Given how long it took for him to complete the journey (500+ days) with solar power - he may well have been able to row himself across the globe faster than he made it in this ship.
You were good up until that and just fine after that. We *do* see container planes. They're used quite often when there is no ocean to cross or speed is more important than costs.
I am hoping that you know this but I am compelled to respond to your post. I feel like I'm potentially preaching to the choir here but, well, it could be possible that you don't know this. If you don't then, well, I feel sad for you but not in a bad way. The quote is pretty common... The quote is also usually finished with a statement about how the USSR just used a pencil.
The reality is that NASA didn't develop (or pay for the development) of the space pen at all. It was developed by Fisher, at their own expense, and with no guarantee that it would be purchased by NASA for use in space. What had happened was that NASA had paid way too much money for some mechanical pencils and the public found out about the expensive pencils and all hell broke loose. Keep in mind how much we were spending on the space race at the time, be sure to convert those dollars to today's dollars for a true comparison. Americans were well and truly pissed and justifiably so.
What the above link sort of touches on is the trouble with the idea of using a pencil, which is something you hadn't mentioned at all but I'll bring it up in order to be complete. One of the reasons that I understand a pencil is a bad idea (while sort of mentioned in the article they don't go into in at any depth and don't cover this specifically) is that every time you write there are microscopic fragments of graphite that break away. In a weightless environment they can go all over the place and graphite is also a very good conductor of electricity. The various electronics were very sensitive at the time and while most systems had a backup any point of failure was seen as a bad thing. The small bits of graphite could conceivably float away, enter a computer system, and cause a short - which wouldn't necessarily result in a fire but could possibly be a Bad Thing® and *could* potentially cause a fire in and of itself. (I'm not sure how well pencils themselves burn or how much the flammability of the pencil itself was a concern that actually was for NASA to be honest.)
That is, as near as I can remember, how the story was relayed to me by someone who worked on the earlier Apollo missions. The conversation was over more than one beer (and about a lot more than that) so I may have missed something. The linked citation pretty much goes along with the story as he detailed it.
If I may digress a bit... I was not alive for the earliest launches but I do recall watching the first humans on the moon on television. My parents told me the cliché about how I could do that someday but I never really wanted to walk on the moon. It did change me though. It made me interested in the technology and the computers that got them there. I didn't want to walk on the moon but I did want to work one of those giant beeping machines with the interesting dials and gauges on the ground and maybe visit space for a little while just to experience weightlessness but I wouldn't want to stay there for long. Not every little boy wanted to be an astronaut when we grew up, some of us wanted to play with the machines that went beep instead. And, well, that was me. I never did get to play with NASA's beeping machines but I've was in front of a computer for pretty much all of my professional life and still sit in front of one now that I'm retired.
I am not entirely sure what you're talking about. Perhaps you goofed and posted this in the wrong spot? I do that but I'm usually pretty wasted at the time.
I suppose now would be the time to say, "It happens to the best of us." I suspect that isn't true however. It is sort of like, well... Have you ever noticed that it is usually a completely retarded idea or vocalization that results in someone saying, "Great minds think alike!" Anyhow, I doubt it happens to the best of us. It happens to me when I'm completely retarded. I don't know what your excuse is, if I were you then I'd blame beer.;)
Anyhow, I'm glad you mentioned that. I was going to add something similar. Seeing as you seem to know something about boats...
Another thing that made me wonder is, isn't this a three hulled vessel? Yet, from the summary, the batteries are kept in the "ships two hulls." I am forced to wonder where the third one went but, by doing so, I demonstrate that I've clearly violated the rules of Slashdot and read the article.
Ah well... Perhaps the editor will come along and make changes? It should say something akin to "two of the ship's hulls" or, perhaps, even "two of the ships three hulls."
Don't get me wrong, I could be mistaken, but I think that giant thingy in the middle is called a hull too. I'm not much of a boatman but I've been known to play at being one on the weekends (for years now - no matter how appealing I refuse to invest in one even if I can afford it) and for a whole summer once. I have some friends who have big craft too and sometimes will go out with them and give them a hand.
So, I could be mistaken - I'm willing to admit that. I don't think I am though. I think that's a "tri-hull catamaran" though that's where I start to show my lack of knowledge. It may be called a "triple-hull catamaran." I think the spars have to be vertical to be considered a "trimaran" but I'm not sure - as I said, this is where I start to show what I don't know.
Anyhow, I know enough so that I *think* that's got three hulls and I have concluded that I'm pretty sure that, "the ships two hulls" is incorrect. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. And, for the record, I can think of a lot of things to waste money on that are more functional than a boat (small fishing craft, canoes, and kayaks don't count). I have seen one too many perfectly healthy friends go broke and insane because of their little nautical addiction. You can develop a healthy cocaine addiction for a tenth of what some of these guys have paid and it's probably healthier, more fun, and able to be made use of more often. Do not buy a boat!!!
The thread, the comments specifically, are actually pretty educational, informative, and potentially valuable. To me that is one of the main reasons that I frequent this site and this thread isn't, to me at least, anywhere near worth complaining about as compared to some of the others that have been approved.
So, having said that, this thread is much better than it could be - which is an excellent thing. The subject, headline, article content, summary, and the likes aren't really that bad. I guess that it is, of course, subjective and all that but it seems like a perfectly acceptable topic for Slashdot and is fitting for this site. I don't think the source of content is of great importance so long as the information imparted is appropriate, contextually related to the general interests of the site at large, and informative.
In this case it appears to have raised legitimate questions which people are interested in. The evidence for this is in the number of replies and in the number of dialogues being had because of this posting.
I'm not trying to talk you out of leaving Slashdot, not at all - I thing you should as pessimism isn't really helpful no matter what, but I'm trying to point out that it your post is illogical in a variety of ways. I think that I should point out that the most important error in reasoning your post includes is that it assumes that people have any regard for your opinion on the subject and that you are assuming we value your presence enough to be concerned with your continued participation. It is, shall we say, unlikely that your opinion(s) are going to influence the content of the site.
But, well, I digress. I think it would have been more simple (and effective) for me to have simply posted, "Well... Bye."
'Twas why I phrased it as a question. I was curious as to what they meant. It's confuzzling and I'd never seen it spelled that way but was familiar with Foo and Bar.
Concerning your sig - do you mean "FUBAR?" Fucked up beyond all recognition. It is sometimes called "fouled up beyond all recognition" by less vulgar folks.
