By we, you mean us on Slashdot, right? Well, I'd like to say that "we" never did any such thing because "we" are not retarded. However... There are a few people who do post here who may very well have thought that at some point in the past or think that today.
That is not a slight against you personally. I haven't a clue who you are, you're just "some AC" who may or may not be retarded. I'll give you, personally, the benefit of doubt but that's increasingly difficult with ACs and even some fairly frequent poster.
If you look at my UID number then you'll see that I've been here for a minute. I used to give ACs the benefit of doubt and I usually try to do so still but it has reached the point where I'll oftentimes just delete the reply notification if it is from an AC. I don't know if ACs have collectively gotten worse or if I've just become less patient. There are also some really stupid people who have accounts. I can mentally filter them out more easily as I notice names when I read the threads.
So, as much as I'd like to say that we're not stupid enough to think that sort of thing here on Slashdot, we're not that bright. When I joined Slashdot, I actually joined and kept my mouth shut for a long time - this was way back with my first account that I've long since forgotten the name of. I registered but didn't say much for a very long time because I was too busy enjoying reading the smart people's posts.
I'd like to say that we were better then but that's not actually true. I was just dumber then. See, I've gone back and read a lot of those old threads and we've always had stupid people.
I don't really know where I'm going (and I didn't when I started) with this post but I'm basically trying to say that I'd be a liar if I said I didn't think someone here was stupid enough to believe it. Sure, they're not going to acknowledge it now that they've seen this but there's surely at least one person (perhaps they're just unfamiliar with it and not stupid) who believes that Google actually makes a true good-faith effort to clean their links of malware, copyrighted material, and other undesirable information. Someone here believes that Google has people, or software - but probably believes it's people who double check the software results, that actually check for malware.
How many times have you come across Google-cloaking, or whatever they're calling it now? When you see a search engine result, click the page, and the page doesn't actually say anything even remotely like what the search engine result says? Yeah, Google also claims they remove them from their search engine - or claimed that they were going to do so. I seem to recall they said they *still* do so, don't quote me on it. But, see Forbes... If you check a Forbes link at Google, you'll see they cache something different than they display to the Google web crawler/bot. Hell, one of the popular help forums, before the advent of StackExchange, used to get prominent rankings but displayed different content to Google than it displayed to the users. Yet, they stayed high in the ranking for years.
No, no... I don't trust Google to do anything more than they absolutely have to. No, I don't trust Google to have my interest at heart. I don't trust Google to protect me. I don't trust their "don't be evil" slogan and I seem to recall they've actually gone so far as to remove that.
But someone, even someone here, certainly believes that they do all those things and more. It could be stupidity or they could just not yet know better because nobody has told them and they've not come across it. If there's something so stupid that nobody could possibly believe it, in your opinion, there's almost certainly at least one person on Slashdot who not only believes it but will argue about it. No stupidity is too great or too small for a Slashdotter to not believe it.
It's at this time that I'll be humble and point out that I am actually a Slashdotter too. Chances are good that there's something stupid that I'm completely certain about.
Thanks for the first part but I'm gonna have to go with "I'm not entirely sure you're correct" on the last part. At least not as far as I know? Unless the tech has changed?
For starters, as I mentioned, they're hanging the fiber from the polls. Secondly, fiber can't be bent more than 40 degrees before it is ruined. When a tree falls on it, and it will - this is a 100% certainty in that area and it happens multiple times per year, that's going to bend the fiber more than 40 degrees.
The source for the 40 degrees is specifically from not one but two installers and, most recently, I've heard the same number referenced when they discussed they they coiled the fiber the way they did (wide circles) on the ships that lay the cable. They used the 40 degree number in that documentary which makes it two installers that I know personally and one documentary that I can recollect specifically.
The documentary was *very* recent and has to do with a ship owned by some UK company but stationed in the US. They go out and do emergency splices on the fiber that runs under the ocean. The documentary was, I believe, produced and released in 2014.
A tree falling on that is going to break the fiber. Depending on the distance it is from the pole and the force that it hits with, it's really likely to push it beyond 40 degrees.
Unless you've something different for numbers? Those are the numbers that I've been given and they've been the same exact number each and every time and they've been the same exact number from multiple sources. I want to say there was also a Modern Marvels episode that mentioned it but it might have been a How It's Made. So, I won't count that one.
Just to make sure you understand, a tree will fall on the line. It will be of varied size but it is a 100% certainty that a tree will fall on the line. A tree is not just going to fall on the line, it is going to fall on the line AT LEAST four times each year. My mains electricity is actually a backup. I have solar and wind and an in-ground diesel tank and large industrial capacity sized generator to charge the batteries should those fail. I do not rely on the mains, at all. I have gone 13 days and 14 nights without mains power - and had DSL the entire time. It was great. Not far from my house is where they do the serious tree trimming. There are lines and they're not even the high tension lines - they're just regular lines. But they've cleared the trees back for about 100' on either side. I can probably get you a Google Earth pic if you want it.
It is my understanding that fiber has no hope against such damage. It is my understanding that a bend of 40 degrees is the limit. I guess, if the tree happens to fall right in the middle, in the center between the poles, it might not bend at 40 degrees. It might not bend that far if it's not heavy. (Maybe they'll make 'em snap off on purpose? I dunno but that might actually help.)
To put this in perspective, I've had the phone lines on the ground, buried in a snowbank, having been plowed (if you've ever seen the big plow trucks, you'll understand - I mean the *big* ones) into the snowbank, and still had reasonable connectivity. It is my understanding that fiber can not do that? It's my understanding that fiber is only good up to 40 degree bends and I've heard that number a lot.
Also, to be 100% clear, I'm not an expert in the field of fiber installation.:D I have actually spliced fiber together and done a couple of terminations but that was just playing around with one of said installer friends and was quite a few years ago. They used the same 40 degree figure in the last documentary which leads me to think that the tech hasn't changed that much but you might know more about it than I do - chances are really, really good that you know more about it than I do.
At the very least, by this time next year - I should be able to say, with some certainty, how well it works.
Hmm... Where to begin? I have checked your citation and, using the preponderance of evidence - that akin to a civil trial, I'd still not say that he is "more likely than not" to be a member of the DSA. Not even remotely. He's much more akin to the Socialist Party of America in stance, in case you're curious.
Now, to address the real concern. Socialism is not necessarily Communism-lite. It certainly can be, it can be full fledged Communism or whatever you'd like to call that practiced by Stalin. (I prefer "Stalinism" if you're curious.)
See, not everyone is a crazy zealot with binary thinking. Some people actually are able to realize that any one political ideology will not work in its "pure" form. Simply put, you can not have (realistically, and all evidence demonstrates this to be true) a pure democracy. You can not have a pure communist, socialist, or any-ist government.
Thus, it's very legitimate to say that some are more socialist than others. It's fair and legitimate to say that some are more democratic than others. It's fair to say that some are more capitalist than others - seeing as we're going to need to realize that economic models also come into play.
There are those who are so zealous that they think pure communism is a good idea. They're retarded. There are others who think that pure socialism is a good idea. They are also retarded. In fact, there are varied degrees of socialism - just like there are varied degrees of democracy, capitalism, etc.... For example, the United States is less socialist than France by a wide margin. India, in practice - if not nominally, is much more capitalist than America.
This is the part you're missing and that's because you're a crazy zealot. Just because you see things in black and white, in binary, does not mean that everyone does. It's odd that you see things that way because you're otherwise intelligent. No... There are very few, comparatively, zealots and even fewer are actually in positions where they've been elected. They've been making compromises for years, for example.
Which leads me to this...
Not only is Sanders distinctly NOT a communist but he's really not nearly as socialist as you seem to think. He's not advocating things like government control of the means of production at a greater level than it already is. (By extension, by taxation and regulation, you could already say that the government *is* in control of the means of production, but it's a matter of degree.) It is fair, honest, and accurate to say that Sanders is a socialist. It is not fair, accurate, or honest to say that he's a hard-line, zealous, tyrannical, socialist. It's actually okay to say that he's "a bit" or "a little" or "quite a bit compared to me" socialist or whatever.
