neighbor chipped in $1000 for the line to go a mile beyond my place.
They already had the lines coming out part way and they already had one CO on the road but it was not close enough. I paid for the CO and the upgraded lines to be run. This also enabled the other residents (there are six houses with people living in them year-round and a few camps - one is completely off the grid with no power or anything so they, they live further out anyhow, don't actually want broadband, phone, or electricity. So, I paid for the lines and the CO and, as near as I can tell (there's not a whole lot of data available) I not only paid a fair price - I paid less than what others have paid in very similar situations.
I have three disparate DSL lines (and I can get service from any company that's willing to provide it - Fairpoint is obligated to lease the lines at a fair price by State law) and they're all business class (at least they appear to be - I've a static IP address unless I intentionally change it which can be done one of two ways). I have DSL out to my garage and workshop. I have a DSL connection to the house that was originally here (I've had the house rehabbed and I get all fancy-like and call it my guest house but really it's just the old farmhouse that was on the property when I bought it). I have the DSL service to my actual house. They allow my running servers on them (not allowed for residential), give me static IP addresses (cost extra for residential), provide me with a different router/MODEM than one gets with residential service - except I never use their equipment, even though they kind of have pestered me to do so (I'm not entirely sure why) and they also (oddly) seem to have a passion for sending me new equipment with some regularity. Again, I have no idea why.
I don't ask for or want to use their equipment but I've had emails and several phone calls now. The first couple were helpful types, as if they were telling me how to connect the devices. Err... I know how to connect the devices - I have my own connected, you can see that on your end. Thanks for the assistance? Then was an email exchange where they seemed to indicate that I had to use their equipment - I declined. The last one was the most unusual. They called, offered to tell me how to install it again and I said that I'd be fine. They then told me that using their equipment was mandatory, I indicated that I'd not be using their equipment and just using a new provider. They then said they'd be happy t
You could have it really rough. I have multiple Linux distros back home in Maine that simply don't run on anything BUT solar and wind!
No, really, they run only on photovoltaic and wind turbine generation. While I do have grid electricity, that's actually as a backup. I haven't actually pulled any power from the grid since last spring. I'm not home in Maine for this winter, I'm skipping winter in Maine for a change of pace, so I can't say that I'm absolutely sure that I'll generate enough power (I use quite a bit) but I'm reasonably certain that I should generate enough. I've been pushing power out to the grid, at a fairly steady rate, for going on a year now.
It probably wouldn't work with Windows.;-) I'd probably need the high test, like the artisanal coal for that. Fortunately, if I need high grade, then I might have a solution. If the solar AND wind both fail and don't keep the batteries charged AND the mains goes down then I have the high test. I've got an in-ground tank and an automated system that will kick on a diesel powered generator which means I can explode some dead dinosaur corpse juices and get the good stuff. Now, if that one fails, there's actually a second, smaller, diesel powered generator out in the garage. If all of those fail then I'm still not entirely out of luck - I'm just probably not running much of anything other than the bare minimal, but I have it set up so that I can manually run a much, much smaller gasoline powered generator.
Err... If that fails, well, I guess I still have the generator in the RV? At that point, however, I might just as well live in the RV until things get back to normal.
Umm... If that fails then I'm kind of either out of luck or I'll need to do something with the one (or more) of the vehicles. I do have a couple of inverters meant for automobile batteries. I guess if things got that bad, I probably *would* actually be so bored that I'd eventually do something to keep a cell phone charged - I might as well have connectivity. Technically, somewhere, I've both an extended battery and a small solar panel that I've hooked up to keep it charged. I was making something to take with me on camping trips but then I thought about it and I don't actually really go camping so I've never really used it except to test it out. It should keep a cell phone and tablet powered throughout a whole evening - if needed. It's two laptop battery packs and a solar panel with I forget how much power - not a whole bunch but it should keep the battery pack charged up just fine (if I did the math properly back when I built it).
Hmm... Now, if that goes down and, for some reason, an inverter doesn't work then I guess I could probably just figure something out using one of the many automobiles and the battery. I do have an old Jeep with a PTO and a tractor with a PTO. Oh, wait, ha! I have a rebuilt tow truck that I had restored (I have my reasons) and it has a built in inverter on the back but I'm pretty sure that I'd be burning so much dead dino juice that I might just as well as try to fetch a moose and hitch it to some sort of wheel - like a gerbil wheel, and make moose powered electricity. Alternatively, seeing as I have the turbines already (but seemingly no wind) I guess that I could also probably fashion something so that I was turning the turbine with steam and, it being Maine, I could just burn wood for energy.
Or I could, I guess, just read a book until I have power again. For the duration of my life, at least, I can expect the wind to continue to blow and the Sun to shine again.
If you think that's bad, you should see what I need to do to run BSD! I'd also hate to explode all those dead dinosaurs just to use a computer so I'd really probably just read a book. Assuming the Nook is charged, I can even read an ebook!
For the record, the estimated time that I'll break even on my solar and wind is never. Just prior to the point where I'd be expecting to break even will be just about the time that they're due for upgrades/repla
So, I'm not sure that the presence of a Wikipedia page is a great indicator. On the other hand, it turns out that Maine has 184 MW wind capacity and North America's first floating wind turbine. So, there's that... (Also, it appears we were supposed to have 2000 MW of wind power by now. There are 44 turbines in my county, not counting my two or my neighbor's one.
It'd also appear that Maine claims they're gonna be a leader in off-shore wind power generation. I think Maine has made a number of claims that it doesn't appear to be interested in backing well enough to actually get completed. I don't think I was a resident when they got started or when the former governor made his prediction that Maine would have 2000 MW by 2015. We don't. We get about 7% of our power from wind and we have less than 1/10 of what the former governor had indicated we would have by now.
It was kind of neat seeing them transport the blades. I've even gone over and watched them assemble one. Well, I watched part of the assembly process. They're pretty big things and I went and watched for a while on a few different days. We don't get out much in Maine, I was not the only one watching. It was the thing to do. Some folks went so far as to watch the whole process for a couple of 'em. Yeah, we don't get out much.
It's generally kind of difficult to tell what they're saying. They pretty much have to be a troll. Take a look at their posting history, notice a trend? Yeah... Things like spelling, grammar, and making sense are not only optional but coincidental. I think most of us have learned to just not respond.
I have tried interacting with them, nicely even - as I am wont to do, for clarification as to the spelling and other words(?) they'd used. They didn't respond. I've seen others do the same thing. They get the same lack of a reply. But no, he's here and posts most every day. He indicates that he's native to Chicago area and there's no way that anyone can be that poor at the English language and be a native of Chicago.
They can be pretty bad, yes but there's a point where it has to be intentional. He does respond to people, so he has notifications enabled and sees notifications, he just doesn't reply if you question him about what he means or point out any spelling/grammar issues. Seriously, click his username and read a couple of pages worth of comments. There's no way that can be unintentional.
I simply refuse to believe that they're actually as dumb as they pretend they are. It's physically impossible to be that dumb and still use a computer well enough to navigate to Slashdot. It's physically impossible to be that dumb and not have poked out both eyes while trying use a fork and knife at the dinner table. I can not accept that someone can be that dumb and still function. It is, literally - not figuratively, impossible.
Such may exist but I know of no modern browser that does not have spell checking functionality available and they are, as far as I'm aware, enabled by default. No, a third language speaker doesn't solve it - no other third language has a structure(?) like that. Seriously, there's no structure, in any third language, that is gibberish.
Add to this that, perhaps entirely by accident - it's almost certainly at least coincidental as it appears to follow no structure either, that he sometimes says intelligible things and they not only make sense but they're intelligent. There's always the possibility of drugs and alcohol but I consider myself a bit of an expert on both and it is my, authoritative, opinion that any quantity of drugs or alcohol that would make someone post like that would also render them unable to login, type, or even use a bathroom properly.
Given that they sometimes do post articulate and intelligent posts, but that those occasions are so rare, I can only conclude that they make their stupid posts intentionally. There is some chance that they care so little of themselves and have so little awareness of self due to severe, crippling, depression and that has rendered them unwilling to actually care about their spelling. However, I'm not a psychiatrist but I'd presume that they've have committed suicide by now.
Allow me to quote some of their posts - you can verify these are direct, unadulterated, quotes.
>Yes but Disney contracted the work out so we did not due the hiring they did. >ban outsourcing firms from using them or cap >local passenger rail loses money as setting fairs at an level needed to be in the black will make people not use it. >Next time forum a union! (I should note, the above was marked insightful +3. No, I have no idea but I assume it's "form" and people have just acclimated to Joe's "spelling.")
Those are not taken out of context, they are direct quotes, and that's limiting myself to JUST the first page of comments. Yet, as I said, sometimes they post something that's intelligent and articulate. So, I presume this, the above posts, are them trolling. Sometimes you can parse them, they're not an ESL speaker, and they indicate(d) that they are a Chicago native.
I've been trying to figure out what he's been saying for years now. I'm almost certain that not even he knows and that he just mashes keys and then (now) uses spell check to randomly fix things. No, seriously - it used to be worse! Now t
Compared to what? Some Marines when down last week and a couple of Hawaiians went down yesterday I think it was. That's two accidents in just a few days. There are a whole bunch of helicopter accidents. They're actually crashing fairly often.
So, compared to what? You say "safe." That's an affirmative statement and leaves no room for quantification. So, using that as a response to your argument then you'd be demonstrably wrong by virtue of there being any accidents. If there are any accidents then they are not safe. They are, even they had just one accident ever, then less than safe - even if trivially less than safe with a single accident.
Given that they have certainly had way more than one accident then you're way more incorrect. They're even further away from safe with every single accident. Safe, the word, is definitive in nature. Normally, I'd let it slide but you were confident/cocky enough to say "Right, so like I said, they are safe."
Now, your first statement was actually more correct (still subjective) with "pretty damned safe." But the second one, which is just "safe" is not even remotely correct. I don't know of anything that is safe. Some things are more or less safe.
Citation of the definition as you used the word:
a. Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt: He returned from the voyage safe and sound. b. Not exposed to the threat of danger or harm: The children were safe at home all through the storm. c. Usable in specified conditions without being damaged. Often used in combination: a microwave safe container.
You'll note that they're definitive. So, really, nothing is safe until after the fact. At least I can't think of anything that is safe until after the fact. Not even sleep is safe, people die in their sleep all the time.
So, no... A helicopter is definitely not safe. However, you can be safe after arriving in a helicopter. They, by the fact that nothing is certain, are not safe. In fact, they are unsafe by default and by definition.;-)
But, on a more serious note, as compared to what? You might find the data (what can be found) to be a bit surprising. I invite you to have a look at this link: http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Helicopters are not really all that safe. Those numbers don't include military helicopter accidents but, I guess, don't include military helicopter flying hours either. It's really not easy to draw a very direct comparison but it's pretty reasonable to conclude that you're mistaken in your second post and it's a bit too subjective to answer the first one but I'd argue that they're not "pretty damned safe" to the other regular modes of travel.
