I'm pretty sure the AC missed the point entirely, and that Dr. Clanked over here skimped over Bush truly giving undue tax breaks rather than the nice fair one in his analogy.
It is partially a confidence thing too. In a more aggressive car one feels more 'in control' than in a less aggressive car.
This could explain why drivers of 'meaner' cars cause/get into more accidents.
It also explains why in my very non-aggressive Saturn people get out of my way when I'm in the left hand lane, but for a BMW/Mustang doing the same they slow down and cause road rage in the BMW/Mustang who then tears around and weaves in and out of traffic to get back to their 'rightful place.'
NAT is *not* a solution to a problem. NAT has a very specialized purpose that just happens to
enable a stop gap for the "address spaces we're running out of" issue.
If everyone NATs (like most already do) the routing tables get exponentially more complex, and they don't NEED to be.
Just hope, mod me +1 wishful thinking, that the hardware vendors start replacing RMA's and upgrades with IPv6 + IPv4 compatible equipment so we can switch over more easily later...
I know for a fact that not all people that "pirate" are doing so because of DRM and so on. I know just as many people that do it because its free that way as because of horrendous restrictions.
Your parallels between Android and Linux are flawed. To most, Linux is a frustrating platform for which no commercial software exists and has a significant barrier to entry for even the hobbyist programmer to create a useful application.
His parallels may not be 100% symmetric, but his analysis of the problem is spot on.
I can see Android is going to be "frustrating" for Average Joe until those apps are made. Contrasting the iPhone that had a bunch already provided by Apple.
Just look at how long it took the FOSS community to put together a decent office suite and photo editing software. Android's extensibility is better compared to Firefox. You know, the web browser for which any old shmoe could write an extension, which over the course of three years leapt from 0.5% to 20% market share?
How does Android even compare to Firefox? With the later, the majority of users just downloaded the.exe and ran it on Windows. Done. All bookmarks imported.
Installing an OS on a phone is a bit beyond Average Joe. Possibly installing apps for it will be just as easy. Actually, most likely it will be just as easy. But unless you hunt down a "Google Phone" of which most people I know in the US/UK only have heard of the T-Mobile one, you aren't going to be touching it.
Application development is in most cases swift and non-essential for the easy operation of the device. Without having played around with Android I can't say for sure, but I suspect Google focused on making the basic features of the device quick and intuitive, leaving the "killer app" (adblock?) to the creative collective.
Which means that there is no real reason for Average Joe to get a "Google Phone" over an iPhone. Hell, the iPhone *is* pretty sleek so he'll probably choose that.
No, parent is right. Android is not going to do very well at first. It is going to take a lot of work. If the FOSS community forks it to hell and back (IS it even open source? I can't remember) like Linux, with a million distros, its going to have the same fate.
You know the one. It is the fate of being shunted off to the side by slick marketing. Worked for Microsoft. Works for Apple. We're lucky Ubuntu has as many users as it does considering I've never seen or heard of a commercial for it on TV.
"But because people have a right doesn't mean they should."
Of course, them being so ignorant/stupid/evil as to think the ignorant/stupid/evil thing means they don't know/realize/care that they shouldn't say such things.
And of course you can't take their right to say such things away without hurting yourself and others who don't think such things.
Remember: "Better to let 10 guilty men go free than put one innocent in jail." If people remembered this founding principle the USA would be a better place.
Oh and for those that don't agree: its a free country. You are an adult. You can think what you like. But you *don't* get to go changing the founding principles of the country and call it the same thing.
Don't like it? Its a free country. You are an adult. You can move. You have that right.
Totally depends where you live dude. In the Northwest if you don't use I-5 its next to impossible to get to where you need to go unless you have 6 hours to spend doing it and know the way.
Okay so you inadvertently/deliberately didn't read his post in full or you skimped over things.
For example, everyone else was going 80 mph+ at the time. He probably lives in Southwest Washington State. Lord knows I spend a lot of time on the freeways and despite what the posted speed limit says (60 mph) going that speed even in the far right lane will have almost every driver on the road irritated with you and gunning it to pass you.
Causing road rage is not something I deem "safe driving."
Depending where the jerk in the SUV was (highways tend to be 3+ lanes where I come from) passing was the smart thing to do.