Crap. I didn't catch that. I was hoping they were going to try to release the content of the requests as well as the counts and hopefully the dates. *sighs* Yeah, publicity stunt... That's what I'm assuming and I'm sticking with it.
Can they just join the suit without it being class action or without some sort of invite from Google or, more likely, needing it to be a whole new suit? I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on television - I don't even watch lawyer television shows for that matter.
Also, it seems to me that they have a snowball's chance in hell at being successful. Because of this it seems more like a marketing ploy than it does a realistic attempt at getting them to allow Google to reveal the information. I am not sure if my writing is clear or if that makes sense.
Basically it looks like this is so unlikely that the more probable reality is that this is a marketing ploy by Google so that they appear to actually be doing something about our privacy but that they know, the government knows, and we know that they have pretty much no chance in hell of being allowed to reveal the information.
When I was reading the summary and thinking about it - it did occur to me that they had some small chance. I guess that, in the past, people were unable to bring suits because they were unable to prove harm. They couldn't prove harm because they couldn't prove they'd been targeted. In this case they MIGHT be able to prove harm in that it is damaging their reputation? However, again, I am NOT a lawyer nor do I play at one. I do pay attention to the law and the various legal proceedings from SCOTUS and my state's supreme court. I do kind of understand quite a bit of it and I do try to read up and learn about the law. But, alas, I don't know...
Perhaps someone will chime in? It seems they can maybe prove harm so the suit may be legitimate though I'm not sure harm would have to be proved if they're going for a 1st Amendment solution.
Either way, it still seems to me that it is so unlikely that it will succeed and the only reason I can think of for even bothering is not for the good of freedom but as a marketing strategy. "Look at us! Look at what we're doing. We're not just about the money, we're trying to protect your freedom! Join our latest beta program and give us more of your personal information, thanks!"
They are easier to maintain from a central location, they are easier to backup, they are easier to use, and there are all sorts of other benefits that you're overlooking. Additionally, in bulk, there are savings to be hand when purchasing the hardware. Not to mention that there are any number of ways to connect a thin client and, as you mentioned, they needn't be specific devices so the roles can be easily filled by older hardware.
In other words, those aren't good enough reasons to simply naysay the idea in my humble opinion. This is quite viable and potentially valuable as it gives (I'm thinking this would be best suited for residential use, really, though I suppose some businesses could use the service) more access to more people. The information and freedom are great ideas and the expense is can be negligible.
I don't see too many businesses taking advantage of this. It doesn't seem likely. They'd just run their own service.
Anyhow, computers are expensive there - very much so. This is a way to get them into the hands of the people so that they can access the wealth of information that is online. It can be inexpensive and commonplace. The definition of thin client is so ambiguous that anything from a tablet to an old P3 harvested from a call center can fit the role. Letting perfect get in the way of good enough seems to be an issue here.
It has been my experience that, if you can, build... It is far less hassle to deal with the loan from the bank and contract out your own maintenance and cleaning services than it is to deal with some management company who are more interested in the bottom line than they are in providing quality services. And you're spot on about the theft...
I don't see this as being a great thing for businesses, and I don't see businesses making a lot of use of it, but I could see it being great for residential. I could see it as being wonderful for business use but it just doesn't seem likely. The building's management service could do the telephony and provision thin clients, connectivity, and storage. Software could be provisioned online for many business needs. Those needing greater than what is possible over the 'net can have full blown PCs.
As I said, I don't see it being great for businesses. Could it be? Absolutely. Will it be? If the culture in Brazil is anything like the culture here then it is quite unlikely to be as good as it says it is on the package. But, it has that potential so I say we should wait to see how it turns out. Assuming you're smart with your lease and include non-payment as an option for violations then you should be good to go. It remains to be seen though - I'd not dismiss it out of hand though, certainly not without giving it a go. They've managed to accomplish some neat things there - including fairly inexpensive (comparably) taxi helicopters and things like that. I say we watch them and root for them, this could turn out to be an excellent idea for them.
An important part, and equally important for residential, is that this not be limiting. This needs to be a add-on service which one can opt out of if they don't want it. So long as that's the case I see nothing wrong with it. Even for business use, make sure you have a good lawyer read the terms, it could be viable. Uptime contracts are important in this case too and you'd want to ensure that they had good security measures in place but those can be defined contractually. Rather than just an early termination clause for violations (the expense of moving is too great over small violations) one needs to include a non-payment clause. If they fail to maintain the provided amenities per the standards set in the contract then one doesn't pay that month's rent, not just not paying the amenity fees but the entire rent. That should give sufficient motivation and help ensure the quality of service is maintained.
Yes, you don't pay enough to have more than a slumlord so it is a bad idea for everyone. That is completely correct and an excellent use of reasoning. I applaud your logic skills and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Why is it "way to [sic] expensive" to do this? It isn't as if they'll be giving these devices away probably. They'll be renting them and increasing your rent to pay for them. It isn't as if it is all that difficult or all that expensive. This isn't a complex rollout or anything. It's simply provisioning virtual machines to folk with assigned storage and connectivity. They'll have automated backups (I'd assume) and would really only need to have private storage space allotted. If they crash their user space they simply log out and log back in again. They save their settings and data to provisioned disk space and their profile is created when they log in. It is hardly expensive, difficult, or problematic. Additionally, the users will be the people paying for it. It isn't as if the landlords will be giving this stuff away for free. They'll rent the hardware, charge for the service, and likely allow a certain amount of storage space with increased space costing more funds. They'll likely do the same with bandwidth with tiered bandwidth allowances being available. They may even have varied throughput rates available, certain prices for certain time frames, or even offer choices in the operating systems.
Again, this isn't difficult or expensive. This isn't outrageous or new. This is old-hat technology being used in non-novel ways to accomplish a value-added service that will enable people access to information and the freedom to use the internet to reach out, speak out, work, or create. I truly don't understand how so many people have attacked this as if it is a negative thing. It doesn't even limit anyone as it isn't the only way to connect and nobody is being forced to use these services. They're optional ways to get low-cost access into the hands of more people. These aren't difficult systems to maintain, there can probably even be a company that remotely does the provisioning and management with local access being granted as it is needed. I understand that this city has an inordinate amount of people in helicopters (I was kind of surprised to learn this) but it would be trivial for them to send out a person to do hands-on work as needed.