Using the best (most advantageous) numbers for making this choice... Allow me to quote from the fine article:
By this measure, helicopter flying is just 27 times more dangerous than driving.
(Emphasis added, emphasis mine.)
Those are the most optimistic of numbers given. So, by what definition (for your first post) are you going with for "pretty damn" because that's probably wrong too.
Yeah, normally I'd ignore it and just let you think that helicopters are safe but, well... That last one was a bit cocky and so I figured you might want to actually have an example of some data. Oh, I'd still ride in a helicopter and I do still ride in helicopters but it's really not a good idea to think of them as safe. By definition they are unsafe and, by any real metrics, they're probably not what you'd want to consider as "pretty damn safe" either. Unless you want to compare it to riding the back of a pickup truck filled with uncapped and used syringes from Needle Park. It's probably "pretty damn safe" compared to that. It's also probably "pretty damn safe" when compared to riding on the back of enraged bull. It's probably somewhere on par with riding on the back of an angry crocodile.
This is going to end up much longer than I'd like but I feel that it is important to give all of the information - and let you, and others, go ahead and judge. I've typed it all out before but I don't think I've ever gone ahead and typed it all out at once. It's a bit late (early) and I'm not going to be doing my best when I write this so I'll try to keep it fairly error-free seeing as it's going to end up being as long as it is. Heh... I can tell, right now, that this is going to be a long post. You can skip it or skim it if you want but, in short, it's me thanking you and explaining why I'm thanking you. So...
Thank you for that. No, seriously, thank you. I'm kind of sick and tired of hearing this hate for the 1% thing. I'm not only pretty damned ethical (in my fashion) but I didn't commit any crimes to be where I am. I worked my ass off, true, but I didn't work harder than lots of other people. I'm not so smart that I'm a genius or anything. I just got lucky and had good people to help me out along the way. I was in the right place, at the right time.
Yet, I'm lumped in and blamed for all sorts of things - things I not only had no control over but would condemn if anyone listened to me long enough. Alas, anything I say doesn't seem to fit on a bumper sticker or in 140 characters. I'll try to keep this brief but, well, it's probably not gonna be.
Smart? Sure, I guess. I do have my Ph.D. Inherited? No, not really. My father was a career Marine and I did go to a private school but that's because I'd behaved a bit poorly and my parents figured I needed to go spend some time elsewhere as I'd have been disruptive to my father's career and their presence on-base. I later served in the Marines - not once but I reenlisted so that I could double-dip on the GI Bill. Easy? No, I worked my ass off. I spent a huge amount of time living in hotels or, early on, sleeping in the office because I'd worked so late that it was senseless to go home and I did this for months, even years, on end. Silver spoon? No, I've eaten Ramen noodles. (I still kind of have a "thing" for the beef or spicy chicken flavors but I haven't eaten any in a while - but I do have some that I had in my luggage when I started my sojourn on this wanderlust. It's interrupted and no longer really any wandering associated with it - but I did get a girlfriend out of the deal.)
So, yes... Yes - I got damned lucky and am in the 1%. I'd even go so far as to say, honestly, undeservedly lucky. I mean, yes, I did some neat things but I mostly just happened to be in the right spot, at the right time, and able to take certain risks. How the hell am I responsible for the troubles of the world? And don't tell me (not you personally) that it's because I don't help out - I donate enough to where donations no longer reduce my tax burden - every single year. (There's a limit to how much you can reduce your tax burden by donating.)
Let me see.... My thesis was concerning traffic modeling. In doing so, I'd approached the State of Massachusetts to access some of their data. I was doing it on a computer, it was new and interesting. Getting ready to do my defense, I get an offer for a contract - the numbers on the contract are HUGE and one of those HUGE numbers was the penalty for not carrying through and filling the contract. I almost declined but I said to hell with hit - it still allowed me time to finish school, barely, before starting and I could always go back to academia, hopefully...
So, I got a grant and borrowed a computer.
It worked! I got a call from a municipality in New York, would I be interested in paying them a visit? (I'm not yet done with the first contract but I've nearly finished it and I've been paid 80% so life's pretty good - they were big numbers. I talk to the wife, I was still married then, and soon I've got the guy who'd stated with me (doing the "ops" aspect while helping me write code, crunch data, etc.) finishing up and I'm now working (and living) over in New York. Before long, I've got an actual office
Err... Of course I don't think those things and I've no idea why you'd think I would? In fact, you seem to be saying something, seemingly with some aggression, yet I don't think you've said anything I disagree with or anything that's counter to anything I said. In addition, you seem angry about something - yet you're not saying anything other than saying things I've said, or said very similar things, here. I'm not actually sure what you're getting at but you seem to be angrily getting at it.
I'm a fairly civil person and I'd not consider myself unintelligent. So, while I'm unable to fathom why it is you're saying those things to me (even with my quoted text), I'm willing to try to discuss most anything with you but you'll need to help me to understand what it is you're angry about, why that anger is directed at me, what changes you might like to make, how you'd like to make those changes, and what benefits you'll expect to realize from those changes.
We can have that discussion, or any discussion at all really, but we need to be on the same page to do so.
Let's start here, I'm very much a Bernie Sanders supporter at this stage in the game though I'd prefer it if he ran as an Independent or as an American Socialist Party candidate. Unfortunately, his running as a Democrat is probably the best chance. My problem is not with him but with the political environment. Out of all of the candidates, currently announced, he's the one that I prefer and he is the only one that I've sent a donation to at the presidential level.
Your quote, of my quote, was me referencing how someone had said, earlier, that they should take all the money from the 1%. Someone had proposed, probably seriously, that taking the money from the 1% (what they'd do with it, they did not say) because everyone who had that much money was a crook and that they owed it to society to give them all their money. No, not a portion, all of it.
They, like you, seemed unreasonably angry and very confused. So, I sense you have something to say (in fact you put words out there) but I'm not actually sure if that's an admonishment or some sort of praise for something or somebody. It's a nice rant, I'll give you that, but I'm not entirely sure that it's pertinent nor do I see how it applies to me? You mention taxes and capital gains rates. You mention, again, that you could stand to pay 52% or something along those lines - it's hard to tell what you're actually attempting to say.
You then go on about NASA, that's well and good (but I'm not sure what the point of it is). You then go on to tell me what you think which is nice but, well, those aren't really very deep thoughts. Umm... Yes, yes they do pay people who then go out and buy groceries, houses, cars, and other things. They then go on to have families, those kids get jobs, they buy houses, they buy cars, and they do all those things and the cycle keeps repeating. I'm pretty sure we all knew that.
Also, you should understand (I'm not sure where you were going with that) that Sanders will not be "taxing the ultra-rich at 90%" or the likes. That will be a marginal tax rate. So, the first bunch of money will be taxed at one rate, anything above that will be taxed at the next rate, anything above a certain rate will then be taxed at a new rate, so the "ultra-rich" will be paying a true tax rate of something much lower - it was on NPR, not long ago - some estimates. I think they said that the true rate would be something near 50% actually. That's before other deductions and applies to income taxes.
That won't really apply to me, personally. I do not pay income taxes. While I still do own a business (and have stakes in a few local small businesses and the likes) that income does not go to me but goes to a corporation. For example, there's a group of people who harvest wood from my property using the old oxen and horse method (while using other modern equipment) and they pay my corporation (not me) and my corporation has an income, and expenses, and I do not even actually pay m
You raise some interesting points, which have some tangentially related matters, and I feel obligated to ensure that I give you an accurate reply. Unfortunately, this means that it is likely to be quite long. Please be aware of that beforehand but, rest assured, I'm legitimately curious and value your opinion. If I were trolling (and nothing in this should seem at all like trolling - I'd identify it, if it were) then I'd not put this much energy or time into it. You raise some interesting (and actually complicated) topics in just your small response. I'll offer an answer, as best as I can, but I'll have some additional questions for you and then I'll probably end this with some reasoning as to why I ask and why I might be confused with your answer(s).
Please note, also, that at no point will I argue with your answers. Any opinions you hold, you are welcome to. There probably isn't a right or wrong opinion - just more or less correct implementations. We'll see where this goes. It's going to be long, you have been warned.;-) In fact, if you're at all curious about my motives - you can skip straight to the bottom and have a peek. I am legitimately curious and value any insights you might have. I'm fond of learning from other people.
While that's all noble and true, I'm not really sure that this is truly a speech issue and, if it is, I'm not sure who the speech belongs to. This isn't an automated thing. This is someone, a friend, who is putting your email in the box and saying to send you an email. Is this the fault of the company for enabling it? Is that a bad thing?
I, personally, never make use of such things. Ever... The last thing I'm going to do (well, not really the LAST but you get the idea) is give my friend's address to someone else. I *do* share some purchases with people that I feel might be interested. It's not entirely uncommon for me to do so. However, i do so manually. "Hey bro, I just picked up this and I was wondering if you want me to grab you one or if you'd like to help me work on it?" (That sort of thing - I've a brother who has some similar technological interests.)
So, I agree with everything you said as being factually correct - by the way. Is this a speech issue? Even if it is, every country (that I know of) has some limitations on free speech and that includes (usually) the right to ignore said speech. You have the right to speak. I have no obligation to provide you a method or to listen.
Then, there's this... Is this a speech issue? I guess it could be - but then, if it is, who does it belong to? It was initiated by a person, facilitated by a company, and may be unwanted. Should it be blanket outlawed? Should it require opt-in? Should it require opt-out? Should each message provide a mechanism to opt out of future messages? (I think that's probably the most sane choice, to be honest.) What other options are there? Does it need blanket banning? Blanket banning, if a speech issue, does also ban it for those who would welcome these messages - so it is potentially infringing on those rights.
Where's the sane place to draw the line? I'm sure there's room to draw a line, while still respecting rights and being reasonable. Is it not unreasonable to insist that there be a strict opt-out mechanism and that such is provided in each missive, in clear and easily understood language and with a reasonable action time and punitive responses for failure to adhere to said policies? Would that not be the more freedom ensuring mechanism as opposed to a blanket ban that limits those who might welcome such?
So, if you want to make that point - I'll respond in-kind. I'm happy to have that discussion. Is it onerous to have to click opt-out in a single message if one wants? Is it a violation of your right to not be disturbed to have an invite to view a product that a friend recommended? Remember - as well, that these are not automated but are individually initiated by a person and not by the seller.
I've only one nit to pick. The Earth would not still be flat. Indeed, the Earth would still be spherical(ish). We'd just *think* it was flat. What we think is often wrong (or not completely understood) as you well know, or at least indicate you know. That doesn't change its nature, it just means we've got shitty understanding. Thus, the Earth would not still be flat. When we believed the Earth was flat, the Earth was no more (or less) flat than it is now. We were just wrong.;-)
The good thing to acknowledge is that we're not only probably wrong today, about many things, but we straight up KNOW we're wrong. My issue is with some many who think we're at the pinnacle of knowledge. The sad part is that two hundred years ago, we felt the same way. There are people who use science as a crutch, as a belief system, to achieve the point where they state, with confidence, that the science is settled. They state, with assurance, that they know the answers because a scientist told them so.