I've noticed a trend here on Slashdot. If its about driving, 50% of people stay under the speed limit and the other 50% are willing to go faster.
Do me a favor: if you come to Washington State, GO WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC.
I don't care if its 4:00 AM or 4:00 PM. The only vehicles I see "go the speed limit" on I-5 are semi-trucks, vehicles that really can't go faster, and a handful of elderly people.
*Everyone* else, including their mother, goes 10-15 miles over the speed limit if the weather is half way nice (eg, its not raining UP).
Granted, this is why there are so many accidents at the start of winter. People are retarded and don't adjust their driving for the conditions.
But I-5 was designed for 75-80 MPH traffic. The speed on the WA side south of Seattle was lowered to 60 during the 80's/90's.
And if you do come to Washington don't think that going over the speed limit applies only to the highways. Unless your city driving, AND not on a main artery, everyone is going to be going 5-10 miles over at best.
And by everyone I really do mean nearly everyone. On my daily commute cars that don't go with traffic are fairly easy to spot. They're the ones that are causing traffic snafus for the most part.
They also tend to be the ones that won't change out of the right lane when they aren't exiting the highway and there are a lot of cars/trucks coming ONTO the highway...
And don't worry about the cops. Unless your driving reckless or its a slow day they don't pull you over for speeding. And if they do, they'll only ticket you for going 65 rather than faster.
And now ignore what I'm saying because I've admitted to speeding and therefore obviously don't know what I'm talking about despite dealing with the same crap on a daily basis.
Aside from that being an ad covered bastard of a page, the majority of the info is taken from Wikipedia without reference. Whomever wrote it seems to be trying to pass it off as original research too.
Go Here. Aside from it being Wikipedia and not an ad-laden cesspool it has more information and less bias. Some of the "missing features" actually DO make sense by the way.
The majority of my driving is done on I-5. The rest varies from city/town driving to back country roads to private driveways and neighborhoods.
About 2/3rds of the drivers I see on the road are from WA. 1/4 are from Oregon and the rest are a random state or Canadian.
On I-5, and I don't care if its at 4 AM or 2 PM. Except due to an emergency you are going to be driving 10-15 over the speed limit on I-5.
I almost always go over the speed limit. Usually just 5-10 miles per hour. I have people tailgate me because I'm not going fast enough here.
Mind you, going fast is not a problem. The highway was originally designed for 75-80 mph of speed. The limit was knocked down due to new legislation during the Clinton era. Depending on the population of towns on the off/on ramps the speed gets lowered down.
As it stands, most of the time the police do not pull you over for speeding if you are going 5-10 over. Any more than that and they will but they usually let you off very lightly for it unless you give them a hard time.
Country roads are similar. The only exception is in towns/cities. Everyone here seems to go the speed limit once in town. Through traffic in neighborhoods are usually jackasses or punk kids who go 5-10 over even despite children playing.
And I mean *everyone* does this. The VAST minority whenever I'm on the road is going the speed limit, let alone under it. And believe me, if you are going noticibly slower than EVERYONE around you you are the hazard.
In WA the police can pull you over for going over or under the speed limit by 10+ mph. They usually don't if you're 10 under but they can.
Also, the way speed limits are assigned in WA works like this unless something overrides it: What is the fastest speed a driver can go without having to be hypersensitive to his surroundings?
It is easy in nice weather to go over the speed limit and remain in control with no danger to others if you know what you are doing on most of the roads here. Not everyone is that good of a driver though and shouldn't.
Take Padden Parkway for example of this though. This is a vital road now, but it didn't exist a few years ago. It was made for 50-55 MPH. Some people go 40. The road's gradient is working against you at that speed but they do it anyways. Its designed so emergency vehicles can go 80 with ease.
So it depends where you live. I see 1-2 people speed in towns here. On the highway I see maybe 5 people in 30 minutes of highway travel going the speed limit.
Mod me down for not being tottaly scientific, but this is what I experience daily. Speed or move over. This isn't as bad as Montana, but most people have to drive 30-50 miles (usually more) to get to work.
Oh and Oregon sucks to drive in. Their highways are not in good shape and the 55 speed limit for the same road design takes some adjusting. Particularly with oregonians still going 70 when i go through.
For one, killing *anything* has consequence. The weight varies greatly, but the consequence is always there.