And, yeah, it was neat to see/watch/learn about - they even have helicopter taxis I guess. I've never been to the city but I'd like to so I probably will at some point. I guess that they're not even that expensive to ride in, they save a lot of time as there is a lot of vehicle traffic on the streets. At least that was the information as it was portrayed in the documentary.
Either way, this isn't difficult or too expensive. It's, as near as I can tell, an excellent idea that has been a long time in coming. Hopefully it catches on and becomes something that reaches even more people. I wonder if it would be possible to bring a program like that to my area of the world? Specifically in low-income housing or housing that is based on ones income. I should give my representatives a call after taking a more complete and judgmental look at this program.
The VA hospital uses thin clients, they're all over the place actually.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a full blown desktop can be used (and often is) as a thin client. It just weighs heavier and takes up more space but the functionality is the same. Saas? Thin client. Web hosted email? Thin client. Sure, you may access them from full service computers but the functionality is the same.
I don't recall the thread but it was within the past few months where I had a decent conversation about this. This isn't even progressive (and can be done on the cheap, easily, and be simple to maintain) really as we're actually moving back towards the days of thin clients and renting computer time. More and more services are moving to servers located across a network. The thin clients are more powerful, offer more storage, and have more features but we're basically just paying for a lot of the CPU time with our private information and our willingness to watch ads. All this business about moving things to the cloud? That's just the same principle and functionality as we had years ago when we had terminals and rented time from the mainframe. Thin clients are just terminals and the mainframe is just accessed through the network, it's the same as it ever was. The phrase 'thin client' has a definition but the functions of it are pretty much the same as we use our regular devices these days. There's no difference between a thin client and a tablet, netbook, laptop, or even full blown computer when they're being used for the same thing.
Is this a bad thing? I wouldn't say so. I'd say that it fits the times and unless there's a compelling reason it will continue in this path for the foreseeable future. We are reaching the point where we have word processing online, email online, even hosted photo editing online has been around for a while (but I guess it is improving). I'd not be surprised to see CAD systems online. SAP, I think I am thinking of the right company, is pretty much SaaS which is the functional equivalent of a thin client accessing the mainframe to do work. Even in the old days we'd compose offline then use our rented time to crunch the numbers. Today we'd do it in offline mode and then save our work when connectivity is available.
Not much seems to change really. The speed, price, and technology used changes but the basic functions remain much the same. Our ability to work with larger datasets has grown. The capacity to HAVE an off-line computation device has increased but, well, mostly everything is connected to a network or the internet itself these days. Hell, as I mentioned above, I've even considered setting up my house with Wise thin clients but have opted to just continue with the devices I have on-hand or those that I buy - they just get added to the network here and that's in my house and not that unusual or geeky (I don't think).
If we take away the name and discuss the functionality there's little difference.
This! Thank you! Wow... Seriously - thanks. I was starting to lose hope.
It seems the naysayers are (and there are a lot) just afraid that this takes away their specialness. This strips them from their ability to hide behind the curtain and play with the switches. After all, if just plain old normal people are going to be doing this then anyone can do it if they try. If they don't need to go get their devices cleaned up they don't need the services from the IT repair shop. If they can just have a PC as a refrigerator type of device they don't need special services, cleanups, to be sold new devices, or even be geeks to access the internet. This will lower the bar to entry...
What bothers me, though I guess confuses me is a more accurate term, is that we have traditionally (as a community) been proactive advocates for getting the internet and the freedom it offers into the hands of more people. We have traditionally maintained a very clear advocacy policy of striving to get more people online, to ensure they had access to the information, and to give them the chance to speak out online and be heard. We've been proponents of putting devices into the hands of people who probably would have been better served with being given access to water but, no, we've been convinced that giving them a computer and internet access was as valid a concern. Now, suddenly, we're concerned? Now, all of a sudden, this is a problem?
I have only made it to this point in the thread. The vast majority of on-topic comments have been negative. They've been stretching for reasons to complain. They have been imagining situations where this is too expensive, where it is too difficult, where it is a problem. My only guess for the reasoning is that they're afraid. The computer is an appliance now. The internet is no longer our place to control. The loss of control and the loss of something to be proud of or something that makes them unique has made them (us, we're a part of the community too) fearful and resentful.
What the hell happened?
It's too expensive - find a way to make it cheaper. It's too difficult - make it easier. It can be monitored - so can't anything, teach encryption. It is centralized - so isn't everything else. It is limiting - no it isn't, they can still have their own devices. We're scared, we're no longer special wizards - cool, soon you can pay your rent by maintaining your apartment's servers.
These used to be problems to overcome (or trivial problems). Now they're reasons to quit without starting and to call the idea stupid. Seriously, this would have been seen as awesome, inspiring, and a wonderful thing on Slashdot not that long ago. What the hell happened?
I don't like this sir, I don't like this one bit. Harrumff!
Value added service where people can just add that to their rent and not have to worry about it. Additionally, why would you assume that this is limiting in some fashion? It doesn't prevent people from using their own devices. It just provisions a low power, easy to use, form of connectivity. Think of it like an apartment complex including central air conditioning, electricity, or other appliances.
A computer has become just that, an appliance, and it is being seen and used as such more and more. Much like they provide a refrigerator and stove, they'll be providing a thin client, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. It's a value added service that makes sense for a lot of people probably. I think it is an excellent idea to at least experiment with.
Face it, us geeks are no longer special and the computer is the equivalent of a toaster. This is just giving people the option to have the devices in their home with no need for them to do anything more than turn it on and have connectivity. It's a viable idea though it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
One of the important things to keep in mind is that this is, in no way, limiting anyone. This doesn't prohibit folks from having their own devices and their own connectivity. This isn't being forced on anyone but is a service that they may opt to invest in. It provides information to people, exposure to technology, and gives them the chance to be heard online. I can see no justification for complaining about this.
This isn't meant as a slight, you're not the only one to jump to the conclusion that this is bad without really vocalizing any reasons as to what makes it bad. Somehow we've gone from a community that advocated a computer in every hand, connectivity as ubiquitous as water - maybe even more so, and education for the masses to a group of people who seem afraid that our conclave is going to be made obsolete because of the commonality we once vied for. I do not understand this. My first thought was, "This is an excellent idea - connectivity and devices made simple." Then (after scrolling through the MyCleanPC stuff) I found nothing but naysayers who seem mostly afraid of this because it takes away from their specialness because the computer has become a common household appliance. I do not understand that. I do not understand that at all. I absolutely welcome comments as to why or how it has become this way.