Dude, no... Not everyone is some sort of binary zealot who is hell bent on only one thing. It's communist to have things like communally shared property or communally paid services. It's democratic when they let them vote for one of several approved candidates. It's socialist to have a fire department or a hospital that is partially funded by taxes. It's capitalist when they used physical currency and paid different jobs different salaries.
The world is not a binary place. The world is not black and white - it's full of not just grays but multiple colors. Is Sanders a socialist? Sure. He's also a capitalist. He's also a believer in democracy. He's also got some communist traits. Most everyone on the planet does because they've realized that no one pure political or economic ideology is going to work. It never has, it never will, and there's no reason to even try it because it always ends very poorly when you have zealots, of any kind, in power. From Chavez to Idi Amin. From Stalin to Hitler. From Pol Pot to Khadaffi. Zealots in power, of any stripe, don't mix. We know this.
Sanders is not a zealot.
I know you're too smart to believe that he's a zealot. I am pretty sure you don't really believe that he's a communist in any meaningful fashion. I coul
State Senate. I don't like people enough to be President. Hell no... Do you see what that does to them? Look at the before and after pictures of *any* president. Look at pictures of people who aged the same amount in *any* other job. Even Kennedy aged significantly. Even Clinton aged significantly. No, I don't want that much responsibility.
I would like to be dictator of the galaxy for maybe a month. Maybe, just maybe, a full year. After that, I'd banish myself to a desert island or something. But, if people would shut the hell up and pay attention to some damned commonsense AND be willing to ask smart people AND take their advice AND know when it's time to admit that you need to ask smarter people then maybe, just maybe, we could enact meaningful changes but I suspect they'd be short lived and would need to be enforced with tyranny or by purging like Stalin tried to do - even though I'm not even remotely communist, I suspect that'd be about the only way to get it done and that wouldn't help because more people would just be born and it is human nature to be greedy, self-centered, and an asshole.
On the other hand, you want a ballot? I'll get you a ballot!;-)
Note: The above sentence is OBVIOUSLY intended to be humorous. I would not actually engage in, encourage, or endorse voter fraud by anyone.
It's not a logical fallacy when they are actually authorities on the subject. Just like not everything that is a slippery slope is a fallacy. Just because you can put a name of a fallacy associated with it does not mean that it's a fallacy. It has to actually be illogical for it to be a logical fallacy.
And, given the nature of the beast (that this has been covered many times, by many people, and by many people who are eminently qualified - actual authorities on the subject) I'd say that it's logical to conclude that they don't do so because they've very valid reasons for not doing so.
Given the other replies, some additional reading, and some further thought - I stand by my statement. It's an appeal to authority, if you actually understand the logical fallacy, when you're saying something like, "Well, I'm a doctor." (Which, technically, I am.) "So, I must be qualified to give medical advice. After all, I'm pretty smart." I'm a doctor. I have my Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics. It's not a fallacy when the people are actually authorities in their field and it is applicable to the field.
Some random nobody on Slashdot is not going to come up with the brilliant idea to put grills on them when grills have already been tried and have shown to generally be more problem than they're worth. Some have managed to do so but they disrupt the airflow in significant and meaningful ways. The ones that do so are generally lower speed craft and those who don't directly use jet propulsion but still have jets. You see grills on helicopters, for example. You sometimes see them on slower craft but they're pretty rare and they're only applicable to very low-speed craft or those who don't need address the airflow the same way because they're not being propelled directly by the jet exhaust.
No, no... It's not a logical fallacy to point out that there are actual experts in the field and to rely on them when they're making sound judgments. Just because you can name a fallacy that looks similar doesn't mean it's a fallacy. For example, it'd not be a fallacy to call you a dumb-ass. That would just be pejorative.;-) It wouldn't even be an ad hominem to say you're a dumb ass because you're wrong. It would, on the other hand, probably be a logical fallacy (depending on the circumstances) to say you're a dumb ass so therefore you're wrong.
*sighs* The worst thing about people learning the name of a few fallacies (yet not actually have taken any classes on formal logic) is that they fail to understand them. It's not just you, it happens often. There's someone with a decent page on it but I'll be damned if I'm gonna go look for it, I'm that lazy and uncaring.
Moreover, and more importantly, you failed to actually address or understand the questions. You'll note that, demonstrably, they failed to do any of what you indicated they might. Still, equally important, is that you don't appear to actually understand the questions that I posed. A bruised ego will do that. (Spot, if you can, and name the logical fallacy in that last statement.)
LOL We *really* hated the Communists. To be fair, the Communists, of the day, were also expansionists. And totalitarian. And murderous. And it was *after* WWII and we, the United States, lost our Innocence in WWII. We had the thin veil of innocence left after WWI. WWI was when chivalry died, after all. We came in at the tail end of it and, though folks don't like to admit it, really did help to turn the tide and change the outcome - making it more certain and much quicker.
But, in WWII was when we really lost our innocence. WWII is when we also came out as a definite superpower. So, after that we also lost some of our ideology. That ideology went right out the window when it came to The Red Scare. We, by which I mean our government and generally supported by our citizens, decided a whole bunch of liberties were worth scaling back, just a little and just for those damned pinko scum, and the rest is history. It's not that things were ever really as great as we like to think but they were certainly different.
With the Cold War we infringed on our liberties concerning speech, religion, political beliefs, due process, search and seizure, and self-incrimination. And we, the citizens, cheered them on! It's okay, we idiots did the same thing after 9/11 and some still do. Look at all the people who champion the idea that we need to completely disarm the citizenry. What's funny is that many of those people scream about freedoms and how they're staunch supporters of it - they'll even squawk about freedoms when it comes to the latest trend in banning encryption. I am not actually sure what sort of mental gymnastics they must be doing in order to hold those views.
"So what if something bad happens. We have a right to create a lock the government can't open!" "People are hurt by firearms every day, we need to take them from people."
In my eyes, those are diametrically opposed views. I tried to make them both as honest as I could, by the way. It's intellectually dishonest to misrepresent them but it is tempting to do so. Ah well... I'm taking a break from playing with PHP - that's what's kept me busy lately. The site is actually getting a bit of traffic. Not much in the way of participation - even though it can be done anonymously. Hopefully that changes as I spend less time working on it and more time adding content. Building it is quite a bit of fun, though. So, I have a good time while building and relearning a lot and learning new things. If nothing else, it has been keeping me both occupied and entertained. So, there's that.
Oh, absolutely. He's being trashed and trashed hard in this campaign. I really do want to avoid saying this but I am going to...
I've not normally a conspiracy theorist kind of person. I think I've got the posting history to demonstrate that I'm not. I'm pretty well grounded and don't usually speculate about things that are impossible to disprove nor do I think there are giant conspiracies that we don't know about and all that sort of stuff.
However...
This just seems too much like a perfect storm. At nearly every turn, he's stymied or suffers from some sort of gaffe. That's a bit too convenient, if you ask me. There's no way he'll get the nomination, none. The DNC will not nominate Sanders - they weren't going to nominate him even if he had the majority of populous support. And, he doesn't - by the way. He might have had the populous but he never had the chance.
It's unfortunate because he's the best choice you've got. Me? I'll be fine. I'm more than well protected and insulated from even fairly major political upheavals. Even if the entirety of the US' economy failed, even if the value of the US dollar dropped to zero, I will be fine. I'm pretty diversified and have enough hard assets to ensure that I'll be just fine - even if there's a complete failure of the social system, justice system, or government. I'll be okay.
So, Sanders means I'll pay a bit more in taxes. I have never minded taxes. I have always minded them being spent the way they are spent. For the average citizen, for the regular person, for the Average Joe and his wife Normal Mary (with their 2.23 children named Jeffery and Alice) Sanders is the only realistic choice. If anyone thinks otherwise then they're basically saying that the Status Quo is fine or they're saying that Trump is a realistic option. I find both laughable - though Trump might be an amusing option and he'd be mostly harmless. I do not believe Trump is Hitler, for example.