I don't think a scientist told them any such thing. They probably said something like, "Our current understanding is..." Which then got filtered down and interpreted as, "We know for a fact..." As I stated above, it's as if people have a problem with the idea of saying, "We don't currently understand..." It has truly become like a religion which, while nice - I guess, is missing the part where we admit that we do not, in fact, know much of anything to be completely certain. People then accept these extrapolations as gospel, complete with prophets and priests, and are strict adherents with a variety of sects. I'm actually a bit disturbed by the trend and I've no idea what caused it.
Sweet - thanks. I won't have time to look into it tonight so I'll leave this comment notification undeleted. I'll give Palemoon a shot, and try the Nomachine out tomorrow as well. I, err, I have an obscene amount of hardware so that won't be a problem. I may, still, email you but I don't think that it will be a problem to provide hardware. What I don't have is a Windows box.;-) I do have a Windows phone so I may have to give it a go on that. However, in all these computers (and there are many) I don't actually have a Windows box at all.
I'm at my place in Florida for the winter. I *did* have three Windows boxes until just earlier today. I replaced them, they'll remain at the house here, and I'll be donating them or giving them away to someone as they're only a few years old. Unfortunately, they had MSDN licensed OSes on them which means I can not transfer them with the OS installed. (Yes, yes I do obey things that I agreed to.) So, those were actually wiped just this morning.
As an aside: I do have my robot, based on an SBC, moving when called. Err... It's not actually going in the right direction - but it is moving. He even now recognizes his name, Rex, and responds to that. Well, sort of... He seems to go whichever direction he is pointed when called. He is moving and he is moving when called, he's just retarded and lazy. I'd say that's not bad for two weeks worth of work.
I've tried to get it to do direction finding via acoustics. Next I'm going to try visual. Someone's gotta have a damned library... Man, my C is so rusty but it has been a heck of a lot of fun. It's also amazing how many libraries and things there are out there now. Holy crap! I'm going to monitor the SBC that's x86_64 and see where that goes - I think that might be a bit more convenient for my needs. It's a bit more expensive but the ease of access, no need to cross-compile, is looking so inviting. I'm just a little curious as to how the GPIO will be driven - if it's going to be different with that architecture... Thus, I'll wait and see what their second model looks like or keep my eye out for other projects that are similar to that one.
Eh? What makes you believe that, in an equal amount of time, we'll not be looking back at the science done today and making much the same comments? It was not that long ago where we had phlogiston, ethers, and the spirit of elements - even the formal idea of elements isn't all that old and the periodic table is even younger. (I'm not sure if the new elements that they recently agreed on, they exist only for a short time and are made entirely by processes done by man - not found in nature, at all as I recall, will be added to the table or not.)
It's odd that so many people seem to think that our current understanding is correct when we actually know it isn't correct. Yes, the Standard Model works at human-scale levels but not so when you get into smaller things. We may laugh at our simplistic understanding in just a few generations. Remember, they too thought they were correct. If they didn't, then why would they be doing the work?
*snickers* Nah, I was trolling. I don't have the heart to troll without actually noting it. Well, not normally... That and I love to pick on Germany, it's just too fun as it has been my observation that they can get riled up pretty easily. (It's as if they have a history of that... *grins*)
But yeah, it was trolling. Hopefully you knew better than to take me seriously. I've not only been to Germany, multiple times, but I enjoyed it there, liked the people, and really enjoy a number of vehicles (I'm an automobile aficionado - quite extremely so) from Germany. I've even gone to Germany and spent a whole lot of money taking lessons, hiring a coach, leasing exotics, and doing laps at Nurburgring. Actually, it wasn't *that* expensive - about 20k Euro and that includes hiring professional coaches, classroom time, and over a week of track days.
Nor do I, obviously, actually harbor any resentment towards Germany for past events. Few people are alive today who were participants. Children are not accountable for the sins of their fathers. I was not alive during WWII and, I strongly suspect, you weren't alive then either. I don't think either of us are to blame and I'd like to think we've both learned that not engaging in that sort of behavior is a good idea.
So, yeah, trolling - I just didn't have the heart to do so without actually noting it and making sure that it was known that it was me - and that I was, quite intentionally, trolling. While it's sometimes a great deal of fun - I just don't have the heart to do it seriously or without acknowledging my intent. I did, at one time, enjoy some fine German beers but no more - at least not often. I'd become a bit too adept at drinking so I had to stop.
Another favorite of mine is to point out that Belgians have better beer than Germans.;-) That's usually good for a rise in certain circles. But no, truth be told - I'm kind of fond of the people and the country is quite beautiful.
Wait, what? Pointing out that the Big Bang is entirely theoretical and incapable of being proven by its very nature makes one a creationist, be default? Well, I think I found one of those people that I referenced in my prior post.
It's nice that you have a belief system but it's not nice that you're insulting when your belief system is challenged. Please leave the science to the scientists. Thanks. You're not helping nearly as much as you think you are. (Nor are you likely as intelligent as you believe yourself to be.)
I'm half tempted, no - very tempted, to write out one of my novellas but I suspect I'd be preaching to the choir. How very, very odd.
What I will share is this: I find it funny that people will say stuff like, "I believe in the science!" As if it is an authoritative thing. By its very nature, and given any understanding of science (the results of the scientific method) one would have to be very stupid to "believe in the science." It has become, to some, a religion. And no, I don't mean that the scientists themselves are the main practitioners of this.
"Well I believe the science!" Well, if you believed "the science" you'd (and that's a generic you, not you personally) would know that not only is it possibly wrong, it's probably wrong, or at least incomplete. "The science is settled!" No, the science is *never* settled, or at least it shouldn't be. While there are some things that we believe to be true, there are very few things that we know to be true. There are things that we've demonstrated to be likely true given the reproducibility of certain experiments but that never means it's settled. It simply means we have a current understanding that we believe to be true. I'd hardly call that settled.
What we can say, with some certainty, is that when we perform this experiment, these results are consistent. Extrapolating beyond that is not a certainty. When we do A and B happens then it may be natural that C follows but it is not a certainty. Science, the method or practice of it, doesn't do anything more than say that - at it's very root. Yes, we then make predictions about what is probably true, but very little is truly proven. We can not, for example, even prove that we exist - if we want to get down to the nitty-gritty. We can observe, we can measure, and we can make predictions and give our current understanding of what we believe to be the most likely to be true.
One of my favorites is the people who say, "Do you see that computer, car, or your glasses? Science!" Yeah, while we were "settled" on phlogiston we could have pointed out iron, bronze, the plow, leeches, witchcraft, the Philosopher's Stone, and said "Science!" The presumption that what we now "know" is correct, the truth, and final is silly. Yet people believe it, just like a religion, and think they're more intelligent because of it. What we now believe to be true, may well look as silly as phlogiston in as many years.
But there are those who will swear it is the absolute truth. I have to wonder if they're just afraid to say, "I don't know?" There's nothing wrong with saying that we can't be certain. It's usually people who don't actually really understand the scientific method (or any of the sciences) that seem to be the most vocal proponents. They really remind me of the religious bunch. It doesn't help that some people, often scientist themselves, will present theoretical things as fact. I consume a lot of documentaries and am overly fond of those who do not present things as fact but say things like, "If the Standard Model is correct then..." Or, "What we currently believe to be true is..."
You get people who present the Big Bang as fact, as settled science, and will absolutely swear by it - and defend it as so. And you get those who don't actually understand the philosophy which is the scientific method who champion it, as religious zealots, while not actually understanding (or even knowing) that there are competing theories for almost all of those things. Hell, we've got everything from a multiverse theory to a holographic universe theory and everything in between. I have to wonder if there's a strong urge for humans to believe they know the answers and why it is so difficult for people to say, "We don't fully understand the mechanism."
I could go on, elaborate, but I suspect you understand where I'm going with this. It's remarkable how many times, just today, I've read your posts and found myself shaking my head in agreement or feeling compelled to respond. Fortunately, the house is noisy and active - so I can sit idle, off in the corner, and mostly be left alone for a while longer. It's nice sometimes.
If I understand correctly, and I believe I do, the device was not tested "by NASA" but at a facility, rented, and shared by NASA. The only thing NASA associated with that device, as of yet, is some general interest and a name on a building placard. I'm also given to understand that it's still a bit of a black box and that there's some dubious measurement mechanism in place - as in the force being generated is so minute that the measuring equipment may not be sensitive enough to accurately measure it and that means that the force might exist, might not, or might be explained by some other mechanism entirely.
In other words, I'd not get your hopes up to high. It'd be exciting, if true, and would certainly mean that we'd have a whole lot of work to do in physics. Not that we don't still have a lot of work to do but we'd either need to find the reaction (there appears to be no known reaction) or that we have to rework the Standard Model a whole lot.
I'm hopeful but not overly optimistic. I'm more interested in what the mechanism is, I guess, than any possible effect. Given the tiny amount of force being generated (maybe) that means that any benefit from it will be many years to fruition. Even finding a realistic use for that force will be problematic unless they can find a way to scale it up. I guess, in theory, it'd make generational ships possible but they'd be awfully slow in their acceleration. I guess they could be coupled with other devices?
Ah well... We'll see... If this is real, if the force is real, then I'd suspect there's a mechanism where reaction is taking place and we're just not yet aware of that or how it is happening. That being the most simple of means (I should think) and would mean we'd not need to rework the entirety of physics. Of course, the latter is always possible. I'm also assuming we're talking about the same thing. Of great importance is that it was not all that long ago we were certain of the four ethers, phlogiston, and that we had fire inside of us. We could well be wrong today, yet we're as certain about our correctness today as they were of phlogiston.
The question is not if they can create perpetual motion but, if in their effort, they will discover a novel process that does result in making that energy productive. Does it matter if it is perpetual motion or not, if it results in some new method of power generation that is efficient and financially viable?
Ah - thanks. I knew that people had gone to jail and were sitting in jail (at the least) but was under the impression that they'd been found guilty or at least that's what I recollect the documentary saying as well as something along those lines from my local friend. That's good that it didn't hold up but unfortunate that they spent time in jail.
If I recall correctly, that's one of the differences between our legal systems. You guys write the laws and the judges determine what they mean and if they'll hold up. Here, that's not quite the same until you get to the higher courts. There, it's set by precedent and whatnot. Though I could have sworn that there were a couple of States where there were some rather draconian penalties and that they had been successfully prosecuted - however, I'll defer to you as it's pretty obvious that you paid more attention to it than I did.