Hell, if anything, think of how nice it would be to pay for your rent by simply maintaining this for your landlord. Also, keep in mind that this isn't limiting anyone. Instead of fixing the plumbing to help pay your rent you can be the building's IT manager who logs in and maintains accounts to pay your rent. It is really important to keep in mind that this doesn't limit anyone either. They're still free to have a desktop, a cell, a tablet, a laptop, or no device at all. Since when is the idea of more computers and more connectivity a bad thing? The complaint certainly shouldn't be about thin clients, we've been using them for years and we're even using our regular devices as thin clients all the time. The only difference is that we're no longer renting our time from a mainframe with money - we're paying for the compute cycles with our personal information and our eyeball's attention to advertisements.
I know that some apartment buildings will often have a resident who gets a larger apartment, cheaper rent (or no rent), maybe a special parking place, and they get these perks because they perform maintenance tasks. Often times they'll be a plumber, HVAC person, carpenter, or similar. Maybe they plan on offering something similar? I could also see (a lot of landlords own more than one building) them hiring an IT person who takes care of all of the buildings for them.
It seems like a good idea POTENTIALLY. If it is done right then it will be quite a valuable add-on service to offer your residents. I have had similar ideas in passing in the past because I've thought about the business of renting and have thought of ways to make my buildings stand out above the rest of them. Many of the ideas that I have had have been technical in nature and this is one of them.
Keep in mind that this is something that is becoming simpler as time goes on. Gone are the days when servers are administered by warlocks with caldrons, potions, runes, and arcane knowledge. The tools are becoming simpler and more effective. The backup and restoration processes are becoming more effective and less prone to error. The familiarity with computers is growing as computing devices become more embedded within society itself.
Also, another thing to keep in mind is that this isn't a requirement. This isn't limiting folks in any way. This is just provisioning an alternative that is low cost, low hassle, and enabling more people access to more information. I'm not sure where the downside is to this. This does, of course, assume (a big assumption) that things are done properly.
What is wrong with thin clients? In this case, in this particular situation, it seems like they may be a good idea.
We used to use thin clients and rent time from a mainframe. Today, with everything being "in the cloud" and SaaS (or similar) we're just moving back in that direction though our "thin clients" have more power. When you use web-hosted email, an online word processor, or even a game online you're functioning just like it was with a thin client.
It's actually the trend, from what I am able to see, in that more and more things are moving into "the cloud" and are being hosted online. It has its drawbacks if connectivity is lost but that's a rarity these days in much of the world. Some of the various services have disruption avoidance or mitigation built in so that you can do your work and then sync it with the online functionality when you're connected again.
I would not suggest that they are the be all and end all, nor would I suggest that they're the solution for everything but, for many things, they're a perfectly viable solution. I had actually considered using some Wise thin clients, roaming profiles, and setting up my house that way so that a small box, monitor, mouse, and keyboard were all that were needed no matter where you were in the house. For a business (and I could see apartments as well) this could be quite viable and effective.
Anyhow, I'm not sure why you'd immediately conclude that this is a bad thing or why it would need to be replaced at all. Other than the fact that it is not new I can't see any reason to fret about it. There are lots of things that we do that aren't new, some of them even have good reasons behind them. Done properly this could be a very good thing and it certainly raises the value of an apartment if you can have devices like this in it. Additionally, this doesn't prohibit you from using a non-thin client but, rather, offers a low cost, low power, effective alternative as a value added service. I really can't think of any justified reasons to complain about this so I'm curious as to why you're thinking that the idea is bad and will need to be replaced.
Awesome! I love Slashdot at times. I really do. I've never heard the term cisgendered before so I opened TheSage (a dictionary application) and found that it had no definition. I meandered over to OED to find the definition and then to Wikipedia for more information. Thanks! I've learned a new word today.
Anyhow, I always keep an open mind. I'd like to think that I could physically enjoy the company of anyone but I've never found anyone of the opposite gender (or transgendered) person who I was interested in trying it out with. I guess it is unlikely to happen and, at this stage of my life, it is even less likely to happen as I get older and less likely to try new things. I'll be okay with it though.
Additionally, well, I can understand gay people. I mean, yeah, they have their orientation and they like what they like. They see things the way that they do and they are more attracted to the same gender. That's okay, it's not up to me to judge after all, but it hasn't ever been anything I've acted on. However, the people that are bisexual are just plain greedy.
I quite agree, my point was simply that this isn't a new interpretation and yet people are quite certain it is and that it is defining the times. I noticed an AC posting about it and I'd read a Fark thread about it earlier (there's a guy in the Fark thread who's a lawyer, according to him, and he explains it very well actually). With the AC (or multiple people posting as AC) and all the internet available it seems pretty silly to keep ranting that this is due to the conservative courts of today.
I also believe that one of the cases cited goes back to the 20s. The inter-war period wasn't all that good for legislation either. Anyhow, the law makes sense. It's not the silence that is evidence but how and when the silence was invoked and that it was done during a non-custodial interview, when the interviewee wasn't a suspect, and the 5th hadn't been taken. The evidence, in this case, was his behavior in response to a question. It makes sense and is in accordance with the law.
What we should take away from this is that we should not talk to the police without a lawyer present except in very limited circumstances. It is unfortunate that we can't talk to the police but it is the reality. If you've been involved in a motor vehicle accident you should (must?) talk to the police. If you've been a witness to a crime you should talk to the police but I'd recommend having a lawyer present as they're just as likely to try to find a way to turn you into a suspect. If you wish to report a crime then you must talk to the police, I am not sure if one needs a lawyer for that but I don't see where it would hurt to have one.
I paid my lawyer $500 back a number of years ago to keep him on retainer. Every year I go give him another $500. I don't usually have any need for him so the money adds up and should I need him I've already paid a bunch in advance so my bill will be lower. I do suppose it would be prudent to put that money into an account that generates interest (he just holds on to it for me) but I'd be concerned that a criminal charge might somehow result in my assets being frozen so I opted to just give it to him instead. I have another lawyer who is retained (with a much larger sum) who does tax, estate, property, some business, and things like that. The first one I mentioned is a criminal trial lawyer. There isn't much call for specialization beyond that around here really.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, your post made me think of something.
Given how long it took for him to complete the journey (500+ days) with solar power - he may well have been able to row himself across the globe faster than he made it in this ship.
No, they still seem wasteful - they just ALSO seem like a necessity in today's modern world.