As a matter of fact, if Bernie and Donald were to run on the same ticket, I'd vote for 'em. Hands down, no questions asked, my vote would go for Trump. I think if the Republicans fuck over Trump (he "deserves" the nomination as he's seemingly earned it) and the Dems do what they're already doing (which is preventing Bernie from even getting a shot) then I have every reason to suspect that if Sanders and Trump ran on the same, an Independent, ticket then they'd win - hands down and by a huge margin. At least as things stand now.
Unfortunately, the electoral college would then take their turn and the popular vote would probably.... Well, no... They'd pretty much have to. Sanders and Trump, together, would win by a landslide. The electoral college would have to vote that way or the country would erupt in violent riots within an hour. I seriously believe that they'd win, in that situation. I'm half-tempted to try to make contact with one or both of them. I do actually have a few political connections but they're fairly distant, not really friends, and I'm not sure if they'll really be able to get a message in front of either of them. I just don't have that kind of clout.:( I don't know anyone who does, either.
I...Umm... I don't suppose you've got that kind of clout and want to run a message to 'em on my behalf?:D
I prefer a more unbiased, honest, and accurate definition which is not so binary. Politically we tied in North Korea and, maybe, in Viet Nam. You might also want to read up how we got there - we were basically cleaning up after the French. What we did in Viet Nam was give the South Vietnamese, at their behest, aid against the NVA invading military. What we did was stop helping them out militarily and they failed to defend themselves.
In Iraq, we certainly won that - both politically and militarily. How'd we win it politically? We were asked to leave. We removed the person in power, as we said, and gave the people the chance to govern themselves. We gave them the chance to put the ex-leader on trial, they did so and decided to hang him. We let them pick their next government and write regulations of their own choosing. They chose poorly.
Again, we were cleaning up after colonization mishaps and further border drawing done by the Europeans. There probably wouldn't be many of those problems had they not stripped them bare of many assets and traditional leadership and then placed arbitrary borders where there were none prior and made up whole countries that never existed before. That was, the end of it, done by the League of Nations - it's important to note that the US was not a member of the League of Nations. It's also important to note that they failed to actually follow the important steps of the Monroe Doctrine which led to things like WWII - but that's a topic for another day. Though, it should also be noted that their failing to do so was what allowed the Soviet Union to expand as much as it did pre-WWII and still has lasting impacts to this day.
History didn't begin in 1990. You're also being bombarded, possibly willfully subjecting yourself to, very biased media and history reporting that borders on dishonesty if not outright being dishonest at times. So, if we're going to have a meaningful and honest discussion about the wars then it's probably imperative that you acknowledge that terms like winning and losing are really subjective, hardly ever accurate, and very seldom clearly delineated.
For example, if you look at the German economy today and realize that they had their nation rebuilt for them, modernized for them, and done at almost no financial cost to them (the rebuilding aspect) one could actually make a logical claim that the German *people* were the victors of WWII. Numerically, they didn't even lose that many people when you compare their losses to the number of casualties suffered by the allies. If you're aware of their financial state, since WWI and actually prior to that while their King was still pretending that a monarchy was a good idea, and then look at them today - you could easily say that the people of Germany came out of WWII better than anyone else except maybe the people of the United States. However, taken the US' state of affairs into account, over the longer term, you might say that they ended up better off as an average or for the majority of people. Certainly, some Americans came out of it very wealthy and have retained that wealth.
So, it really depends on how you want to look at it. Look at Viet Nam since. Look at them now. Look at Viet Nam for the past 50 years. Look at their GDP, quality of life, level of liberties and even freedoms, and their place on the international stage. You really want to say that they won? Really? Do they look like they're on the winning side? They're just now starting to turn into an almost reasonable standard of living - and that's mostly because they've allowed people to engage in capitalism again. Do you really want to say that Viet Nam won that war? By what metric? The description you gave isn't even really all that accurate and it fails to take a whole lot of other things into account. By almost every meaningful metric, the US won that war - including the number of dead and wounded.
However, it was a catastrophe on the political side. Even then, we came out of it about as well as we could have barring complete and
My suggestions were a few but I think the most likely to have taken hold and actually had a meaningful impact would have started with a web-site specifically about the hobby. Basically, it would have been a voluntary association. The goal would be to get all manufacturers to put an insert into their packaging that included some basic safety tips and a free membership to this website.
The website would have then had videos, safety instructions, as well as the neat things like the people who fly them in competitions and industry news. It would have, likely, even gotten manufacturer buy-in and been able to support itself. Given the size of the industry, it possibly would have lead to several paying jobs in just keeping the site up.
I offered to get them server space and to pay for their incorporation as a non-profit organization for anyone who was willing to put the effort in.
I'm not even a hobbyist nor do I have any interest in owning a drone.
It should be noted that I went into a lot more detail than that. That's the gist. Get manufacturer buy-in, get the pamphlet included in the packaging, give out "free" memberships, make it educational, sell things like stickers and classes. Offer various certification and training levels (eventually) and work it into something more formal but the start was to give the carrot which was free membership to the club of others who were specifically interested in this new subset of what is an actually very old hobby.
It would have distinguished it as a separate hobby which might have given some protection to the old school guys. They could have given away free stickers - I'd have thrown enough money to get it running for them - at no expectation of ever being repaid. I even offered, as I said, to pay for the incorporation. If you go through my post history, you'll find those posts.
It should also be noted that I never said they were *smart* in acting on this and writing/enacting this draconian regulation. I never said it would be wise or effective legislation. I never said it was a good idea that they do so. I've only said that it is going to happen. I repeat, again, that it is certainly going to happen.
This could have turned into a great thing with people actually getting paid to give lessons, to voluntarily certify, and to voluntarily register as members of the group. I'd have suggested stickers to give away. "Join and get this extra free training manual and a bundle of stickers."
Before long, manufacturers would have been THROWING stickers at the company and paying for things like ads on the site. They'd be paying for press releases to go out on the site. They'd be paying to email your users. They'd be paying and the members would also be paying. It would have turned into at least a few jobs. It would have changed the public perspective. It would have changed the way the new fliers looked at their hobby. Or at least had the potential... It was never tried - for lack of belief, effort, commonsense, and intelligence. I'd have covered those expenses, happily, for the first year just to have done something meaningful and to stop shitty oppressive regulation before it became a problem.
What SHOULD have happened is the community should have spoken out when these instances started happening. Instead, they laughed and said things like, "You can't stop me."
You got shitty regulations coming. I just offered Ami a $1000 bet. I don't think they've got the balls to take it. Expand this thread - look under my post, and you'll see where I offered.
No, you're gonna get draconian legislation. It's not because the legislature is full of intelligent people. It's because of the opposite. You've got regulation coming.
I'd also note that in the time since, what has there been talk of on Sky News and BBC?
Do you still think it's ridiculous?
You're gonna get shafted if you're a hobbyist. I feel sorry for the folks who've been flying 'em for years and are going to get screwed over because of this. Yet, you think this is a ridiculous analysis. I don't suppose you've the courage to put your money where your mouth is? Talk is cheaper than shared airspace. How about a wager? We revisit this topic in 5 years and if there's no new regulations (in either of our countries) prohibiting use then I'll donate $1000 to your favorite charity. If there is new regulations, in your country or mine, you'll donate $200 (I'm giving you 5:1 odds) to... Hmm... Well, to United States chapter (I don't think the UK has one) National Rifle Association aka the NRA.
Sound like a bet? We can play with the duration and dollar value but I'm pretty sure you're getting shitty regulations because of this sort of stuff.
Note: I've never suggested that they'd be smart in doing so. Simply that they were *going* to do so. I stand by that analysis. I'm willing to put money on it. Here's the chance to put $1000 USD in the hands of your favorite charity.
My home is almost exactly 24 miles from the *center* of the village and about another 68 miles to the center of a reasonable sized town. I had to pay for a CO and the physical wire for the upgrade. The teleco put the lines in at their expense for labor. A neighbor chipped in and paid for a mile's worth of line beyond my place - so that they could connect.
Of the six residencies that wanted the service, we all now have reasonably speedy DSL. I had it done as the house was being built - I retired there in 2008, I was in the new house for Christmas. I could have gone with cable, believe it or not. The price would actually have been about the same. I opted for DSL for some fairly obvious reasons.