You say that like it's a bad thing. When did this twist in public perception become a thing? Why in the hell would you expect a company to not "protect" criminals by providing encryption that can't be broken? Hell, we had companies that gave away secret decoder rings to children as toys when I was a kid. That you're worried a criminal might go free, because of encryption, and think that a private organization should aid the government in the prosecution of said criminal by negating their effectiveness for lawful consumers is disturbing at best an un-American at worst.
The adage about it being better that ten guilty men go free rather than one innocent one be jailed is more than a pithy saying. If the cops can't break the encryption then good - that means the damned encryption is effective - like it should be. Like all tools, it can be used for good or ill. Like a firearm, it can used for good or ill.
You're damned right, it protects criminals from discovery. That's a GOOD thing. It protects innocent people from snooping. It protects business from spying. It protects secrets, however benign, from discovery.
Could you show me this law about newspaper clippings not being classifiable by law? My understanding is that they can be, even if ineffectively, classified.
I'd address the remainder of your "points" but let's start with this "BY LAW" part, please. Disclosure: I have been trained to handle classified material and am a victim of the OPM hack.
Note: With her position she was obligated *to* classify material that was handled by her directly, inappropriately mishandling classified data is a felony. Failing to classify material that should be classified, no matter how onerous, is also a felony when one is classed at the level where one has an obligation to assign classification. Those are two points which you negated to mention - we can deal with the others, individually, after you show me this law that I'm unfamiliar with and then I'll at least be aware of your knowledge level and know what I need to explain and what I don't need to explain.
It has been a long time since I've gone through the training so this law you mention may actually exist - I can find no trace of said law. As far as I know, however useless, they can classify a street sign as top secret and those obligated to treat that data as top secret would, in fact, be legally culpable for failing to do so. You, as a presumably private citizen who is not tasked with handling of classified data, would not be obligated to treat the aforementioned street sign as classified nor would you be penalized for publishing it, talking about it, taking pictures of it, or even telling our enemies about it.
Seven other people, and myself, own a Windows phone and I hear there's still three people who have Blackberries that run QNX or whatever it was on them before they started sticking Android on them. Then there's a few folks with non-feature phones that aren't very complicated at all. In other words, there's more than Android and Apple. Err... There's just not a lot of us - though Windows phone does seem to be catching on. I've actually been pretty happy with it - I was sick of Android and relying on the carrier for updates. I also did not want to buy in, personally, to the Apple ecosystem though (oddly) I've probably purchased more Apple devices than almost everyone here but that's a long story and dinner is almost ready.
That movie has the actor in it that's pretty good. He's a method actor, I guess they call them. He does bizarre things to get into character - like spending a year living totally in character even prior to the production of the movie even beginning. Crowe, that's his name, even went so far as to learn to play a violin just for that movie. He'd no skills at the violin prior to the movie but learned just so he could play it, understand it, and act it out in the movie - to the best of his ability.
I don't know who the others are but I guess there are a few others but most don't go to his insane levels. For another film, he spent like a year learning to be a swashbuckler or something like that? I don't really watch a lot of movies or anything. I don't know the actors names, usually, so I'm not a good source for this. At any rate, I kind of know who he is and I know the movie - it's pretty good, honestly. He's a very good actor. I've seen him in a couple of other films (though I don't recall a damned one of them at the moment) and I do recollect that I didn't actively dislike any of them.
I should probably look into it more. I won't. I should, however. Method acting is what I think they call it and he's really pretty good at it. I understand he's managed to pick up a pretty wide array of skills through it all. I don't really know a lot about it, him, or even movies - I don't want many movies or any television really. Well, not typical movies. I watch loads and loads of movies but they're documentaries. That's really all I watch.
At any rate, I've a house full of people so I should probably pay attention to them soon. Otherwise, I'd look for more information. If you're not familiar with him then that's all the information I have without the aid of Google. I'd probably like to see more of his movies. I know I've seen at least a couple of others but don't even remotely recall their names. He's one of the folks who does a good job. There's the guy in Meet Joe Black who does a good job too, both of those guys do pretty good.
I happened to watch the Wolverine that had been leaked from a time prior to all the effects being added. One of the things that was so striking was how much green-screen-scene they'd used. There was so little there, so little for an actor to wrap themselves in and act about, that it actually seems to (and I might be biased, I guess) show. It's as if there's so few real things, in some of these movies, that the actors are giving lower quality productions and I think that might be because they have so few things to interact with.
It's an actor, in a wiring harness, with a few blue things stuck to their body, in front of a green-screen, and swinging about a pink plastic stick. There's no way the actor's able to immerse themselves into that scene. Thus, you not only get effects that are "too good" you get acting that is too mechanical. Again, I might be biased, but I think the quality of acting has gone down dramatically and that one of the reasons for this might actually be the increased effects meaning that it's more difficult to get immersed and thus the acting is dry, mechanical, and distant.
It's hard to blame the actors for this one. I don't, for a minute, believe the actual skill level has gone down by default. I just expect that the results have decreased in quality and probably for a variety of reasons but that's one reason that I think the resulting quality has gone downhill. I have every reason to believe that the skill levels will have naturally increased with time as things do with other human pursuits. I don't get to the theater enough, live theater, to confirm this but I'd not be surprised to find it true that the skills have increased - as we gain in knowledge, we gain in technique, and we gain in practice, collectively, so to do we gain as individuals.
I'm sure there are a whole host of other reasons, such as needing to refine our skills with the vast new amounts of technology that are coming online and things of that nature. But, I really think that we've lost a bit in translation now that we've got our acting being done in front of green-screens and with funny colored props that resemble nothing like they'll look post-production.
Hmm... Thanks again! I'll have to take a look at it. I only know of pepper, regular Flash, and the various ones like you mentioned above such as the one for Android. Though Pepper isn't really open-source or anything. sudo apt-get install pepperflashplugin-nonfree I use it because I use Opera, it works. Like you (I think), I'm none-too-fond of Flash. Oh, I like it as a concept - though I'd prefer it to be open. I just dislike the implementation, security aspects, and that it was used in so many inappropriate areas.
I'll have to look into the open version - if for no other reason than because I'm getting back into coding (I've been retired since 2008 and haven't really even done any of my own coding since around 1998 or so). Sure, I've done some small projects here and there but nothing of any note. I've contributed to a few projects but that was in PHP. I've done some Perl in that time (not in a while). I've done a little JavaScript and even edited/fixed some Java and put it back into its.jar format but nothing major, of value really, or even all that educational.
I don't actually have many/any real projects in mind (except a couple for SBCs, one of which is being worked on as mentioned somewhere in this thread) but I'm getting older and it's time to make sure that I'm keeping my brain active, learning new things, and maintaining my knowledge. I'm 58 now and, as odd as it sounds, I swear it's almost as if I can feel my brain becoming more plasticized. Things fade, I sometimes forget things that I should easily remember, and it gets more difficult to learn new things. I don't like that, I don't like that at all.
So, one of my steps started a couple of years ago. I used to be a Unix user. I've kept Linux installed on a partition for years but seldom booted to it - as I had moved to Windows. I've actually won (multiple times and for multiple subjects) the Microsoft MVP Award and participated in that program for years. But I'd reached the point where I was a passive consumer and felt like there was nothing for me to learn - that I'd make the effort to learn.
At that point, I started to play with various distros and examining which features I liked most and what would suit my needs best. Except, I still didn't boot to Linux. Sure, I'd even go so far as to start it up in a VM but that's nothing. Never being one to shirk a stupid idea, I simply wiped all my hard drives (that's a whole lot of them) and started installing various Linux distros on them - I think I even did a few with Minix and a couple of BSDs. I also used them all in VMs - I do mean all of them. I've tried more Linux distros than most - I did pretty much every single one listed at DistroWatch and a whole bunch that aren't there. I even went so far as to stop showering and grow a graybeard neckbeard! (Only kidding, except for the beard part and I've "always" had that.)
It was like I was a mad scientist, gone even more horribly wrong, and a whole lot of fun. The end result being that I'd completely swapped OSes, had a lot of new stuff to learn, and simply go around my problem of never using the Linux partition by deleting the Windows partition. I now use Linux pretty much exclusively and have for quite a while now. (I do have a Windows phone - I was sick of Android and don't wish to invest myself in the iDevice ecosystem.) It was not some moral crusade or anything - I'm not anti-closed source. I think the world has room for both and that people should be able to choose closed source if they want and I'm not a big fan of forcing anyone to do anything - and that includes forcing folks to open their source.
So, I ended up just using Linux (as I said) and I've been doing so ever since. Now, to keep going, I'm relearning my programming skills and will be learning a couple of new languages - I hope. I'm relearning my C. I'm going to pick up C++ though I've already got some familiarity. The programmers that I'd hired eventually converted my code base to C++ (a long time ago in Internet Years, around that same 1998
Slashdot Mirror
A local community's police force (well, back in Maine which is my home - I'm just not there at the moment) was going to get an armored personnel carrier for their tiny police department, care of Uncle Sam. The locals found out about it, before it happened, and went ape shit and pretty much told them to go pound sand. The local police department did not get their toy.
The local college had, for some reason, M16s issued - but no training. They had 7 of them issued, one broke, and was sent back. Again, the town found out and went ape shit. The campus police had a total of three members (and one lady on maternity leave). They sheepishly sent back the remaining six M16s. That's the same town that had the same police department, by the way.
Also, those were not AR-15s. They were select fire (full automatic, single, and three round burst) with the four position selector. (There was a picture of one on the local newspaper's website.) One of them was, supposedly (I did not see a picture) equipped with the M203 which is a 40 mm grenade launcher. It is doubtful that this was equipped so that they could fire fragmentation grenades - it was, presumably, meant to be used for smoke and CS gas grenade use. However, the mechanism is the same for all types so who knows?
I also do not know if that last part is truthful - it was based on a comment from someone who works there, was not a campus police officer, and was not an official comment but a comment to the story itself on the site. The veracity of that fact is in doubt though they described the grenade launcher (well enough so that I knew what it was they spoke of) as they claimed they had seen it. They did not claim that they knew what it was, what it was for, or how it worked or anything. So, it's not like they said, "It had the affixed M203." They described it, in some detail, but those details could have easily been gleaned from a Google Image Search, the poster could have been anyone, and it might have been a complete work of fiction.
At any rate, they not only sent them back - they did so a bit sheepishly and had someone come pick them up from the Reserve unit down in Augusta (IIRC) and even had a picture of them turning them meeting. They did not show the weapons being turned over in the picture, so who knows? Even if they had shown it, who knows?
But, if you find your local police force is becoming too militarized and the citizens can be convinced to voice their outrage then it would appear that you can successfully get them to back down from taking those actions. Remember, the police work for you. More importantly, do not let the police forget who they work for. I can't say that it will work everywhere but I can say that it worked in one area. I'm also given to understand that a town in New Hampshire made them send back their toys as well.