*cough* http://www.ups.com/aircargo/using/services/services/domestic/svc-containers.html
You were good up until that and just fine after that. We *do* see container planes. They're used quite often when there is no ocean to cross or speed is more important than costs.
I am hoping that you know this but I am compelled to respond to your post. I feel like I'm potentially preaching to the choir here but, well, it could be possible that you don't know this. If you don't then, well, I feel sad for you but not in a bad way. The quote is pretty common... The quote is also usually finished with a statement about how the USSR just used a pencil.
The reality is that NASA didn't develop (or pay for the development) of the space pen at all. It was developed by Fisher, at their own expense, and with no guarantee that it would be purchased by NASA for use in space. What had happened was that NASA had paid way too much money for some mechanical pencils and the public found out about the expensive pencils and all hell broke loose. Keep in mind how much we were spending on the space race at the time, be sure to convert those dollars to today's dollars for a true comparison. Americans were well and truly pissed and justifiably so.
Citation
What the above link sort of touches on is the trouble with the idea of using a pencil, which is something you hadn't mentioned at all but I'll bring it up in order to be complete. One of the reasons that I understand a pencil is a bad idea (while sort of mentioned in the article they don't go into in at any depth and don't cover this specifically) is that every time you write there are microscopic fragments of graphite that break away. In a weightless environment they can go all over the place and graphite is also a very good conductor of electricity. The various electronics were very sensitive at the time and while most systems had a backup any point of failure was seen as a bad thing. The small bits of graphite could conceivably float away, enter a computer system, and cause a short - which wouldn't necessarily result in a fire but could possibly be a Bad Thing® and *could* potentially cause a fire in and of itself. (I'm not sure how well pencils themselves burn or how much the flammability of the pencil itself was a concern that actually was for NASA to be honest.)
That is, as near as I can remember, how the story was relayed to me by someone who worked on the earlier Apollo missions. The conversation was over more than one beer (and about a lot more than that) so I may have missed something. The linked citation pretty much goes along with the story as he detailed it.
If I may digress a bit... I was not alive for the earliest launches but I do recall watching the first humans on the moon on television. My parents told me the cliché about how I could do that someday but I never really wanted to walk on the moon. It did change me though. It made me interested in the technology and the computers that got them there. I didn't want to walk on the moon but I did want to work one of those giant beeping machines with the interesting dials and gauges on the ground and maybe visit space for a little while just to experience weightlessness but I wouldn't want to stay there for long. Not every little boy wanted to be an astronaut when we grew up, some of us wanted to play with the machines that went beep instead. And, well, that was me. I never did get to play with NASA's beeping machines but I've was in front of a computer for pretty much all of my professional life and still sit in front of one now that I'm retired.
I am not entirely sure what you're talking about. Perhaps you goofed and posted this in the wrong spot? I do that but I'm usually pretty wasted at the time.
I suppose now would be the time to say, "It happens to the best of us." I suspect that isn't true however. It is sort of like, well... Have you ever noticed that it is usually a completely retarded idea or vocalization that results in someone saying, "Great minds think alike!" Anyhow, I doubt it happens to the best of us. It happens to me when I'm completely retarded. I don't know what your excuse is, if I were you then I'd blame beer. ;)
Meh... I was gonna mod this thread. Bugger it.
Anyhow, I'm glad you mentioned that. I was going to add something similar. Seeing as you seem to know something about boats...
Another thing that made me wonder is, isn't this a three hulled vessel? Yet, from the summary, the batteries are kept in the "ships two hulls." I am forced to wonder where the third one went but, by doing so, I demonstrate that I've clearly violated the rules of Slashdot and read the article.
Ah well... Perhaps the editor will come along and make changes? It should say something akin to "two of the ship's hulls" or, perhaps, even "two of the ships three hulls."
Don't get me wrong, I could be mistaken, but I think that giant thingy in the middle is called a hull too. I'm not much of a boatman but I've been known to play at being one on the weekends (for years now - no matter how appealing I refuse to invest in one even if I can afford it) and for a whole summer once. I have some friends who have big craft too and sometimes will go out with them and give them a hand.
So, I could be mistaken - I'm willing to admit that. I don't think I am though. I think that's a "tri-hull catamaran" though that's where I start to show my lack of knowledge. It may be called a "triple-hull catamaran." I think the spars have to be vertical to be considered a "trimaran" but I'm not sure - as I said, this is where I start to show what I don't know.
Anyhow, I know enough so that I *think* that's got three hulls and I have concluded that I'm pretty sure that, "the ships two hulls" is incorrect. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. And, for the record, I can think of a lot of things to waste money on that are more functional than a boat (small fishing craft, canoes, and kayaks don't count). I have seen one too many perfectly healthy friends go broke and insane because of their little nautical addiction. You can develop a healthy cocaine addiction for a tenth of what some of these guys have paid and it's probably healthier, more fun, and able to be made use of more often. Do not buy a boat!!!
The thread, the comments specifically, are actually pretty educational, informative, and potentially valuable. To me that is one of the main reasons that I frequent this site and this thread isn't, to me at least, anywhere near worth complaining about as compared to some of the others that have been approved.
So, having said that, this thread is much better than it could be - which is an excellent thing. The subject, headline, article content, summary, and the likes aren't really that bad. I guess that it is, of course, subjective and all that but it seems like a perfectly acceptable topic for Slashdot and is fitting for this site. I don't think the source of content is of great importance so long as the information imparted is appropriate, contextually related to the general interests of the site at large, and informative.
In this case it appears to have raised legitimate questions which people are interested in. The evidence for this is in the number of replies and in the number of dialogues being had because of this posting.
I'm not trying to talk you out of leaving Slashdot, not at all - I thing you should as pessimism isn't really helpful no matter what, but I'm trying to point out that it your post is illogical in a variety of ways. I think that I should point out that the most important error in reasoning your post includes is that it assumes that people have any regard for your opinion on the subject and that you are assuming we value your presence enough to be concerned with your continued participation. It is, shall we say, unlikely that your opinion(s) are going to influence the content of the site.
But, well, I digress. I think it would have been more simple (and effective) for me to have simply posted, "Well... Bye."
Thanks.
'Twas why I phrased it as a question. I was curious as to what they meant. It's confuzzling and I'd never seen it spelled that way but was familiar with Foo and Bar.
Concerning your sig - do you mean "FUBAR?" Fucked up beyond all recognition. It is sometimes called "fouled up beyond all recognition" by less vulgar folks.