It's the telephone line, they have to keep it maintained. I can use any provider I want, I'm only limited to those who are willing to provide service - so I can use any ISP that I feel like and I have switched when I wanted to. There are a number of legislative protections, a public utility commission, and an active consumer protections body that care about phone lines in very rural Maine.
The list goes on.
Anyhow, cable would have been about the same price to install and would have been faster. Though, I now get faster speeds on DSL than cable had said I'd get back in 2007 when I was doing the leg work. I pay for 10/.75 and get 14.5/1.5 and have three disparate connections, each gets that speed. I'm told that they're actually (they've gotta look good on paper - and I know several of the actual engineers personally now) running fiber out by the end of this year. I will not be switching to fiber. I will order fiber but I'll retain at least one of the DSL pipes.
Why? I've had the copper wires on the ground, in snowbanks, with trees on top of it, *plowed by the plow truck* into the snowbank after getting knocked down, and still had reasonable connectivity speeds. Fiber will not do that. They'll be hanging the fiber from the poles and not trenching it. So, I'll be keeping my DSL.
It wasn't all that expensive to have the lines brought in. It was a one time cost and was just about $30,000, in 2008 dollars. That might sound like a lot but I've used dial-up and the dial-up in the area was actually usually less than 14. kb/sec 4 in true throughput. I feel that it was worth every penny. Given the magnitudes of the differences between those speeds and that I consider my time worth money, I might even be able to say that it has exceeded paying off the investment. Even if the measurement is sheer joy, it has paid itself off - tenfold or more.
I'm not sure my pricing is all that accurate. It's accurate in that it is what I paid but they were also doing upgrades in the area at that time. They were already buying the stuff and I personally negotiated the deal with some input from a friend in the business. I'm given to understand that I paid *only* for the lines that were replaced and the CO ("central office" which is really just a big metal box) and, I think, a couple of things that amplify the signal - they put some small boxes on some of the poles. Obviously, this is not my forte.
But, I'm told that I paid *only* for the cost of material and that I paid the same price they paid for said material. The labor was not charged on the bill, not itemized at least, and that was part of the agreement because I was able to get others to commit to signing up. The folks who wanted internet service were more than happy to agree to sign up when they found out that I'd be doing the investing. They're actually good people but i didn't really know them then. It's a very, very small sub-community with those six residencies spread out over about a 2-3 mile stretch of road. The last one out is not interested in phone, 'net, or even mains electricity so the wires stop before they get to his house - as do the electrical wires.
At any rate, that was one of the wisest purchases that I ever made. I know others who have paid quite a bit more but they just took the quoted price and paid that. I actually went into the
I'm going to have to walk a thin line. You will see why. Play nice Mr. NSA man who reads this! Play nice and use your damned head for something other than a hat rest, Mr. NSA man who's now definitely reading this.
When I was a kid we used to do things like take empty CO2 cartridges and fill them with black powder and a "Chinese" (waterproof) fuse of varied length. Sometimes we'd score them. They'd blow a big ol' hole in the ground and throw shrapnel around everywhere. Total cost (back then) about $0.10, probably. The CO2 cartridges were empty from our BB Guns. We also used anything else that looked handy.
We blew up everything. It was like $6 for a 5# box of black powder. It's not that much more expensive today. One company, in their infinite glory, sold their powder in a 1# container and the container was made of aluminum and had a screw on cap. I think that one was $1.50. A *pound* of gunpowder might not sound like much. It's a whole lot of fun.
Yes but the FOSS community is not always so very good at teaching. I think it's workable and, with some effort, people can be taught.
You also may not be aware of this but there are some people out there who will have difficulty following directions. They are actually greater in number than one might think. I'd also think repositories could just offer hosted binaries - just so long as they weren't hosted on the soil of oppressive governments. The Internet's a fickle beast and does what it wants. If this law comes to pass then there's a 100% certainty that tools will be available to circumvent it in short order. I know, for a fact, that if such tools do not exist then even *I* will work to make them available.
I am a mathematician. I am not a cryptographer. I can learn.
That and I've got the source downloaded for all sorts of fun things that I've not yet done anything with but have grabbed for posterity sake and "just in case" reasons. I've got TBs of stuff - all of it with at least one backup that's off-site.;-)
I mean ISIS the terrorist organization. Presenting a well-reasoned argument supporting the idea that one should be able to send them, specifically, funds is a bit more difficult but, having thought about it, I think I can do it and pull it off.
I should add that I was on the debate team all the way through from about 7th grade until I got my Ph.D. some years later. (Obviously, not the same team.) I skipped a couple of years but I liked it because it forced me to be creative and I am not naturally a creative person. I have to actually work at being creative and it's not easy.
I think I could do fairly well presenting that argument. It's a matter of freedom and, even if the system were perfect and only blocked appropriately, the government has no business worrying about such affairs. I'd have to take a pretty hard-line approach to it but I'd start with a series of questions such as, "We must ask ourselves, should the government be in the business of curtailing speech. Should they?" That's assuming conversational debate but I think I could do it - I'd then lead into it that way.
Unfortunately, I'm a realist. I think that we should not be at liberty to fund true terrorist organizations but I think we should have some checks and balances and that this should be processed by the government and not some corporation. I feel there shouldn't be a set of names but individual acts that are highlighted should be judged on their own merits.
However, I could make a well reasoned argument that it should be allowed.
Always after. Never before. What? Do you think they's savages or something?!?
Do I need to put in the/s? I'm thinking I do not, with you - at least. You're smart enough to understand. *sighs* Others? Not so much. Speaking of smart, my project is coming along nicely. You should send me an email sometime and ask for the URL - especially if you're any good at that web stuff. *nods*
While going to get my Ph.D. I needed money. I had little time. So, I was a journalist for a short spell of my life. I'd taken no formal courses in shorthand. That's important because I also have messy handwriting. Since then, I've had trouble reading my own handwriting - it's that bad. It's that bad unless I take an inordinate amount of time to write and then it only marginally improves on the legibility scale.
The whole thread reads like that or other people just saying that it's a fact of life. I think that, if I had to guess, about 1:10 people had a problem with it - and I read the whole thread. The numbers might be a little different now but when I read it there were over 200 posts so I doubt they'd have changed much as there are 275 posts now.
I was (as you can guess) going for insightful. They don't care. It's someone else's money and they self-identify as a hipster. To continue in my attempt to be insightful, nobody cares about the rights of pedophiles.
When I was a young man we had these old fashioned things called "Checks." They were filled out by hand(!) and actually required that you write down numbers and fill in information. Yeah, it was both scary and a hassle, all at the same time. It also meant we had to do math. Often, we did this math without the aid of electronic computational devices. It truly was a barbaric time.
Anyhow, I used to put in a whole bunch of stupid shit in the memo section on the checks. I even filled them out accurately - more than once - for things like weed. Yes, I've paid for weed with a check - I've paid for other drugs with a check but I didn't fill that in, but I have put weed in there. I've also put "alcohol," "call your wife," and "too drunk to care." In fact, I put all sorts of stupid shit in the memo section.
Nothing ever happened to me. Nobody ever called, visited, or even said anything unkind. I don't think I put anything with terrorism in there. I might have but I kind of doubt it. I'm pretty sure I put in everything *but* terrorism related stuff. I'm pretty sure I put in the stupidest things you can imagine, or damned close. Yet, not a word was ever said.
Somehow, I think it would not go over so very well today. I don't think I'd actually try it today. It's not that the laws are so very different or anything. It's the collection of data that seems to be changed. I don't think the banks ever did anything with the memo information back then. If they did, I never knew about it. I wrote a whole lot of stupid things in that section. I've even put stuff like "hookers and blow" in there - obviously not while buying hookers and blow.
Slashdot Mirror
By we, you mean us on Slashdot, right? Well, I'd like to say that "we" never did any such thing because "we" are not retarded. However... There are a few people who do post here who may very well have thought that at some point in the past or think that today.