In that case, I believe they had multiple toys - up to, and including, one of those special bomb-resistant vehicles meant to be used for transporting a small number of troops through IED infested streets as well as having a turret from which a person might perch and shoot people with a mounted 50 cal. I have no idea if they had the M2. I think it might have been Keene, NH and that they, too, made them get rid of their toys. Hell, Keene's much bigger than Farmington, Maine. I think it was Keene, at any rate. If not, it might have been one of the smaller towns up in the White Mountains - maybe Jefferson? That was a couple of years back, as I recall.
If you live in one of those towns, get your neighbors interested and fight back. Tell them no, that they're not allowed to have it. Raise a stink. Get the newspaper involved. I have no idea if this is true or not but I'd like to HOPE that most people would tell their police departments that they can't have them - if they know that they can do so and make them listen.
You called them a dumbshit and then went on to say that it's not legal for them to store the meta data on the outside of your letter.
The USPS takes a photograph of every single letter and package sent and then stores that data for 30 days, unless there's a call to save it for longer. They then freely provide this information to the police, without a warrant. It's considered public information.
I suppose you'll be wanting a citation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...
What would you call yourself? What should you say to the Anonymous Coward?
Didn't they, the phone companies, already get money for this a long time ago and never really acted on it? Weren't they collecting a tax, not forwarding it to the government, and meant to use those funds to expand the network? I could have sworn this was true but I'd not know the name of the tax so I'm not really sure how to reasonably quickly Google the information.
That said, if they did (and I'm pretty sure they did - and I'm pretty sure they did not spend that money on increasing access) then I'm not sure why they should actually get more. They were paid to do this once already. They should be mandated to do so, with no extra fees added to the customers, because they were supposed to have done this already. This should not be a talking point all these years later - this should be a null problem, a solved problem.
Also, I'd not have expected them to provide me with broadband, by any terrestrial means, at my home location. I'm in an unincorporated township, almost 25 miles from the center from the nearest village, and in a *very* remote area.
However, they *did* provide me with said service BUT I had to pay for it, at least in part. It was about $30k USD for the installation and was actually less than the quoted price for an ISDN line was and I was tired of being unable to get decent service from satellite and they did not yet offer the wireless service that Hussey Communications now offers in some nearby areas - they do not offer it in my area because we've already been provided service because I paid for it - though my neighbor chipped in $1000 for the line to go a mile beyond my place.
They already had the lines coming out part way and they already had one CO on the road but it was not close enough. I paid for the CO and the upgraded lines to be run. This also enabled the other residents (there are six houses with people living in them year-round and a few camps - one is completely off the grid with no power or anything so they, they live further out anyhow, don't actually want broadband, phone, or electricity. So, I paid for the lines and the CO and, as near as I can tell (there's not a whole lot of data available) I not only paid a fair price - I paid less than what others have paid in very similar situations.
I have three disparate DSL lines (and I can get service from any company that's willing to provide it - Fairpoint is obligated to lease the lines at a fair price by State law) and they're all business class (at least they appear to be - I've a static IP address unless I intentionally change it which can be done one of two ways). I have DSL out to my garage and workshop. I have a DSL connection to the house that was originally here (I've had the house rehabbed and I get all fancy-like and call it my guest house but really it's just the old farmhouse that was on the property when I bought it). I have the DSL service to my actual house. They allow my running servers on them (not allowed for residential), give me static IP addresses (cost extra for residential), provide me with a different router/MODEM than one gets with residential service - except I never use their equipment, even though they kind of have pestered me to do so (I'm not entirely sure why) and they also (oddly) seem to have a passion for sending me new equipment with some regularity. Again, I have no idea why.
I don't ask for or want to use their equipment but I've had emails and several phone calls now. The first couple were helpful types, as if they were telling me how to connect the devices. Err... I know how to connect the devices - I have my own connected, you can see that on your end. Thanks for the assistance? Then was an email exchange where they seemed to indicate that I had to use their equipment - I declined. The last one was the most unusual. They called, offered to tell me how to install it again and I said that I'd be fine. They then told me that using their equipment was mandatory, I indicated that I'd not be using their equipment and just using a new provider. They then said they'd be happy t
You could have it really rough. I have multiple Linux distros back home in Maine that simply don't run on anything BUT solar and wind!
No, really, they run only on photovoltaic and wind turbine generation. While I do have grid electricity, that's actually as a backup. I haven't actually pulled any power from the grid since last spring. I'm not home in Maine for this winter, I'm skipping winter in Maine for a change of pace, so I can't say that I'm absolutely sure that I'll generate enough power (I use quite a bit) but I'm reasonably certain that I should generate enough. I've been pushing power out to the grid, at a fairly steady rate, for going on a year now.
It probably wouldn't work with Windows. ;-) I'd probably need the high test, like the artisanal coal for that. Fortunately, if I need high grade, then I might have a solution. If the solar AND wind both fail and don't keep the batteries charged AND the mains goes down then I have the high test. I've got an in-ground tank and an automated system that will kick on a diesel powered generator which means I can explode some dead dinosaur corpse juices and get the good stuff. Now, if that one fails, there's actually a second, smaller, diesel powered generator out in the garage. If all of those fail then I'm still not entirely out of luck - I'm just probably not running much of anything other than the bare minimal, but I have it set up so that I can manually run a much, much smaller gasoline powered generator.
Err... If that fails, well, I guess I still have the generator in the RV? At that point, however, I might just as well live in the RV until things get back to normal.
Umm... If that fails then I'm kind of either out of luck or I'll need to do something with the one (or more) of the vehicles. I do have a couple of inverters meant for automobile batteries. I guess if things got that bad, I probably *would* actually be so bored that I'd eventually do something to keep a cell phone charged - I might as well have connectivity. Technically, somewhere, I've both an extended battery and a small solar panel that I've hooked up to keep it charged. I was making something to take with me on camping trips but then I thought about it and I don't actually really go camping so I've never really used it except to test it out. It should keep a cell phone and tablet powered throughout a whole evening - if needed. It's two laptop battery packs and a solar panel with I forget how much power - not a whole bunch but it should keep the battery pack charged up just fine (if I did the math properly back when I built it).
Hmm... Now, if that goes down and, for some reason, an inverter doesn't work then I guess I could probably just figure something out using one of the many automobiles and the battery. I do have an old Jeep with a PTO and a tractor with a PTO. Oh, wait, ha! I have a rebuilt tow truck that I had restored (I have my reasons) and it has a built in inverter on the back but I'm pretty sure that I'd be burning so much dead dino juice that I might just as well as try to fetch a moose and hitch it to some sort of wheel - like a gerbil wheel, and make moose powered electricity. Alternatively, seeing as I have the turbines already (but seemingly no wind) I guess that I could also probably fashion something so that I was turning the turbine with steam and, it being Maine, I could just burn wood for energy.
Or I could, I guess, just read a book until I have power again. For the duration of my life, at least, I can expect the wind to continue to blow and the Sun to shine again.
If you think that's bad, you should see what I need to do to run BSD! I'd also hate to explode all those dead dinosaurs just to use a computer so I'd really probably just read a book. Assuming the Nook is charged, I can even read an ebook!
For the record, the estimated time that I'll break even on my solar and wind is never. Just prior to the point where I'd be expecting to break even will be just about the time that they're due for upgrades/repla
As a lark, I tried to change the URL... It turns out that there's that same page for Maine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, I'm not sure that the presence of a Wikipedia page is a great indicator. On the other hand, it turns out that Maine has 184 MW wind capacity and North America's first floating wind turbine. So, there's that... (Also, it appears we were supposed to have 2000 MW of wind power by now. There are 44 turbines in my county, not counting my two or my neighbor's one.
It'd also appear that Maine claims they're gonna be a leader in off-shore wind power generation. I think Maine has made a number of claims that it doesn't appear to be interested in backing well enough to actually get completed. I don't think I was a resident when they got started or when the former governor made his prediction that Maine would have 2000 MW by 2015. We don't. We get about 7% of our power from wind and we have less than 1/10 of what the former governor had indicated we would have by now.
It was kind of neat seeing them transport the blades. I've even gone over and watched them assemble one. Well, I watched part of the assembly process. They're pretty big things and I went and watched for a while on a few different days. We don't get out much in Maine, I was not the only one watching. It was the thing to do. Some folks went so far as to watch the whole process for a couple of 'em. Yeah, we don't get out much.
It's generally kind of difficult to tell what they're saying. They pretty much have to be a troll. Take a look at their posting history, notice a trend? Yeah... Things like spelling, grammar, and making sense are not only optional but coincidental. I think most of us have learned to just not respond.
I have tried interacting with them, nicely even - as I am wont to do, for clarification as to the spelling and other words(?) they'd used. They didn't respond. I've seen others do the same thing. They get the same lack of a reply. But no, he's here and posts most every day. He indicates that he's native to Chicago area and there's no way that anyone can be that poor at the English language and be a native of Chicago.
They can be pretty bad, yes but there's a point where it has to be intentional. He does respond to people, so he has notifications enabled and sees notifications, he just doesn't reply if you question him about what he means or point out any spelling/grammar issues. Seriously, click his username and read a couple of pages worth of comments. There's no way that can be unintentional.
I simply refuse to believe that they're actually as dumb as they pretend they are. It's physically impossible to be that dumb and still use a computer well enough to navigate to Slashdot. It's physically impossible to be that dumb and not have poked out both eyes while trying use a fork and knife at the dinner table. I can not accept that someone can be that dumb and still function. It is, literally - not figuratively, impossible.
Such may exist but I know of no modern browser that does not have spell checking functionality available and they are, as far as I'm aware, enabled by default. No, a third language speaker doesn't solve it - no other third language has a structure(?) like that. Seriously, there's no structure, in any third language, that is gibberish.
Add to this that, perhaps entirely by accident - it's almost certainly at least coincidental as it appears to follow no structure either, that he sometimes says intelligible things and they not only make sense but they're intelligent. There's always the possibility of drugs and alcohol but I consider myself a bit of an expert on both and it is my, authoritative, opinion that any quantity of drugs or alcohol that would make someone post like that would also render them unable to login, type, or even use a bathroom properly.
Given that they sometimes do post articulate and intelligent posts, but that those occasions are so rare, I can only conclude that they make their stupid posts intentionally. There is some chance that they care so little of themselves and have so little awareness of self due to severe, crippling, depression and that has rendered them unwilling to actually care about their spelling. However, I'm not a psychiatrist but I'd presume that they've have committed suicide by now.
Allow me to quote some of their posts - you can verify these are direct, unadulterated, quotes.
>Yes but Disney contracted the work out so we did not due the hiring they did.
>ban outsourcing firms from using them or cap
>local passenger rail loses money as setting fairs at an level needed to be in the black will make people not use it.
>Next time forum a union!
(I should note, the above was marked insightful +3. No, I have no idea but I assume it's "form" and people have just acclimated to Joe's "spelling.")