Nah, they've been armed longer than that. I had to go make sure but I had remembered documentaries on the subject. Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles
Crap. I didn't catch that. I was hoping they were going to try to release the content of the requests as well as the counts and hopefully the dates. *sighs* Yeah, publicity stunt... That's what I'm assuming and I'm sticking with it.
I have never thought of it that way. It's painfully obvious but I'd never thought of it like that. Thank you - much appreciated.
Can they just join the suit without it being class action or without some sort of invite from Google or, more likely, needing it to be a whole new suit? I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on television - I don't even watch lawyer television shows for that matter.
Also, it seems to me that they have a snowball's chance in hell at being successful. Because of this it seems more like a marketing ploy than it does a realistic attempt at getting them to allow Google to reveal the information. I am not sure if my writing is clear or if that makes sense.
Basically it looks like this is so unlikely that the more probable reality is that this is a marketing ploy by Google so that they appear to actually be doing something about our privacy but that they know, the government knows, and we know that they have pretty much no chance in hell of being allowed to reveal the information.
When I was reading the summary and thinking about it - it did occur to me that they had some small chance. I guess that, in the past, people were unable to bring suits because they were unable to prove harm. They couldn't prove harm because they couldn't prove they'd been targeted. In this case they MIGHT be able to prove harm in that it is damaging their reputation? However, again, I am NOT a lawyer nor do I play at one. I do pay attention to the law and the various legal proceedings from SCOTUS and my state's supreme court. I do kind of understand quite a bit of it and I do try to read up and learn about the law. But, alas, I don't know...
Perhaps someone will chime in? It seems they can maybe prove harm so the suit may be legitimate though I'm not sure harm would have to be proved if they're going for a 1st Amendment solution.
Either way, it still seems to me that it is so unlikely that it will succeed and the only reason I can think of for even bothering is not for the good of freedom but as a marketing strategy. "Look at us! Look at what we're doing. We're not just about the money, we're trying to protect your freedom! Join our latest beta program and give us more of your personal information, thanks!"
They are easier to maintain from a central location, they are easier to backup, they are easier to use, and there are all sorts of other benefits that you're overlooking. Additionally, in bulk, there are savings to be hand when purchasing the hardware. Not to mention that there are any number of ways to connect a thin client and, as you mentioned, they needn't be specific devices so the roles can be easily filled by older hardware.
In other words, those aren't good enough reasons to simply naysay the idea in my humble opinion. This is quite viable and potentially valuable as it gives (I'm thinking this would be best suited for residential use, really, though I suppose some businesses could use the service) more access to more people. The information and freedom are great ideas and the expense is can be negligible.
I don't see too many businesses taking advantage of this. It doesn't seem likely. They'd just run their own service.
Anyhow, computers are expensive there - very much so. This is a way to get them into the hands of the people so that they can access the wealth of information that is online. It can be inexpensive and commonplace. The definition of thin client is so ambiguous that anything from a tablet to an old P3 harvested from a call center can fit the role. Letting perfect get in the way of good enough seems to be an issue here.
It has been my experience that, if you can, build... It is far less hassle to deal with the loan from the bank and contract out your own maintenance and cleaning services than it is to deal with some management company who are more interested in the bottom line than they are in providing quality services. And you're spot on about the theft...
I don't see this as being a great thing for businesses, and I don't see businesses making a lot of use of it, but I could see it being great for residential. I could see it as being wonderful for business use but it just doesn't seem likely. The building's management service could do the telephony and provision thin clients, connectivity, and storage. Software could be provisioned online for many business needs. Those needing greater than what is possible over the 'net can have full blown PCs.
As I said, I don't see it being great for businesses. Could it be? Absolutely. Will it be? If the culture in Brazil is anything like the culture here then it is quite unlikely to be as good as it says it is on the package. But, it has that potential so I say we should wait to see how it turns out. Assuming you're smart with your lease and include non-payment as an option for violations then you should be good to go. It remains to be seen though - I'd not dismiss it out of hand though, certainly not without giving it a go. They've managed to accomplish some neat things there - including fairly inexpensive (comparably) taxi helicopters and things like that. I say we watch them and root for them, this could turn out to be an excellent idea for them.
An important part, and equally important for residential, is that this not be limiting. This needs to be a add-on service which one can opt out of if they don't want it. So long as that's the case I see nothing wrong with it. Even for business use, make sure you have a good lawyer read the terms, it could be viable. Uptime contracts are important in this case too and you'd want to ensure that they had good security measures in place but those can be defined contractually. Rather than just an early termination clause for violations (the expense of moving is too great over small violations) one needs to include a non-payment clause. If they fail to maintain the provided amenities per the standards set in the contract then one doesn't pay that month's rent, not just not paying the amenity fees but the entire rent. That should give sufficient motivation and help ensure the quality of service is maintained.
Yes, you don't pay enough to have more than a slumlord so it is a bad idea for everyone. That is completely correct and an excellent use of reasoning. I applaud your logic skills and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Why is it "way to [sic] expensive" to do this? It isn't as if they'll be giving these devices away probably. They'll be renting them and increasing your rent to pay for them. It isn't as if it is all that difficult or all that expensive. This isn't a complex rollout or anything. It's simply provisioning virtual machines to folk with assigned storage and connectivity. They'll have automated backups (I'd assume) and would really only need to have private storage space allotted. If they crash their user space they simply log out and log back in again. They save their settings and data to provisioned disk space and their profile is created when they log in. It is hardly expensive, difficult, or problematic. Additionally, the users will be the people paying for it. It isn't as if the landlords will be giving this stuff away for free. They'll rent the hardware, charge for the service, and likely allow a certain amount of storage space with increased space costing more funds. They'll likely do the same with bandwidth with tiered bandwidth allowances being available. They may even have varied throughput rates available, certain prices for certain time frames, or even offer choices in the operating systems.
Again, this isn't difficult or expensive. This isn't outrageous or new. This is old-hat technology being used in non-novel ways to accomplish a value-added service that will enable people access to information and the freedom to use the internet to reach out, speak out, work, or create. I truly don't understand how so many people have attacked this as if it is a negative thing. It doesn't even limit anyone as it isn't the only way to connect and nobody is being forced to use these services. They're optional ways to get low-cost access into the hands of more people. These aren't difficult systems to maintain, there can probably even be a company that remotely does the provisioning and management with local access being granted as it is needed. I understand that this city has an inordinate amount of people in helicopters (I was kind of surprised to learn this) but it would be trivial for them to send out a person to do hands-on work as needed.