Furthermore, religion isn't the only source of morals. If you kill a person, you affect the people that knew and cared for that person. Usually adversely though I'm sure there are some people that need to die (Hitler comes to mind as one evil SOB).
Mod this flamebait down for what it is. I know damn well I could kill if I had to, but as pessimistic as I am I' not callous enough to think human lives are worthless.
Besides, the President will have to be a politician if the other world leaders are politicians.
Fight liars with liars.*
* I'm sure that, at times, there are leaders who do not lie but they are few and far between. If you did elect an 'honest' President he wouldn't remain innocent for long.
Glad they modded you out of flamebait. The Bible really does say that.
If it were me the answer would be simple: The Bible may or may not be the 'Word of God' but either way it was written by man.
Note also that only Peter out of the Apostles wanted an organized Church with central power. None of the rest thought that Jesus would of wanted that.
I don't care if your Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever. Everyone can appreciate what Jesus Christ allegedly came down to Earth to teach:
Everyone love each other, and care for each other.
The world would be a *far* better place if they did that rather than kill each other over how he said it or kill each other because some paragraph could possibly be twisted into saying "homosexuals must die" or something.
I'm not particularly religious anymore, but I used to be. Some sorrows are too deep for a bit of Atheism to wipe out, and just because someone believes a story to be fact when it might not be doesn't mean the moral of the story isn't a good one.
Mod this guy up. Wish people would stop attacking things they haven't fully studied, or when they did study it refuse to even see conclusions others have drawn.
I'm not just talking about Religion vs Science (stupidest argument ever BTW). Any human dispute has that same, stupidly blind fanaticism.
Maybe that's why humans even have religion as an aspect of culture. We need to believe in something greater than ourselves (examples: marriage, patriotism, religion; depends on the individual). And we have to defend it no matter what (examples: she's not fat just chubby, or my nation is the best even if we possibly are torturing people, or evolution means God doesn't exist and vice versa).
Guess that means its going to be an awful long time before we learn to get along. Maybe we'll figure it out by the time we start colonizing other planets with families and not just science/military.
Disclaimer: At best I'm agnostic though truth be told I don't think about religion 90-92% of the time because it seems to cause nothing but misery. Also I tend to be suspicious of anything that is "The Word of the Creator" but written by man.
"If your Bible says that people were made from mud, then either: that Bible story is utterly and completely mistaken; or it is deliberately lying to you."
Spoken like someone who wishes this to be true and in his arrogance claims it must be true.
Why do you have a problem with someone having faith in a religion if they don't let it screw up how they view the world?
Behold! You have someone who believes in God AND thinks evolution is a right clever idea! But rather be grateful that not everyone is insane, instead of seeing hope for the future, you have to attack the person.
You sir, are a moron.
If you are *ever* going to begin convincing people that science has nothing to do with religion (which it doesn't) then STOP attacking them on theological grounds.
Embrace this guy's beliefs the next time some archo-conservative nut tells you the universe is 6000 years old and the world was made in 3 days and that there is no point planning for the future because the world is going to end anyways.
"Any story that tries to tell it otherwise is simply incorrect. Wrong. Utterly mistaken. There is nothing else to it."
You've never heard of allegory then have you? Take a literature class and learn something. There is a reason civilizations have myths and legends they tell stories about, and its NOT because we like to be entertained (though it helps).
Some atheists need to stop treating everything as a personal attack. The egotism sets my teeth on edge.
Again, Windows 7 started development while Vista was still being made. Just because Vista got delayed does not mean Microsoft pushed back the ground breaking for the replacement OS.
Sad fact, by the time a Windows version is released its already outdated. The security patches are just to keep people "happy" until they can be conned into buying the 'latest and greatest' Windows version.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, you forget that a lot of Americans *want* to pay it back because it is the "right thing" to do.
Personally I do think it is the right thing to do, I just wonder how many fellow Americans really agree with that and how many just say that.
I'm pretty sure the AC missed the point entirely, and that Dr. Clanked over here skimped over Bush truly giving undue tax breaks rather than the nice fair one in his analogy.
It is partially a confidence thing too. In a more aggressive car one feels more 'in control' than in a less aggressive car.
This could explain why drivers of 'meaner' cars cause/get into more accidents.