That is not a slight against you personally. I haven't a clue who you are, you're just "some AC" who may or may not be retarded. I'll give you, personally, the benefit of doubt but that's increasingly difficult with ACs and even some fairly frequent poster.
If you look at my UID number then you'll see that I've been here for a minute. I used to give ACs the benefit of doubt and I usually try to do so still but it has reached the point where I'll oftentimes just delete the reply notification if it is from an AC. I don't know if ACs have collectively gotten worse or if I've just become less patient. There are also some really stupid people who have accounts. I can mentally filter them out more easily as I notice names when I read the threads.
So, as much as I'd like to say that we're not stupid enough to think that sort of thing here on Slashdot, we're not that bright. When I joined Slashdot, I actually joined and kept my mouth shut for a long time - this was way back with my first account that I've long since forgotten the name of. I registered but didn't say much for a very long time because I was too busy enjoying reading the smart people's posts.
I'd like to say that we were better then but that's not actually true. I was just dumber then. See, I've gone back and read a lot of those old threads and we've always had stupid people.
I don't really know where I'm going (and I didn't when I started) with this post but I'm basically trying to say that I'd be a liar if I said I didn't think someone here was stupid enough to believe it. Sure, they're not going to acknowledge it now that they've seen this but there's surely at least one person (perhaps they're just unfamiliar with it and not stupid) who believes that Google actually makes a true good-faith effort to clean their links of malware, copyrighted material, and other undesirable information. Someone here believes that Google has people, or software - but probably believes it's people who double check the software results, that actually check for malware.
How many times have you come across Google-cloaking, or whatever they're calling it now? When you see a search engine result, click the page, and the page doesn't actually say anything even remotely like what the search engine result says? Yeah, Google also claims they remove them from their search engine - or claimed that they were going to do so. I seem to recall they said they *still* do so, don't quote me on it. But, see Forbes... If you check a Forbes link at Google, you'll see they cache something different than they display to the Google web crawler/bot. Hell, one of the popular help forums, before the advent of StackExchange, used to get prominent rankings but displayed different content to Google than it displayed to the users. Yet, they stayed high in the ranking for years.
No, no... I don't trust Google to do anything more than they absolutely have to. No, I don't trust Google to have my interest at heart. I don't trust Google to protect me. I don't trust their "don't be evil" slogan and I seem to recall they've actually gone so far as to remove that.
But someone, even someone here, certainly believes that they do all those things and more. It could be stupidity or they could just not yet know better because nobody has told them and they've not come across it. If there's something so stupid that nobody could possibly believe it, in your opinion, there's almost certainly at least one person on Slashdot who not only believes it but will argue about it. No stupidity is too great or too small for a Slashdotter to not believe it.
It's at this time that I'll be humble and point out that I am actually a Slashdotter too. Chances are good that there's something stupid that I'm completely certain about.
Ah yes, the brilliance displayed by youth. You, sir or ma'am, are a fine example of why kids should stay in school.
Thanks for the first part but I'm gonna have to go with "I'm not entirely sure you're correct" on the last part. At least not as far as I know? Unless the tech has changed?
For starters, as I mentioned, they're hanging the fiber from the polls. Secondly, fiber can't be bent more than 40 degrees before it is ruined. When a tree falls on it, and it will - this is a 100% certainty in that area and it happens multiple times per year, that's going to bend the fiber more than 40 degrees.
The source for the 40 degrees is specifically from not one but two installers and, most recently, I've heard the same number referenced when they discussed they they coiled the fiber the way they did (wide circles) on the ships that lay the cable. They used the 40 degree number in that documentary which makes it two installers that I know personally and one documentary that I can recollect specifically.
The documentary was *very* recent and has to do with a ship owned by some UK company but stationed in the US. They go out and do emergency splices on the fiber that runs under the ocean. The documentary was, I believe, produced and released in 2014.
A tree falling on that is going to break the fiber. Depending on the distance it is from the pole and the force that it hits with, it's really likely to push it beyond 40 degrees.
Unless you've something different for numbers? Those are the numbers that I've been given and they've been the same exact number each and every time and they've been the same exact number from multiple sources. I want to say there was also a Modern Marvels episode that mentioned it but it might have been a How It's Made. So, I won't count that one.
Just to make sure you understand, a tree will fall on the line. It will be of varied size but it is a 100% certainty that a tree will fall on the line. A tree is not just going to fall on the line, it is going to fall on the line AT LEAST four times each year. My mains electricity is actually a backup. I have solar and wind and an in-ground diesel tank and large industrial capacity sized generator to charge the batteries should those fail. I do not rely on the mains, at all. I have gone 13 days and 14 nights without mains power - and had DSL the entire time. It was great. Not far from my house is where they do the serious tree trimming. There are lines and they're not even the high tension lines - they're just regular lines. But they've cleared the trees back for about 100' on either side. I can probably get you a Google Earth pic if you want it.
It is my understanding that fiber has no hope against such damage. It is my understanding that a bend of 40 degrees is the limit. I guess, if the tree happens to fall right in the middle, in the center between the poles, it might not bend at 40 degrees. It might not bend that far if it's not heavy. (Maybe they'll make 'em snap off on purpose? I dunno but that might actually help.)
To put this in perspective, I've had the phone lines on the ground, buried in a snowbank, having been plowed (if you've ever seen the big plow trucks, you'll understand - I mean the *big* ones) into the snowbank, and still had reasonable connectivity. It is my understanding that fiber can not do that? It's my understanding that fiber is only good up to 40 degree bends and I've heard that number a lot.
Also, to be 100% clear, I'm not an expert in the field of fiber installation. :D I have actually spliced fiber together and done a couple of terminations but that was just playing around with one of said installer friends and was quite a few years ago. They used the same 40 degree figure in the last documentary which leads me to think that the tech hasn't changed that much but you might know more about it than I do - chances are really, really good that you know more about it than I do.
At the very least, by this time next year - I should be able to say, with some certainty, how well it works.
Hmm... Where to begin? I have checked your citation and, using the preponderance of evidence - that akin to a civil trial, I'd still not say that he is "more likely than not" to be a member of the DSA. Not even remotely. He's much more akin to the Socialist Party of America in stance, in case you're curious.
Now, to address the real concern. Socialism is not necessarily Communism-lite. It certainly can be, it can be full fledged Communism or whatever you'd like to call that practiced by Stalin. (I prefer "Stalinism" if you're curious.)
See, not everyone is a crazy zealot with binary thinking. Some people actually are able to realize that any one political ideology will not work in its "pure" form. Simply put, you can not have (realistically, and all evidence demonstrates this to be true) a pure democracy. You can not have a pure communist, socialist, or any-ist government.
Thus, it's very legitimate to say that some are more socialist than others. It's fair and legitimate to say that some are more democratic than others. It's fair to say that some are more capitalist than others - seeing as we're going to need to realize that economic models also come into play.
There are those who are so zealous that they think pure communism is a good idea. They're retarded. There are others who think that pure socialism is a good idea. They are also retarded. In fact, there are varied degrees of socialism - just like there are varied degrees of democracy, capitalism, etc.... For example, the United States is less socialist than France by a wide margin. India, in practice - if not nominally, is much more capitalist than America.
This is the part you're missing and that's because you're a crazy zealot. Just because you see things in black and white, in binary, does not mean that everyone does. It's odd that you see things that way because you're otherwise intelligent. No... There are very few, comparatively, zealots and even fewer are actually in positions where they've been elected. They've been making compromises for years, for example.
Which leads me to this...
Not only is Sanders distinctly NOT a communist but he's really not nearly as socialist as you seem to think. He's not advocating things like government control of the means of production at a greater level than it already is. (By extension, by taxation and regulation, you could already say that the government *is* in control of the means of production, but it's a matter of degree.) It is fair, honest, and accurate to say that Sanders is a socialist. It is not fair, accurate, or honest to say that he's a hard-line, zealous, tyrannical, socialist. It's actually okay to say that he's "a bit" or "a little" or "quite a bit compared to me" socialist or whatever.