And, yeah, it was neat to see/watch/learn about - they even have helicopter taxis I guess. I've never been to the city but I'd like to so I probably will at some point. I guess that they're not even that expensive to ride in, they save a lot of time as there is a lot of vehicle traffic on the streets. At least that was the information as it was portrayed in the documentary.
Either way, this isn't difficult or too expensive. It's, as near as I can tell, an excellent idea that has been a long time in coming. Hopefully it catches on and becomes something that reaches even more people. I wonder if it would be possible to bring a program like that to my area of the world? Specifically in low-income housing or housing that is based on ones income. I should give my representatives a call after taking a more complete and judgmental look at this program.
The VA hospital uses thin clients, they're all over the place actually.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a full blown desktop can be used (and often is) as a thin client. It just weighs heavier and takes up more space but the functionality is the same. Saas? Thin client. Web hosted email? Thin client. Sure, you may access them from full service computers but the functionality is the same.
I don't recall the thread but it was within the past few months where I had a decent conversation about this. This isn't even progressive (and can be done on the cheap, easily, and be simple to maintain) really as we're actually moving back towards the days of thin clients and renting computer time. More and more services are moving to servers located across a network. The thin clients are more powerful, offer more storage, and have more features but we're basically just paying for a lot of the CPU time with our private information and our willingness to watch ads. All this business about moving things to the cloud? That's just the same principle and functionality as we had years ago when we had terminals and rented time from the mainframe. Thin clients are just terminals and the mainframe is just accessed through the network, it's the same as it ever was. The phrase 'thin client' has a definition but the functions of it are pretty much the same as we use our regular devices these days. There's no difference between a thin client and a tablet, netbook, laptop, or even full blown computer when they're being used for the same thing.
Is this a bad thing? I wouldn't say so. I'd say that it fits the times and unless there's a compelling reason it will continue in this path for the foreseeable future. We are reaching the point where we have word processing online, email online, even hosted photo editing online has been around for a while (but I guess it is improving). I'd not be surprised to see CAD systems online. SAP, I think I am thinking of the right company, is pretty much SaaS which is the functional equivalent of a thin client accessing the mainframe to do work. Even in the old days we'd compose offline then use our rented time to crunch the numbers. Today we'd do it in offline mode and then save our work when connectivity is available.
Not much seems to change really. The speed, price, and technology used changes but the basic functions remain much the same. Our ability to work with larger datasets has grown. The capacity to HAVE an off-line computation device has increased but, well, mostly everything is connected to a network or the internet itself these days. Hell, as I mentioned above, I've even considered setting up my house with Wise thin clients but have opted to just continue with the devices I have on-hand or those that I buy - they just get added to the network here and that's in my house and not that unusual or geeky (I don't think).
If we take away the name and discuss the functionality there's little difference.
This! Thank you! Wow... Seriously - thanks. I was starting to lose hope.
It seems the naysayers are (and there are a lot) just afraid that this takes away their specialness. This strips them from their ability to hide behind the curtain and play with the switches. After all, if just plain old normal people are going to be doing this then anyone can do it if they try. If they don't need to go get their devices cleaned up they don't need the services from the IT repair shop. If they can just have a PC as a refrigerator type of device they don't need special services, cleanups, to be sold new devices, or even be geeks to access the internet. This will lower the bar to entry...
What bothers me, though I guess confuses me is a more accurate term, is that we have traditionally (as a community) been proactive advocates for getting the internet and the freedom it offers into the hands of more people. We have traditionally maintained a very clear advocacy policy of striving to get more people online, to ensure they had access to the information, and to give them the chance to speak out online and be heard. We've been proponents of putting devices into the hands of people who probably would have been better served with being given access to water but, no, we've been convinced that giving them a computer and internet access was as valid a concern. Now, suddenly, we're concerned? Now, all of a sudden, this is a problem?
I have only made it to this point in the thread. The vast majority of on-topic comments have been negative. They've been stretching for reasons to complain. They have been imagining situations where this is too expensive, where it is too difficult, where it is a problem. My only guess for the reasoning is that they're afraid. The computer is an appliance now. The internet is no longer our place to control. The loss of control and the loss of something to be proud of or something that makes them unique has made them (us, we're a part of the community too) fearful and resentful.
What the hell happened?
It's too expensive - find a way to make it cheaper.
It's too difficult - make it easier.
It can be monitored - so can't anything, teach encryption.
It is centralized - so isn't everything else.
It is limiting - no it isn't, they can still have their own devices.
We're scared, we're no longer special wizards - cool, soon you can pay your rent by maintaining your apartment's servers.
These used to be problems to overcome (or trivial problems). Now they're reasons to quit without starting and to call the idea stupid. Seriously, this would have been seen as awesome, inspiring, and a wonderful thing on Slashdot not that long ago. What the hell happened?
I don't like this sir, I don't like this one bit. Harrumff!
Value added service where people can just add that to their rent and not have to worry about it. Additionally, why would you assume that this is limiting in some fashion? It doesn't prevent people from using their own devices. It just provisions a low power, easy to use, form of connectivity. Think of it like an apartment complex including central air conditioning, electricity, or other appliances.
A computer has become just that, an appliance, and it is being seen and used as such more and more. Much like they provide a refrigerator and stove, they'll be providing a thin client, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. It's a value added service that makes sense for a lot of people probably. I think it is an excellent idea to at least experiment with.
Face it, us geeks are no longer special and the computer is the equivalent of a toaster. This is just giving people the option to have the devices in their home with no need for them to do anything more than turn it on and have connectivity. It's a viable idea though it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
One of the important things to keep in mind is that this is, in no way, limiting anyone. This doesn't prohibit folks from having their own devices and their own connectivity. This isn't being forced on anyone but is a service that they may opt to invest in. It provides information to people, exposure to technology, and gives them the chance to be heard online. I can see no justification for complaining about this.
This isn't meant as a slight, you're not the only one to jump to the conclusion that this is bad without really vocalizing any reasons as to what makes it bad. Somehow we've gone from a community that advocated a computer in every hand, connectivity as ubiquitous as water - maybe even more so, and education for the masses to a group of people who seem afraid that our conclave is going to be made obsolete because of the commonality we once vied for. I do not understand this. My first thought was, "This is an excellent idea - connectivity and devices made simple." Then (after scrolling through the MyCleanPC stuff) I found nothing but naysayers who seem mostly afraid of this because it takes away from their specialness because the computer has become a common household appliance. I do not understand that. I do not understand that at all. I absolutely welcome comments as to why or how it has become this way.