Those are not taken out of context, they are direct quotes, and that's limiting myself to JUST the first page of comments. Yet, as I said, sometimes they post something that's intelligent and articulate. So, I presume this, the above posts, are them trolling. Sometimes you can parse them, they're not an ESL speaker, and they indicate(d) that they are a Chicago native.
I've been trying to figure out what he's been saying for years now. I'm almost certain that not even he knows and that he just mashes keys and then (now) uses spell check to randomly fix things. No, seriously - it used to be worse! Now t
Compared to what? Some Marines when down last week and a couple of Hawaiians went down yesterday I think it was. That's two accidents in just a few days. There are a whole bunch of helicopter accidents. They're actually crashing fairly often.
So, compared to what? You say "safe." That's an affirmative statement and leaves no room for quantification. So, using that as a response to your argument then you'd be demonstrably wrong by virtue of there being any accidents. If there are any accidents then they are not safe. They are, even they had just one accident ever, then less than safe - even if trivially less than safe with a single accident.
Given that they have certainly had way more than one accident then you're way more incorrect. They're even further away from safe with every single accident. Safe, the word, is definitive in nature. Normally, I'd let it slide but you were confident/cocky enough to say "Right, so like I said, they are safe."
Now, your first statement was actually more correct (still subjective) with "pretty damned safe." But the second one, which is just "safe" is not even remotely correct. I don't know of anything that is safe. Some things are more or less safe.
Citation of the definition as you used the word:
a. Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt: He returned from the voyage safe and sound.
b. Not exposed to the threat of danger or harm: The children were safe at home all through the storm.
c. Usable in specified conditions without being damaged. Often used in combination: a microwave safe container.
You'll note that they're definitive. So, really, nothing is safe until after the fact. At least I can't think of anything that is safe until after the fact. Not even sleep is safe, people die in their sleep all the time.
So, no... A helicopter is definitely not safe. However, you can be safe after arriving in a helicopter. They, by the fact that nothing is certain, are not safe. In fact, they are unsafe by default and by definition. ;-)
But, on a more serious note, as compared to what? You might find the data (what can be found) to be a bit surprising. I invite you to have a look at this link:
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Helicopters are not really all that safe. Those numbers don't include military helicopter accidents but, I guess, don't include military helicopter flying hours either. It's really not easy to draw a very direct comparison but it's pretty reasonable to conclude that you're mistaken in your second post and it's a bit too subjective to answer the first one but I'd argue that they're not "pretty damned safe" to the other regular modes of travel.
Using the best (most advantageous) numbers for making this choice... Allow me to quote from the fine article:
By this measure, helicopter flying is just 27 times more dangerous than driving.
(Emphasis added, emphasis mine.)
Those are the most optimistic of numbers given. So, by what definition (for your first post) are you going with for "pretty damn" because that's probably wrong too.
Yeah, normally I'd ignore it and just let you think that helicopters are safe but, well... That last one was a bit cocky and so I figured you might want to actually have an example of some data. Oh, I'd still ride in a helicopter and I do still ride in helicopters but it's really not a good idea to think of them as safe. By definition they are unsafe and, by any real metrics, they're probably not what you'd want to consider as "pretty damn safe" either. Unless you want to compare it to riding the back of a pickup truck filled with uncapped and used syringes from Needle Park. It's probably "pretty damn safe" compared to that. It's also probably "pretty damn safe" when compared to riding on the back of enraged bull. It's probably somewhere on par with riding on the back of an angry crocodile.
This is going to end up much longer than I'd like but I feel that it is important to give all of the information - and let you, and others, go ahead and judge. I've typed it all out before but I don't think I've ever gone ahead and typed it all out at once. It's a bit late (early) and I'm not going to be doing my best when I write this so I'll try to keep it fairly error-free seeing as it's going to end up being as long as it is. Heh... I can tell, right now, that this is going to be a long post. You can skip it or skim it if you want but, in short, it's me thanking you and explaining why I'm thanking you. So...
Thank you for that. No, seriously, thank you. I'm kind of sick and tired of hearing this hate for the 1% thing. I'm not only pretty damned ethical (in my fashion) but I didn't commit any crimes to be where I am. I worked my ass off, true, but I didn't work harder than lots of other people. I'm not so smart that I'm a genius or anything. I just got lucky and had good people to help me out along the way. I was in the right place, at the right time.
Yet, I'm lumped in and blamed for all sorts of things - things I not only had no control over but would condemn if anyone listened to me long enough. Alas, anything I say doesn't seem to fit on a bumper sticker or in 140 characters. I'll try to keep this brief but, well, it's probably not gonna be.
Smart? Sure, I guess. I do have my Ph.D. Inherited? No, not really. My father was a career Marine and I did go to a private school but that's because I'd behaved a bit poorly and my parents figured I needed to go spend some time elsewhere as I'd have been disruptive to my father's career and their presence on-base. I later served in the Marines - not once but I reenlisted so that I could double-dip on the GI Bill. Easy? No, I worked my ass off. I spent a huge amount of time living in hotels or, early on, sleeping in the office because I'd worked so late that it was senseless to go home and I did this for months, even years, on end. Silver spoon? No, I've eaten Ramen noodles. (I still kind of have a "thing" for the beef or spicy chicken flavors but I haven't eaten any in a while - but I do have some that I had in my luggage when I started my sojourn on this wanderlust. It's interrupted and no longer really any wandering associated with it - but I did get a girlfriend out of the deal.)
So, yes... Yes - I got damned lucky and am in the 1%. I'd even go so far as to say, honestly, undeservedly lucky. I mean, yes, I did some neat things but I mostly just happened to be in the right spot, at the right time, and able to take certain risks. How the hell am I responsible for the troubles of the world? And don't tell me (not you personally) that it's because I don't help out - I donate enough to where donations no longer reduce my tax burden - every single year. (There's a limit to how much you can reduce your tax burden by donating.)
Let me see.... My thesis was concerning traffic modeling. In doing so, I'd approached the State of Massachusetts to access some of their data. I was doing it on a computer, it was new and interesting. Getting ready to do my defense, I get an offer for a contract - the numbers on the contract are HUGE and one of those HUGE numbers was the penalty for not carrying through and filling the contract. I almost declined but I said to hell with hit - it still allowed me time to finish school, barely, before starting and I could always go back to academia, hopefully...
So, I got a grant and borrowed a computer.
It worked! I got a call from a municipality in New York, would I be interested in paying them a visit? (I'm not yet done with the first contract but I've nearly finished it and I've been paid 80% so life's pretty good - they were big numbers. I talk to the wife, I was still married then, and soon I've got the guy who'd stated with me (doing the "ops" aspect while helping me write code, crunch data, etc.) finishing up and I'm now working (and living) over in New York. Before long, I've got an actual office
Err... Of course I don't think those things and I've no idea why you'd think I would? In fact, you seem to be saying something, seemingly with some aggression, yet I don't think you've said anything I disagree with or anything that's counter to anything I said. In addition, you seem angry about something - yet you're not saying anything other than saying things I've said, or said very similar things, here. I'm not actually sure what you're getting at but you seem to be angrily getting at it.
I'm a fairly civil person and I'd not consider myself unintelligent. So, while I'm unable to fathom why it is you're saying those things to me (even with my quoted text), I'm willing to try to discuss most anything with you but you'll need to help me to understand what it is you're angry about, why that anger is directed at me, what changes you might like to make, how you'd like to make those changes, and what benefits you'll expect to realize from those changes.
We can have that discussion, or any discussion at all really, but we need to be on the same page to do so.
Let's start here, I'm very much a Bernie Sanders supporter at this stage in the game though I'd prefer it if he ran as an Independent or as an American Socialist Party candidate. Unfortunately, his running as a Democrat is probably the best chance. My problem is not with him but with the political environment. Out of all of the candidates, currently announced, he's the one that I prefer and he is the only one that I've sent a donation to at the presidential level.
Your quote, of my quote, was me referencing how someone had said, earlier, that they should take all the money from the 1%. Someone had proposed, probably seriously, that taking the money from the 1% (what they'd do with it, they did not say) because everyone who had that much money was a crook and that they owed it to society to give them all their money. No, not a portion, all of it.
They, like you, seemed unreasonably angry and very confused. So, I sense you have something to say (in fact you put words out there) but I'm not actually sure if that's an admonishment or some sort of praise for something or somebody. It's a nice rant, I'll give you that, but I'm not entirely sure that it's pertinent nor do I see how it applies to me? You mention taxes and capital gains rates. You mention, again, that you could stand to pay 52% or something along those lines - it's hard to tell what you're actually attempting to say.
You then go on about NASA, that's well and good (but I'm not sure what the point of it is). You then go on to tell me what you think which is nice but, well, those aren't really very deep thoughts. Umm... Yes, yes they do pay people who then go out and buy groceries, houses, cars, and other things. They then go on to have families, those kids get jobs, they buy houses, they buy cars, and they do all those things and the cycle keeps repeating. I'm pretty sure we all knew that.
Also, you should understand (I'm not sure where you were going with that) that Sanders will not be "taxing the ultra-rich at 90%" or the likes. That will be a marginal tax rate. So, the first bunch of money will be taxed at one rate, anything above that will be taxed at the next rate, anything above a certain rate will then be taxed at a new rate, so the "ultra-rich" will be paying a true tax rate of something much lower - it was on NPR, not long ago - some estimates. I think they said that the true rate would be something near 50% actually. That's before other deductions and applies to income taxes.
That won't really apply to me, personally. I do not pay income taxes. While I still do own a business (and have stakes in a few local small businesses and the likes) that income does not go to me but goes to a corporation. For example, there's a group of people who harvest wood from my property using the old oxen and horse method (while using other modern equipment) and they pay my corporation (not me) and my corporation has an income, and expenses, and I do not even actually pay m
You raise some interesting points, which have some tangentially related matters, and I feel obligated to ensure that I give you an accurate reply. Unfortunately, this means that it is likely to be quite long. Please be aware of that beforehand but, rest assured, I'm legitimately curious and value your opinion. If I were trolling (and nothing in this should seem at all like trolling - I'd identify it, if it were) then I'd not put this much energy or time into it. You raise some interesting (and actually complicated) topics in just your small response. I'll offer an answer, as best as I can, but I'll have some additional questions for you and then I'll probably end this with some reasoning as to why I ask and why I might be confused with your answer(s).
Please note, also, that at no point will I argue with your answers. Any opinions you hold, you are welcome to. There probably isn't a right or wrong opinion - just more or less correct implementations. We'll see where this goes. It's going to be long, you have been warned. ;-) In fact, if you're at all curious about my motives - you can skip straight to the bottom and have a peek. I am legitimately curious and value any insights you might have. I'm fond of learning from other people.
While that's all noble and true, I'm not really sure that this is truly a speech issue and, if it is, I'm not sure who the speech belongs to. This isn't an automated thing. This is someone, a friend, who is putting your email in the box and saying to send you an email. Is this the fault of the company for enabling it? Is that a bad thing?