Dude, no... Not everyone is some sort of binary zealot who is hell bent on only one thing. It's communist to have things like communally shared property or communally paid services. It's democratic when they let them vote for one of several approved candidates. It's socialist to have a fire department or a hospital that is partially funded by taxes. It's capitalist when they used physical currency and paid different jobs different salaries.
The world is not a binary place. The world is not black and white - it's full of not just grays but multiple colors. Is Sanders a socialist? Sure. He's also a capitalist. He's also a believer in democracy. He's also got some communist traits. Most everyone on the planet does because they've realized that no one pure political or economic ideology is going to work. It never has, it never will, and there's no reason to even try it because it always ends very poorly when you have zealots, of any kind, in power. From Chavez to Idi Amin. From Stalin to Hitler. From Pol Pot to Khadaffi. Zealots in power, of any stripe, don't mix. We know this.
Sanders is not a zealot.
I know you're too smart to believe that he's a zealot. I am pretty sure you don't really believe that he's a communist in any meaningful fashion. I coul
State Senate. I don't like people enough to be President. Hell no... Do you see what that does to them? Look at the before and after pictures of *any* president. Look at pictures of people who aged the same amount in *any* other job. Even Kennedy aged significantly. Even Clinton aged significantly. No, I don't want that much responsibility.
I would like to be dictator of the galaxy for maybe a month. Maybe, just maybe, a full year. After that, I'd banish myself to a desert island or something. But, if people would shut the hell up and pay attention to some damned commonsense AND be willing to ask smart people AND take their advice AND know when it's time to admit that you need to ask smarter people then maybe, just maybe, we could enact meaningful changes but I suspect they'd be short lived and would need to be enforced with tyranny or by purging like Stalin tried to do - even though I'm not even remotely communist, I suspect that'd be about the only way to get it done and that wouldn't help because more people would just be born and it is human nature to be greedy, self-centered, and an asshole.
On the other hand, you want a ballot? I'll get you a ballot! ;-)
Note: The above sentence is OBVIOUSLY intended to be humorous. I would not actually engage in, encourage, or endorse voter fraud by anyone.
Yeah, I noticed that after. ;-) Good catch.
It's not a logical fallacy when they are actually authorities on the subject. Just like not everything that is a slippery slope is a fallacy. Just because you can put a name of a fallacy associated with it does not mean that it's a fallacy. It has to actually be illogical for it to be a logical fallacy.
And, given the nature of the beast (that this has been covered many times, by many people, and by many people who are eminently qualified - actual authorities on the subject) I'd say that it's logical to conclude that they don't do so because they've very valid reasons for not doing so.
Given the other replies, some additional reading, and some further thought - I stand by my statement. It's an appeal to authority, if you actually understand the logical fallacy, when you're saying something like, "Well, I'm a doctor." (Which, technically, I am.) "So, I must be qualified to give medical advice. After all, I'm pretty smart." I'm a doctor. I have my Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics. It's not a fallacy when the people are actually authorities in their field and it is applicable to the field.
Some random nobody on Slashdot is not going to come up with the brilliant idea to put grills on them when grills have already been tried and have shown to generally be more problem than they're worth. Some have managed to do so but they disrupt the airflow in significant and meaningful ways. The ones that do so are generally lower speed craft and those who don't directly use jet propulsion but still have jets. You see grills on helicopters, for example. You sometimes see them on slower craft but they're pretty rare and they're only applicable to very low-speed craft or those who don't need address the airflow the same way because they're not being propelled directly by the jet exhaust.
No, no... It's not a logical fallacy to point out that there are actual experts in the field and to rely on them when they're making sound judgments. Just because you can name a fallacy that looks similar doesn't mean it's a fallacy. For example, it'd not be a fallacy to call you a dumb-ass. That would just be pejorative. ;-) It wouldn't even be an ad hominem to say you're a dumb ass because you're wrong. It would, on the other hand, probably be a logical fallacy (depending on the circumstances) to say you're a dumb ass so therefore you're wrong.
*sighs* The worst thing about people learning the name of a few fallacies (yet not actually have taken any classes on formal logic) is that they fail to understand them. It's not just you, it happens often. There's someone with a decent page on it but I'll be damned if I'm gonna go look for it, I'm that lazy and uncaring.
Moreover, and more importantly, you failed to actually address or understand the questions. You'll note that, demonstrably, they failed to do any of what you indicated they might. Still, equally important, is that you don't appear to actually understand the questions that I posed. A bruised ego will do that. (Spot, if you can, and name the logical fallacy in that last statement.)
LOL We *really* hated the Communists. To be fair, the Communists, of the day, were also expansionists. And totalitarian. And murderous. And it was *after* WWII and we, the United States, lost our Innocence in WWII. We had the thin veil of innocence left after WWI. WWI was when chivalry died, after all. We came in at the tail end of it and, though folks don't like to admit it, really did help to turn the tide and change the outcome - making it more certain and much quicker.
But, in WWII was when we really lost our innocence. WWII is when we also came out as a definite superpower. So, after that we also lost some of our ideology. That ideology went right out the window when it came to The Red Scare. We, by which I mean our government and generally supported by our citizens, decided a whole bunch of liberties were worth scaling back, just a little and just for those damned pinko scum, and the rest is history. It's not that things were ever really as great as we like to think but they were certainly different.
With the Cold War we infringed on our liberties concerning speech, religion, political beliefs, due process, search and seizure, and self-incrimination. And we, the citizens, cheered them on! It's okay, we idiots did the same thing after 9/11 and some still do. Look at all the people who champion the idea that we need to completely disarm the citizenry. What's funny is that many of those people scream about freedoms and how they're staunch supporters of it - they'll even squawk about freedoms when it comes to the latest trend in banning encryption. I am not actually sure what sort of mental gymnastics they must be doing in order to hold those views.
"So what if something bad happens. We have a right to create a lock the government can't open!"
"People are hurt by firearms every day, we need to take them from people."
In my eyes, those are diametrically opposed views. I tried to make them both as honest as I could, by the way. It's intellectually dishonest to misrepresent them but it is tempting to do so. Ah well... I'm taking a break from playing with PHP - that's what's kept me busy lately. The site is actually getting a bit of traffic. Not much in the way of participation - even though it can be done anonymously. Hopefully that changes as I spend less time working on it and more time adding content. Building it is quite a bit of fun, though. So, I have a good time while building and relearning a lot and learning new things. If nothing else, it has been keeping me both occupied and entertained. So, there's that.
Oh, absolutely. He's being trashed and trashed hard in this campaign. I really do want to avoid saying this but I am going to...
I've not normally a conspiracy theorist kind of person. I think I've got the posting history to demonstrate that I'm not. I'm pretty well grounded and don't usually speculate about things that are impossible to disprove nor do I think there are giant conspiracies that we don't know about and all that sort of stuff.
However...
This just seems too much like a perfect storm. At nearly every turn, he's stymied or suffers from some sort of gaffe. That's a bit too convenient, if you ask me. There's no way he'll get the nomination, none. The DNC will not nominate Sanders - they weren't going to nominate him even if he had the majority of populous support. And, he doesn't - by the way. He might have had the populous but he never had the chance.
It's unfortunate because he's the best choice you've got. Me? I'll be fine. I'm more than well protected and insulated from even fairly major political upheavals. Even if the entirety of the US' economy failed, even if the value of the US dollar dropped to zero, I will be fine. I'm pretty diversified and have enough hard assets to ensure that I'll be just fine - even if there's a complete failure of the social system, justice system, or government. I'll be okay.
So, Sanders means I'll pay a bit more in taxes. I have never minded taxes. I have always minded them being spent the way they are spent. For the average citizen, for the regular person, for the Average Joe and his wife Normal Mary (with their 2.23 children named Jeffery and Alice) Sanders is the only realistic choice. If anyone thinks otherwise then they're basically saying that the Status Quo is fine or they're saying that Trump is a realistic option. I find both laughable - though Trump might be an amusing option and he'd be mostly harmless. I do not believe Trump is Hitler, for example.