Hell, if anything, think of how nice it would be to pay for your rent by simply maintaining this for your landlord. Also, keep in mind that this isn't limiting anyone. Instead of fixing the plumbing to help pay your rent you can be the building's IT manager who logs in and maintains accounts to pay your rent. It is really important to keep in mind that this doesn't limit anyone either. They're still free to have a desktop, a cell, a tablet, a laptop, or no device at all. Since when is the idea of more computers and more connectivity a bad thing? The complaint certainly shouldn't be about thin clients, we've been using them for years and we're even using our regular devices as thin clients all the time. The only difference is that we're no longer renting our time from a mainframe with money - we're paying for the compute cycles with our personal information and our eyeball's attention to advertisements.
I know that some apartment buildings will often have a resident who gets a larger apartment, cheaper rent (or no rent), maybe a special parking place, and they get these perks because they perform maintenance tasks. Often times they'll be a plumber, HVAC person, carpenter, or similar. Maybe they plan on offering something similar? I could also see (a lot of landlords own more than one building) them hiring an IT person who takes care of all of the buildings for them.
It seems like a good idea POTENTIALLY. If it is done right then it will be quite a valuable add-on service to offer your residents. I have had similar ideas in passing in the past because I've thought about the business of renting and have thought of ways to make my buildings stand out above the rest of them. Many of the ideas that I have had have been technical in nature and this is one of them.
Keep in mind that this is something that is becoming simpler as time goes on. Gone are the days when servers are administered by warlocks with caldrons, potions, runes, and arcane knowledge. The tools are becoming simpler and more effective. The backup and restoration processes are becoming more effective and less prone to error. The familiarity with computers is growing as computing devices become more embedded within society itself.
Also, another thing to keep in mind is that this isn't a requirement. This isn't limiting folks in any way. This is just provisioning an alternative that is low cost, low hassle, and enabling more people access to more information. I'm not sure where the downside is to this. This does, of course, assume (a big assumption) that things are done properly.
What is wrong with thin clients? In this case, in this particular situation, it seems like they may be a good idea.
We used to use thin clients and rent time from a mainframe. Today, with everything being "in the cloud" and SaaS (or similar) we're just moving back in that direction though our "thin clients" have more power. When you use web-hosted email, an online word processor, or even a game online you're functioning just like it was with a thin client.
It's actually the trend, from what I am able to see, in that more and more things are moving into "the cloud" and are being hosted online. It has its drawbacks if connectivity is lost but that's a rarity these days in much of the world. Some of the various services have disruption avoidance or mitigation built in so that you can do your work and then sync it with the online functionality when you're connected again.
I would not suggest that they are the be all and end all, nor would I suggest that they're the solution for everything but, for many things, they're a perfectly viable solution. I had actually considered using some Wise thin clients, roaming profiles, and setting up my house that way so that a small box, monitor, mouse, and keyboard were all that were needed no matter where you were in the house. For a business (and I could see apartments as well) this could be quite viable and effective.
Anyhow, I'm not sure why you'd immediately conclude that this is a bad thing or why it would need to be replaced at all. Other than the fact that it is not new I can't see any reason to fret about it. There are lots of things that we do that aren't new, some of them even have good reasons behind them. Done properly this could be a very good thing and it certainly raises the value of an apartment if you can have devices like this in it. Additionally, this doesn't prohibit you from using a non-thin client but, rather, offers a low cost, low power, effective alternative as a value added service. I really can't think of any justified reasons to complain about this so I'm curious as to why you're thinking that the idea is bad and will need to be replaced.
Either way... That which is old is new again.
Awesome! I love Slashdot at times. I really do. I've never heard the term cisgendered before so I opened TheSage (a dictionary application) and found that it had no definition. I meandered over to OED to find the definition and then to Wikipedia for more information. Thanks! I've learned a new word today.
Anyhow, I always keep an open mind. I'd like to think that I could physically enjoy the company of anyone but I've never found anyone of the opposite gender (or transgendered) person who I was interested in trying it out with. I guess it is unlikely to happen and, at this stage of my life, it is even less likely to happen as I get older and less likely to try new things. I'll be okay with it though.
Additionally, well, I can understand gay people. I mean, yeah, they have their orientation and they like what they like. They see things the way that they do and they are more attracted to the same gender. That's okay, it's not up to me to judge after all, but it hasn't ever been anything I've acted on. However, the people that are bisexual are just plain greedy.
I quite agree, my point was simply that this isn't a new interpretation and yet people are quite certain it is and that it is defining the times. I noticed an AC posting about it and I'd read a Fark thread about it earlier (there's a guy in the Fark thread who's a lawyer, according to him, and he explains it very well actually). With the AC (or multiple people posting as AC) and all the internet available it seems pretty silly to keep ranting that this is due to the conservative courts of today.
I also believe that one of the cases cited goes back to the 20s. The inter-war period wasn't all that good for legislation either. Anyhow, the law makes sense. It's not the silence that is evidence but how and when the silence was invoked and that it was done during a non-custodial interview, when the interviewee wasn't a suspect, and the 5th hadn't been taken. The evidence, in this case, was his behavior in response to a question. It makes sense and is in accordance with the law.
What we should take away from this is that we should not talk to the police without a lawyer present except in very limited circumstances. It is unfortunate that we can't talk to the police but it is the reality. If you've been involved in a motor vehicle accident you should (must?) talk to the police. If you've been a witness to a crime you should talk to the police but I'd recommend having a lawyer present as they're just as likely to try to find a way to turn you into a suspect. If you wish to report a crime then you must talk to the police, I am not sure if one needs a lawyer for that but I don't see where it would hurt to have one.
I paid my lawyer $500 back a number of years ago to keep him on retainer. Every year I go give him another $500. I don't usually have any need for him so the money adds up and should I need him I've already paid a bunch in advance so my bill will be lower. I do suppose it would be prudent to put that money into an account that generates interest (he just holds on to it for me) but I'd be concerned that a criminal charge might somehow result in my assets being frozen so I opted to just give it to him instead. I have another lawyer who is retained (with a much larger sum) who does tax, estate, property, some business, and things like that. The first one I mentioned is a criminal trial lawyer. There isn't much call for specialization beyond that around here really.