I, personally, never make use of such things. Ever... The last thing I'm going to do (well, not really the LAST but you get the idea) is give my friend's address to someone else. I *do* share some purchases with people that I feel might be interested. It's not entirely uncommon for me to do so. However, i do so manually. "Hey bro, I just picked up this and I was wondering if you want me to grab you one or if you'd like to help me work on it?" (That sort of thing - I've a brother who has some similar technological interests.)
So, I agree with everything you said as being factually correct - by the way. Is this a speech issue? Even if it is, every country (that I know of) has some limitations on free speech and that includes (usually) the right to ignore said speech. You have the right to speak. I have no obligation to provide you a method or to listen.
Then, there's this... Is this a speech issue? I guess it could be - but then, if it is, who does it belong to? It was initiated by a person, facilitated by a company, and may be unwanted. Should it be blanket outlawed? Should it require opt-in? Should it require opt-out? Should each message provide a mechanism to opt out of future messages? (I think that's probably the most sane choice, to be honest.) What other options are there? Does it need blanket banning? Blanket banning, if a speech issue, does also ban it for those who would welcome these messages - so it is potentially infringing on those rights.
Where's the sane place to draw the line? I'm sure there's room to draw a line, while still respecting rights and being reasonable. Is it not unreasonable to insist that there be a strict opt-out mechanism and that such is provided in each missive, in clear and easily understood language and with a reasonable action time and punitive responses for failure to adhere to said policies? Would that not be the more freedom ensuring mechanism as opposed to a blanket ban that limits those who might welcome such?
So, if you want to make that point - I'll respond in-kind. I'm happy to have that discussion. Is it onerous to have to click opt-out in a single message if one wants? Is it a violation of your right to not be disturbed to have an invite to view a product that a friend recommended? Remember - as well, that these are not automated but are individually initiated by a person and not by the seller.
Is it still a violation if it appears i
I've only one nit to pick. The Earth would not still be flat. Indeed, the Earth would still be spherical(ish). We'd just *think* it was flat. What we think is often wrong (or not completely understood) as you well know, or at least indicate you know. That doesn't change its nature, it just means we've got shitty understanding. Thus, the Earth would not still be flat. When we believed the Earth was flat, the Earth was no more (or less) flat than it is now. We were just wrong. ;-)
The good thing to acknowledge is that we're not only probably wrong today, about many things, but we straight up KNOW we're wrong. My issue is with some many who think we're at the pinnacle of knowledge. The sad part is that two hundred years ago, we felt the same way. There are people who use science as a crutch, as a belief system, to achieve the point where they state, with confidence, that the science is settled. They state, with assurance, that they know the answers because a scientist told them so.
I don't think a scientist told them any such thing. They probably said something like, "Our current understanding is..." Which then got filtered down and interpreted as, "We know for a fact..." As I stated above, it's as if people have a problem with the idea of saying, "We don't currently understand..." It has truly become like a religion which, while nice - I guess, is missing the part where we admit that we do not, in fact, know much of anything to be completely certain. People then accept these extrapolations as gospel, complete with prophets and priests, and are strict adherents with a variety of sects. I'm actually a bit disturbed by the trend and I've no idea what caused it.
Sweet - thanks. I won't have time to look into it tonight so I'll leave this comment notification undeleted. I'll give Palemoon a shot, and try the Nomachine out tomorrow as well. I, err, I have an obscene amount of hardware so that won't be a problem. I may, still, email you but I don't think that it will be a problem to provide hardware. What I don't have is a Windows box. ;-) I do have a Windows phone so I may have to give it a go on that. However, in all these computers (and there are many) I don't actually have a Windows box at all.
I'm at my place in Florida for the winter. I *did* have three Windows boxes until just earlier today. I replaced them, they'll remain at the house here, and I'll be donating them or giving them away to someone as they're only a few years old. Unfortunately, they had MSDN licensed OSes on them which means I can not transfer them with the OS installed. (Yes, yes I do obey things that I agreed to.) So, those were actually wiped just this morning.
As an aside: I do have my robot, based on an SBC, moving when called. Err... It's not actually going in the right direction - but it is moving. He even now recognizes his name, Rex, and responds to that. Well, sort of... He seems to go whichever direction he is pointed when called. He is moving and he is moving when called, he's just retarded and lazy. I'd say that's not bad for two weeks worth of work.
I've tried to get it to do direction finding via acoustics. Next I'm going to try visual. Someone's gotta have a damned library... Man, my C is so rusty but it has been a heck of a lot of fun. It's also amazing how many libraries and things there are out there now. Holy crap! I'm going to monitor the SBC that's x86_64 and see where that goes - I think that might be a bit more convenient for my needs. It's a bit more expensive but the ease of access, no need to cross-compile, is looking so inviting. I'm just a little curious as to how the GPIO will be driven - if it's going to be different with that architecture... Thus, I'll wait and see what their second model looks like or keep my eye out for other projects that are similar to that one.
Eh? What makes you believe that, in an equal amount of time, we'll not be looking back at the science done today and making much the same comments? It was not that long ago where we had phlogiston, ethers, and the spirit of elements - even the formal idea of elements isn't all that old and the periodic table is even younger. (I'm not sure if the new elements that they recently agreed on, they exist only for a short time and are made entirely by processes done by man - not found in nature, at all as I recall, will be added to the table or not.)
It's odd that so many people seem to think that our current understanding is correct when we actually know it isn't correct. Yes, the Standard Model works at human-scale levels but not so when you get into smaller things. We may laugh at our simplistic understanding in just a few generations. Remember, they too thought they were correct. If they didn't, then why would they be doing the work?
*snickers* Nah, I was trolling. I don't have the heart to troll without actually noting it. Well, not normally... That and I love to pick on Germany, it's just too fun as it has been my observation that they can get riled up pretty easily. (It's as if they have a history of that... *grins*)
But yeah, it was trolling. Hopefully you knew better than to take me seriously. I've not only been to Germany, multiple times, but I enjoyed it there, liked the people, and really enjoy a number of vehicles (I'm an automobile aficionado - quite extremely so) from Germany. I've even gone to Germany and spent a whole lot of money taking lessons, hiring a coach, leasing exotics, and doing laps at Nurburgring. Actually, it wasn't *that* expensive - about 20k Euro and that includes hiring professional coaches, classroom time, and over a week of track days.
Nor do I, obviously, actually harbor any resentment towards Germany for past events. Few people are alive today who were participants. Children are not accountable for the sins of their fathers. I was not alive during WWII and, I strongly suspect, you weren't alive then either. I don't think either of us are to blame and I'd like to think we've both learned that not engaging in that sort of behavior is a good idea.
So, yeah, trolling - I just didn't have the heart to do so without actually noting it and making sure that it was known that it was me - and that I was, quite intentionally, trolling. While it's sometimes a great deal of fun - I just don't have the heart to do it seriously or without acknowledging my intent. I did, at one time, enjoy some fine German beers but no more - at least not often. I'd become a bit too adept at drinking so I had to stop.
Another favorite of mine is to point out that Belgians have better beer than Germans. ;-) That's usually good for a rise in certain circles. But no, truth be told - I'm kind of fond of the people and the country is quite beautiful.
Wait, what? Pointing out that the Big Bang is entirely theoretical and incapable of being proven by its very nature makes one a creationist, be default? Well, I think I found one of those people that I referenced in my prior post.
It's nice that you have a belief system but it's not nice that you're insulting when your belief system is challenged. Please leave the science to the scientists. Thanks. You're not helping nearly as much as you think you are. (Nor are you likely as intelligent as you believe yourself to be.)
I'm half tempted, no - very tempted, to write out one of my novellas but I suspect I'd be preaching to the choir. How very, very odd.
What I will share is this: I find it funny that people will say stuff like, "I believe in the science!" As if it is an authoritative thing. By its very nature, and given any understanding of science (the results of the scientific method) one would have to be very stupid to "believe in the science." It has become, to some, a religion. And no, I don't mean that the scientists themselves are the main practitioners of this.
"Well I believe the science!" Well, if you believed "the science" you'd (and that's a generic you, not you personally) would know that not only is it possibly wrong, it's probably wrong, or at least incomplete. "The science is settled!" No, the science is *never* settled, or at least it shouldn't be. While there are some things that we believe to be true, there are very few things that we know to be true. There are things that we've demonstrated to be likely true given the reproducibility of certain experiments but that never means it's settled. It simply means we have a current understanding that we believe to be true. I'd hardly call that settled.
What we can say, with some certainty, is that when we perform this experiment, these results are consistent. Extrapolating beyond that is not a certainty. When we do A and B happens then it may be natural that C follows but it is not a certainty. Science, the method or practice of it, doesn't do anything more than say that - at it's very root. Yes, we then make predictions about what is probably true, but very little is truly proven. We can not, for example, even prove that we exist - if we want to get down to the nitty-gritty. We can observe, we can measure, and we can make predictions and give our current understanding of what we believe to be the most likely to be true.
One of my favorites is the people who say, "Do you see that computer, car, or your glasses? Science!" Yeah, while we were "settled" on phlogiston we could have pointed out iron, bronze, the plow, leeches, witchcraft, the Philosopher's Stone, and said "Science!" The presumption that what we now "know" is correct, the truth, and final is silly. Yet people believe it, just like a religion, and think they're more intelligent because of it. What we now believe to be true, may well look as silly as phlogiston in as many years.
But there are those who will swear it is the absolute truth. I have to wonder if they're just afraid to say, "I don't know?" There's nothing wrong with saying that we can't be certain. It's usually people who don't actually really understand the scientific method (or any of the sciences) that seem to be the most vocal proponents. They really remind me of the religious bunch. It doesn't help that some people, often scientist themselves, will present theoretical things as fact. I consume a lot of documentaries and am overly fond of those who do not present things as fact but say things like, "If the Standard Model is correct then..." Or, "What we currently believe to be true is..."
You get people who present the Big Bang as fact, as settled science, and will absolutely swear by it - and defend it as so. And you get those who don't actually understand the philosophy which is the scientific method who champion it, as religious zealots, while not actually understanding (or even knowing) that there are competing theories for almost all of those things. Hell, we've got everything from a multiverse theory to a holographic universe theory and everything in between. I have to wonder if there's a strong urge for humans to believe they know the answers and why it is so difficult for people to say, "We don't fully understand the mechanism."
I could go on, elaborate, but I suspect you understand where I'm going with this. It's remarkable how many times, just today, I've read your posts and found myself shaking my head in agreement or feeling compelled to respond. Fortunately, the house is noisy and active - so I can sit idle, off in the corner, and mostly be left alone for a while longer. It's nice sometimes.
If I understand correctly, and I believe I do, the device was not tested "by NASA" but at a facility, rented, and shared by NASA. The only thing NASA associated with that device, as of yet, is some general interest and a name on a building placard. I'm also given to understand that it's still a bit of a black box and that there's some dubious measurement mechanism in place - as in the force being generated is so minute that the measuring equipment may not be sensitive enough to accurately measure it and that means that the force might exist, might not, or might be explained by some other mechanism entirely.