As a matter of fact, if Bernie and Donald were to run on the same ticket, I'd vote for 'em. Hands down, no questions asked, my vote would go for Trump. I think if the Republicans fuck over Trump (he "deserves" the nomination as he's seemingly earned it) and the Dems do what they're already doing (which is preventing Bernie from even getting a shot) then I have every reason to suspect that if Sanders and Trump ran on the same, an Independent, ticket then they'd win - hands down and by a huge margin. At least as things stand now.
Unfortunately, the electoral college would then take their turn and the popular vote would probably.... Well, no... They'd pretty much have to. Sanders and Trump, together, would win by a landslide. The electoral college would have to vote that way or the country would erupt in violent riots within an hour. I seriously believe that they'd win, in that situation. I'm half-tempted to try to make contact with one or both of them. I do actually have a few political connections but they're fairly distant, not really friends, and I'm not sure if they'll really be able to get a message in front of either of them. I just don't have that kind of clout. :( I don't know anyone who does, either.
I...Umm... I don't suppose you've got that kind of clout and want to run a message to 'em on my behalf? :D
I'm not. Neither is Sanders.
I prefer a more unbiased, honest, and accurate definition which is not so binary. Politically we tied in North Korea and, maybe, in Viet Nam. You might also want to read up how we got there - we were basically cleaning up after the French. What we did in Viet Nam was give the South Vietnamese, at their behest, aid against the NVA invading military. What we did was stop helping them out militarily and they failed to defend themselves.
In Iraq, we certainly won that - both politically and militarily. How'd we win it politically? We were asked to leave. We removed the person in power, as we said, and gave the people the chance to govern themselves. We gave them the chance to put the ex-leader on trial, they did so and decided to hang him. We let them pick their next government and write regulations of their own choosing. They chose poorly.
Again, we were cleaning up after colonization mishaps and further border drawing done by the Europeans. There probably wouldn't be many of those problems had they not stripped them bare of many assets and traditional leadership and then placed arbitrary borders where there were none prior and made up whole countries that never existed before. That was, the end of it, done by the League of Nations - it's important to note that the US was not a member of the League of Nations. It's also important to note that they failed to actually follow the important steps of the Monroe Doctrine which led to things like WWII - but that's a topic for another day. Though, it should also be noted that their failing to do so was what allowed the Soviet Union to expand as much as it did pre-WWII and still has lasting impacts to this day.
History didn't begin in 1990. You're also being bombarded, possibly willfully subjecting yourself to, very biased media and history reporting that borders on dishonesty if not outright being dishonest at times. So, if we're going to have a meaningful and honest discussion about the wars then it's probably imperative that you acknowledge that terms like winning and losing are really subjective, hardly ever accurate, and very seldom clearly delineated.
For example, if you look at the German economy today and realize that they had their nation rebuilt for them, modernized for them, and done at almost no financial cost to them (the rebuilding aspect) one could actually make a logical claim that the German *people* were the victors of WWII. Numerically, they didn't even lose that many people when you compare their losses to the number of casualties suffered by the allies. If you're aware of their financial state, since WWI and actually prior to that while their King was still pretending that a monarchy was a good idea, and then look at them today - you could easily say that the people of Germany came out of WWII better than anyone else except maybe the people of the United States. However, taken the US' state of affairs into account, over the longer term, you might say that they ended up better off as an average or for the majority of people. Certainly, some Americans came out of it very wealthy and have retained that wealth.
So, it really depends on how you want to look at it. Look at Viet Nam since. Look at them now. Look at Viet Nam for the past 50 years. Look at their GDP, quality of life, level of liberties and even freedoms, and their place on the international stage. You really want to say that they won? Really? Do they look like they're on the winning side? They're just now starting to turn into an almost reasonable standard of living - and that's mostly because they've allowed people to engage in capitalism again. Do you really want to say that Viet Nam won that war? By what metric? The description you gave isn't even really all that accurate and it fails to take a whole lot of other things into account. By almost every meaningful metric, the US won that war - including the number of dead and wounded.
However, it was a catastrophe on the political side. Even then, we came out of it about as well as we could have barring complete and
My suggestions were a few but I think the most likely to have taken hold and actually had a meaningful impact would have started with a web-site specifically about the hobby. Basically, it would have been a voluntary association. The goal would be to get all manufacturers to put an insert into their packaging that included some basic safety tips and a free membership to this website.
The website would have then had videos, safety instructions, as well as the neat things like the people who fly them in competitions and industry news. It would have, likely, even gotten manufacturer buy-in and been able to support itself. Given the size of the industry, it possibly would have lead to several paying jobs in just keeping the site up.
I offered to get them server space and to pay for their incorporation as a non-profit organization for anyone who was willing to put the effort in.
I'm not even a hobbyist nor do I have any interest in owning a drone.
It should be noted that I went into a lot more detail than that. That's the gist. Get manufacturer buy-in, get the pamphlet included in the packaging, give out "free" memberships, make it educational, sell things like stickers and classes. Offer various certification and training levels (eventually) and work it into something more formal but the start was to give the carrot which was free membership to the club of others who were specifically interested in this new subset of what is an actually very old hobby.
It would have distinguished it as a separate hobby which might have given some protection to the old school guys. They could have given away free stickers - I'd have thrown enough money to get it running for them - at no expectation of ever being repaid. I even offered, as I said, to pay for the incorporation. If you go through my post history, you'll find those posts.
It should also be noted that I never said they were *smart* in acting on this and writing/enacting this draconian regulation. I never said it would be wise or effective legislation. I never said it was a good idea that they do so. I've only said that it is going to happen. I repeat, again, that it is certainly going to happen.
This could have turned into a great thing with people actually getting paid to give lessons, to voluntarily certify, and to voluntarily register as members of the group. I'd have suggested stickers to give away. "Join and get this extra free training manual and a bundle of stickers."
Before long, manufacturers would have been THROWING stickers at the company and paying for things like ads on the site. They'd be paying for press releases to go out on the site. They'd be paying to email your users. They'd be paying and the members would also be paying. It would have turned into at least a few jobs. It would have changed the public perspective. It would have changed the way the new fliers looked at their hobby. Or at least had the potential... It was never tried - for lack of belief, effort, commonsense, and intelligence. I'd have covered those expenses, happily, for the first year just to have done something meaningful and to stop shitty oppressive regulation before it became a problem.
What SHOULD have happened is the community should have spoken out when these instances started happening. Instead, they laughed and said things like, "You can't stop me."
You got shitty regulations coming. I just offered Ami a $1000 bet. I don't think they've got the balls to take it. Expand this thread - look under my post, and you'll see where I offered.
No, you're gonna get draconian legislation. It's not because the legislature is full of intelligent people. It's because of the opposite. You've got regulation coming.
I'd also note that in the time since, what has there been talk of on Sky News and BBC?
Do you still think it's ridiculous?
You're gonna get shafted if you're a hobbyist. I feel sorry for the folks who've been flying 'em for years and are going to get screwed over because of this. Yet, you think this is a ridiculous analysis. I don't suppose you've the courage to put your money where your mouth is? Talk is cheaper than shared airspace. How about a wager? We revisit this topic in 5 years and if there's no new regulations (in either of our countries) prohibiting use then I'll donate $1000 to your favorite charity. If there is new regulations, in your country or mine, you'll donate $200 (I'm giving you 5:1 odds) to... Hmm... Well, to United States chapter (I don't think the UK has one) National Rifle Association aka the NRA.
Sound like a bet? We can play with the duration and dollar value but I'm pretty sure you're getting shitty regulations because of this sort of stuff.
Note: I've never suggested that they'd be smart in doing so. Simply that they were *going* to do so. I stand by that analysis. I'm willing to put money on it. Here's the chance to put $1000 USD in the hands of your favorite charity.
My home is almost exactly 24 miles from the *center* of the village and about another 68 miles to the center of a reasonable sized town. I had to pay for a CO and the physical wire for the upgrade. The teleco put the lines in at their expense for labor. A neighbor chipped in and paid for a mile's worth of line beyond my place - so that they could connect.
Of the six residencies that wanted the service, we all now have reasonably speedy DSL. I had it done as the house was being built - I retired there in 2008, I was in the new house for Christmas. I could have gone with cable, believe it or not. The price would actually have been about the same. I opted for DSL for some fairly obvious reasons.
It's the telephone line, they have to keep it maintained. I can use any provider I want, I'm only limited to those who are willing to provide service - so I can use any ISP that I feel like and I have switched when I wanted to. There are a number of legislative protections, a public utility commission, and an active consumer protections body that care about phone lines in very rural Maine.
The list goes on.
Anyhow, cable would have been about the same price to install and would have been faster. Though, I now get faster speeds on DSL than cable had said I'd get back in 2007 when I was doing the leg work. I pay for 10/.75 and get 14.5/1.5 and have three disparate connections, each gets that speed. I'm told that they're actually (they've gotta look good on paper - and I know several of the actual engineers personally now) running fiber out by the end of this year. I will not be switching to fiber. I will order fiber but I'll retain at least one of the DSL pipes.
Why? I've had the copper wires on the ground, in snowbanks, with trees on top of it, *plowed by the plow truck* into the snowbank after getting knocked down, and still had reasonable connectivity speeds. Fiber will not do that. They'll be hanging the fiber from the poles and not trenching it. So, I'll be keeping my DSL.
It wasn't all that expensive to have the lines brought in. It was a one time cost and was just about $30,000, in 2008 dollars. That might sound like a lot but I've used dial-up and the dial-up in the area was actually usually less than 14. kb/sec 4 in true throughput. I feel that it was worth every penny. Given the magnitudes of the differences between those speeds and that I consider my time worth money, I might even be able to say that it has exceeded paying off the investment. Even if the measurement is sheer joy, it has paid itself off - tenfold or more.
I'm not sure my pricing is all that accurate. It's accurate in that it is what I paid but they were also doing upgrades in the area at that time. They were already buying the stuff and I personally negotiated the deal with some input from a friend in the business. I'm given to understand that I paid *only* for the lines that were replaced and the CO ("central office" which is really just a big metal box) and, I think, a couple of things that amplify the signal - they put some small boxes on some of the poles. Obviously, this is not my forte.
But, I'm told that I paid *only* for the cost of material and that I paid the same price they paid for said material. The labor was not charged on the bill, not itemized at least, and that was part of the agreement because I was able to get others to commit to signing up. The folks who wanted internet service were more than happy to agree to sign up when they found out that I'd be doing the investing. They're actually good people but i didn't really know them then. It's a very, very small sub-community with those six residencies spread out over about a 2-3 mile stretch of road. The last one out is not interested in phone, 'net, or even mains electricity so the wires stop before they get to his house - as do the electrical wires.
At any rate, that was one of the wisest purchases that I ever made. I know others who have paid quite a bit more but they just took the quoted price and paid that. I actually went into the
I'm going to have to walk a thin line. You will see why. Play nice Mr. NSA man who reads this! Play nice and use your damned head for something other than a hat rest, Mr. NSA man who's now definitely reading this.
When I was a kid we used to do things like take empty CO2 cartridges and fill them with black powder and a "Chinese" (waterproof) fuse of varied length. Sometimes we'd score them. They'd blow a big ol' hole in the ground and throw shrapnel around everywhere. Total cost (back then) about $0.10, probably. The CO2 cartridges were empty from our BB Guns. We also used anything else that looked handy.
We blew up everything. It was like $6 for a 5# box of black powder. It's not that much more expensive today. One company, in their infinite glory, sold their powder in a 1# container and the container was made of aluminum and had a screw on cap. I think that one was $1.50. A *pound* of gunpowder might not sound like much. It's a whole lot of fun.
Yes but the FOSS community is not always so very good at teaching. I think it's workable and, with some effort, people can be taught.
You also may not be aware of this but there are some people out there who will have difficulty following directions. They are actually greater in number than one might think. I'd also think repositories could just offer hosted binaries - just so long as they weren't hosted on the soil of oppressive governments. The Internet's a fickle beast and does what it wants. If this law comes to pass then there's a 100% certainty that tools will be available to circumvent it in short order. I know, for a fact, that if such tools do not exist then even *I* will work to make them available.
I am a mathematician. I am not a cryptographer. I can learn.
That and I've got the source downloaded for all sorts of fun things that I've not yet done anything with but have grabbed for posterity sake and "just in case" reasons. I've got TBs of stuff - all of it with at least one backup that's off-site. ;-)
I mean ISIS the terrorist organization. Presenting a well-reasoned argument supporting the idea that one should be able to send them, specifically, funds is a bit more difficult but, having thought about it, I think I can do it and pull it off.
I should add that I was on the debate team all the way through from about 7th grade until I got my Ph.D. some years later. (Obviously, not the same team.) I skipped a couple of years but I liked it because it forced me to be creative and I am not naturally a creative person. I have to actually work at being creative and it's not easy.
I think I could do fairly well presenting that argument. It's a matter of freedom and, even if the system were perfect and only blocked appropriately, the government has no business worrying about such affairs. I'd have to take a pretty hard-line approach to it but I'd start with a series of questions such as, "We must ask ourselves, should the government be in the business of curtailing speech. Should they?" That's assuming conversational debate but I think I could do it - I'd then lead into it that way.
Unfortunately, I'm a realist. I think that we should not be at liberty to fund true terrorist organizations but I think we should have some checks and balances and that this should be processed by the government and not some corporation. I feel there shouldn't be a set of names but individual acts that are highlighted should be judged on their own merits.
However, I could make a well reasoned argument that it should be allowed.
Hmm.... Mobile VOIP?
Always after. Never before. What? Do you think they's savages or something?!?
Do I need to put in the /s? I'm thinking I do not, with you - at least. You're smart enough to understand. *sighs* Others? Not so much. Speaking of smart, my project is coming along nicely. You should send me an email sometime and ask for the URL - especially if you're any good at that web stuff. *nods*
While going to get my Ph.D. I needed money. I had little time. So, I was a journalist for a short spell of my life. I'd taken no formal courses in shorthand. That's important because I also have messy handwriting. Since then, I've had trouble reading my own handwriting - it's that bad. It's that bad unless I take an inordinate amount of time to write and then it only marginally improves on the legibility scale.
The whole thread reads like that or other people just saying that it's a fact of life. I think that, if I had to guess, about 1:10 people had a problem with it - and I read the whole thread. The numbers might be a little different now but when I read it there were over 200 posts so I doubt they'd have changed much as there are 275 posts now.
I was (as you can guess) going for insightful. They don't care. It's someone else's money and they self-identify as a hipster. To continue in my attempt to be insightful, nobody cares about the rights of pedophiles.
Ah, that's cute. You think it's just limited to people of a certain age and that it will get better with time.
Well, so long as you're stealing his car then I guess it's okay.
The real question is, is that a joke or is that an attempt to be insightful?
Pfft... Where's the convenience in that? I bet there's not even an app for that! Well, at least not nominally.
When I was a young man we had these old fashioned things called "Checks." They were filled out by hand(!) and actually required that you write down numbers and fill in information. Yeah, it was both scary and a hassle, all at the same time. It also meant we had to do math. Often, we did this math without the aid of electronic computational devices. It truly was a barbaric time.
Anyhow, I used to put in a whole bunch of stupid shit in the memo section on the checks. I even filled them out accurately - more than once - for things like weed. Yes, I've paid for weed with a check - I've paid for other drugs with a check but I didn't fill that in, but I have put weed in there. I've also put "alcohol," "call your wife," and "too drunk to care." In fact, I put all sorts of stupid shit in the memo section.
Nothing ever happened to me. Nobody ever called, visited, or even said anything unkind. I don't think I put anything with terrorism in there. I might have but I kind of doubt it. I'm pretty sure I put in everything *but* terrorism related stuff. I'm pretty sure I put in the stupidest things you can imagine, or damned close. Yet, not a word was ever said.
Somehow, I think it would not go over so very well today. I don't think I'd actually try it today. It's not that the laws are so very different or anything. It's the collection of data that seems to be changed. I don't think the banks ever did anything with the memo information back then. If they did, I never knew about it. I wrote a whole lot of stupid things in that section. I've even put stuff like "hookers and blow" in there - obviously not while buying hookers and blow.