In other words, I'd not get your hopes up to high. It'd be exciting, if true, and would certainly mean that we'd have a whole lot of work to do in physics. Not that we don't still have a lot of work to do but we'd either need to find the reaction (there appears to be no known reaction) or that we have to rework the Standard Model a whole lot.
I'm hopeful but not overly optimistic. I'm more interested in what the mechanism is, I guess, than any possible effect. Given the tiny amount of force being generated (maybe) that means that any benefit from it will be many years to fruition. Even finding a realistic use for that force will be problematic unless they can find a way to scale it up. I guess, in theory, it'd make generational ships possible but they'd be awfully slow in their acceleration. I guess they could be coupled with other devices?
Ah well... We'll see... If this is real, if the force is real, then I'd suspect there's a mechanism where reaction is taking place and we're just not yet aware of that or how it is happening. That being the most simple of means (I should think) and would mean we'd not need to rework the entirety of physics. Of course, the latter is always possible. I'm also assuming we're talking about the same thing. Of great importance is that it was not all that long ago we were certain of the four ethers, phlogiston, and that we had fire inside of us. We could well be wrong today, yet we're as certain about our correctness today as they were of phlogiston.
The question is not if they can create perpetual motion but, if in their effort, they will discover a novel process that does result in making that energy productive. Does it matter if it is perpetual motion or not, if it results in some new method of power generation that is efficient and financially viable?
Ah - thanks. I knew that people had gone to jail and were sitting in jail (at the least) but was under the impression that they'd been found guilty or at least that's what I recollect the documentary saying as well as something along those lines from my local friend. That's good that it didn't hold up but unfortunate that they spent time in jail.
If I recall correctly, that's one of the differences between our legal systems. You guys write the laws and the judges determine what they mean and if they'll hold up. Here, that's not quite the same until you get to the higher courts. There, it's set by precedent and whatnot. Though I could have sworn that there were a couple of States where there were some rather draconian penalties and that they had been successfully prosecuted - however, I'll defer to you as it's pretty obvious that you paid more attention to it than I did.
You say that like it's a bad thing. When did this twist in public perception become a thing? Why in the hell would you expect a company to not "protect" criminals by providing encryption that can't be broken? Hell, we had companies that gave away secret decoder rings to children as toys when I was a kid. That you're worried a criminal might go free, because of encryption, and think that a private organization should aid the government in the prosecution of said criminal by negating their effectiveness for lawful consumers is disturbing at best an un-American at worst.
The adage about it being better that ten guilty men go free rather than one innocent one be jailed is more than a pithy saying. If the cops can't break the encryption then good - that means the damned encryption is effective - like it should be. Like all tools, it can be used for good or ill. Like a firearm, it can used for good or ill.
You're damned right, it protects criminals from discovery. That's a GOOD thing. It protects innocent people from snooping. It protects business from spying. It protects secrets, however benign, from discovery.
Could you show me this law about newspaper clippings not being classifiable by law? My understanding is that they can be, even if ineffectively, classified.
I'd address the remainder of your "points" but let's start with this "BY LAW" part, please. Disclosure: I have been trained to handle classified material and am a victim of the OPM hack.
Note: With her position she was obligated *to* classify material that was handled by her directly, inappropriately mishandling classified data is a felony. Failing to classify material that should be classified, no matter how onerous, is also a felony when one is classed at the level where one has an obligation to assign classification. Those are two points which you negated to mention - we can deal with the others, individually, after you show me this law that I'm unfamiliar with and then I'll at least be aware of your knowledge level and know what I need to explain and what I don't need to explain.
It has been a long time since I've gone through the training so this law you mention may actually exist - I can find no trace of said law. As far as I know, however useless, they can classify a street sign as top secret and those obligated to treat that data as top secret would, in fact, be legally culpable for failing to do so. You, as a presumably private citizen who is not tasked with handling of classified data, would not be obligated to treat the aforementioned street sign as classified nor would you be penalized for publishing it, talking about it, taking pictures of it, or even telling our enemies about it.
Seven other people, and myself, own a Windows phone and I hear there's still three people who have Blackberries that run QNX or whatever it was on them before they started sticking Android on them. Then there's a few folks with non-feature phones that aren't very complicated at all. In other words, there's more than Android and Apple. Err... There's just not a lot of us - though Windows phone does seem to be catching on. I've actually been pretty happy with it - I was sick of Android and relying on the carrier for updates. I also did not want to buy in, personally, to the Apple ecosystem though (oddly) I've probably purchased more Apple devices than almost everyone here but that's a long story and dinner is almost ready.
That movie has the actor in it that's pretty good. He's a method actor, I guess they call them. He does bizarre things to get into character - like spending a year living totally in character even prior to the production of the movie even beginning. Crowe, that's his name, even went so far as to learn to play a violin just for that movie. He'd no skills at the violin prior to the movie but learned just so he could play it, understand it, and act it out in the movie - to the best of his ability.
I don't know who the others are but I guess there are a few others but most don't go to his insane levels. For another film, he spent like a year learning to be a swashbuckler or something like that? I don't really watch a lot of movies or anything. I don't know the actors names, usually, so I'm not a good source for this. At any rate, I kind of know who he is and I know the movie - it's pretty good, honestly. He's a very good actor. I've seen him in a couple of other films (though I don't recall a damned one of them at the moment) and I do recollect that I didn't actively dislike any of them.
I should probably look into it more. I won't. I should, however. Method acting is what I think they call it and he's really pretty good at it. I understand he's managed to pick up a pretty wide array of skills through it all. I don't really know a lot about it, him, or even movies - I don't want many movies or any television really. Well, not typical movies. I watch loads and loads of movies but they're documentaries. That's really all I watch.
At any rate, I've a house full of people so I should probably pay attention to them soon. Otherwise, I'd look for more information. If you're not familiar with him then that's all the information I have without the aid of Google. I'd probably like to see more of his movies. I know I've seen at least a couple of others but don't even remotely recall their names. He's one of the folks who does a good job. There's the guy in Meet Joe Black who does a good job too, both of those guys do pretty good.
I happened to watch the Wolverine that had been leaked from a time prior to all the effects being added. One of the things that was so striking was how much green-screen-scene they'd used. There was so little there, so little for an actor to wrap themselves in and act about, that it actually seems to (and I might be biased, I guess) show. It's as if there's so few real things, in some of these movies, that the actors are giving lower quality productions and I think that might be because they have so few things to interact with.
It's an actor, in a wiring harness, with a few blue things stuck to their body, in front of a green-screen, and swinging about a pink plastic stick. There's no way the actor's able to immerse themselves into that scene. Thus, you not only get effects that are "too good" you get acting that is too mechanical. Again, I might be biased, but I think the quality of acting has gone down dramatically and that one of the reasons for this might actually be the increased effects meaning that it's more difficult to get immersed and thus the acting is dry, mechanical, and distant.
It's hard to blame the actors for this one. I don't, for a minute, believe the actual skill level has gone down by default. I just expect that the results have decreased in quality and probably for a variety of reasons but that's one reason that I think the resulting quality has gone downhill. I have every reason to believe that the skill levels will have naturally increased with time as things do with other human pursuits. I don't get to the theater enough, live theater, to confirm this but I'd not be surprised to find it true that the skills have increased - as we gain in knowledge, we gain in technique, and we gain in practice, collectively, so to do we gain as individuals.
I'm sure there are a whole host of other reasons, such as needing to refine our skills with the vast new amounts of technology that are coming online and things of that nature. But, I really think that we've lost a bit in translation now that we've got our acting being done in front of green-screens and with funny colored props that resemble nothing like they'll look post-production.
Hmm... Thanks again! I'll have to take a look at it. I only know of pepper, regular Flash, and the various ones like you mentioned above such as the one for Android. Though Pepper isn't really open-source or anything. sudo apt-get install pepperflashplugin-nonfree I use it because I use Opera, it works. Like you (I think), I'm none-too-fond of Flash. Oh, I like it as a concept - though I'd prefer it to be open. I just dislike the implementation, security aspects, and that it was used in so many inappropriate areas.
I'll have to look into the open version - if for no other reason than because I'm getting back into coding (I've been retired since 2008 and haven't really even done any of my own coding since around 1998 or so). Sure, I've done some small projects here and there but nothing of any note. I've contributed to a few projects but that was in PHP. I've done some Perl in that time (not in a while). I've done a little JavaScript and even edited/fixed some Java and put it back into its .jar format but nothing major, of value really, or even all that educational.
I don't actually have many/any real projects in mind (except a couple for SBCs, one of which is being worked on as mentioned somewhere in this thread) but I'm getting older and it's time to make sure that I'm keeping my brain active, learning new things, and maintaining my knowledge. I'm 58 now and, as odd as it sounds, I swear it's almost as if I can feel my brain becoming more plasticized. Things fade, I sometimes forget things that I should easily remember, and it gets more difficult to learn new things. I don't like that, I don't like that at all.
So, one of my steps started a couple of years ago. I used to be a Unix user. I've kept Linux installed on a partition for years but seldom booted to it - as I had moved to Windows. I've actually won (multiple times and for multiple subjects) the Microsoft MVP Award and participated in that program for years. But I'd reached the point where I was a passive consumer and felt like there was nothing for me to learn - that I'd make the effort to learn.
At that point, I started to play with various distros and examining which features I liked most and what would suit my needs best. Except, I still didn't boot to Linux. Sure, I'd even go so far as to start it up in a VM but that's nothing. Never being one to shirk a stupid idea, I simply wiped all my hard drives (that's a whole lot of them) and started installing various Linux distros on them - I think I even did a few with Minix and a couple of BSDs. I also used them all in VMs - I do mean all of them. I've tried more Linux distros than most - I did pretty much every single one listed at DistroWatch and a whole bunch that aren't there. I even went so far as to stop showering and grow a graybeard neckbeard! (Only kidding, except for the beard part and I've "always" had that.)
It was like I was a mad scientist, gone even more horribly wrong, and a whole lot of fun. The end result being that I'd completely swapped OSes, had a lot of new stuff to learn, and simply go around my problem of never using the Linux partition by deleting the Windows partition. I now use Linux pretty much exclusively and have for quite a while now. (I do have a Windows phone - I was sick of Android and don't wish to invest myself in the iDevice ecosystem.) It was not some moral crusade or anything - I'm not anti-closed source. I think the world has room for both and that people should be able to choose closed source if they want and I'm not a big fan of forcing anyone to do anything - and that includes forcing folks to open their source.
So, I ended up just using Linux (as I said) and I've been doing so ever since. Now, to keep going, I'm relearning my programming skills and will be learning a couple of new languages - I hope. I'm relearning my C. I'm going to pick up C++ though I've already got some familiarity. The programmers that I'd hired eventually converted my code base to C++ (a long time ago in Internet Years, around that same 1998