It also explains why in my very non-aggressive Saturn people get out of my way when I'm in the left hand lane, but for a BMW/Mustang doing the same they slow down and cause road rage in the BMW/Mustang who then tears around and weaves in and out of traffic to get back to their 'rightful place.'
enable a stop gap for the "address spaces we're running out of" issue.
If everyone NATs (like most already do) the routing tables get exponentially more complex, and they don't NEED to be.
Just hope, mod me +1 wishful thinking, that the hardware vendors start replacing RMA's and upgrades with IPv6 + IPv4 compatible equipment so we can switch over more easily later...
I know for a fact that not all people that "pirate" are doing so because of DRM and so on. I know just as many people that do it because its free that way as because of horrendous restrictions.
HTML tags dude. Use them.
Your parallels between Android and Linux are flawed. To most, Linux is a frustrating platform for which no commercial software exists and has a significant barrier to entry for even the hobbyist programmer to create a useful application.
His parallels may not be 100% symmetric, but his analysis of the problem is spot on.
I can see Android is going to be "frustrating" for Average Joe until those apps are made. Contrasting the iPhone that had a bunch already provided by Apple.
Just look at how long it took the FOSS community to put together a decent office suite and photo editing software. Android's extensibility is better compared to Firefox. You know, the web browser for which any old shmoe could write an extension, which over the course of three years leapt from 0.5% to 20% market share?
How does Android even compare to Firefox? With the later, the majority of users just downloaded the .exe and ran it on Windows. Done. All bookmarks imported.
Installing an OS on a phone is a bit beyond Average Joe. Possibly installing apps for it will be just as easy. Actually, most likely it will be just as easy. But unless you hunt down a "Google Phone" of which most people I know in the US/UK only have heard of the T-Mobile one, you aren't going to be touching it.
Application development is in most cases swift and non-essential for the easy operation of the device. Without having played around with Android I can't say for sure, but I suspect Google focused on making the basic features of the device quick and intuitive, leaving the "killer app" (adblock?) to the creative collective.
Which means that there is no real reason for Average Joe to get a "Google Phone" over an iPhone. Hell, the iPhone *is* pretty sleek so he'll probably choose that.
No, parent is right. Android is not going to do very well at first. It is going to take a lot of work. If the FOSS community forks it to hell and back (IS it even open source? I can't remember) like Linux, with a million distros, its going to have the same fate.
You know the one. It is the fate of being shunted off to the side by slick marketing. Worked for Microsoft. Works for Apple. We're lucky Ubuntu has as many users as it does considering I've never seen or heard of a commercial for it on TV.
Yea, maybe you should read comments more than half way.
I'd say even a draft letter to another Governor is Official Business.
Sure, she had *gasp* some personal e-mails in her personal-email. She still had *official business* in her emails. That is a no-no.
"But because people have a right doesn't mean they should."
Of course, them being so ignorant/stupid/evil as to think the ignorant/stupid/evil thing means they don't know/realize/care that they shouldn't say such things.
And of course you can't take their right to say such things away without hurting yourself and others who don't think such things.
Remember: "Better to let 10 guilty men go free than put one innocent in jail." If people remembered this founding principle the USA would be a better place.
Oh and for those that don't agree: its a free country. You are an adult. You can think what you like. But you *don't* get to go changing the founding principles of the country and call it the same thing.
Don't like it? Its a free country. You are an adult. You can move. You have that right.
On occasion, it has snowed after the fact sadly.
But yea if you have the money, snow tires are a great investment. Chains are a pain in the arse really.
Probably because there is little of interest for most people for 300 miles.
And we live 20-30 minutes from the second largest city in the state.
Totally depends where you live dude. In the Northwest if you don't use I-5 its next to impossible to get to where you need to go unless you have 6 hours to spend doing it and know the way.
For example, everyone else was going 80 mph+ at the time. He probably lives in Southwest Washington State. Lord knows I spend a lot of time on the freeways and despite what the posted speed limit says (60 mph) going that speed even in the far right lane will have almost every driver on the road irritated with you and gunning it to pass you.
Causing road rage is not something I deem "safe driving."
Depending where the jerk in the SUV was (highways tend to be 3+ lanes where I come from) passing was the smart thing to do.
I've noticed a trend here on Slashdot. If its about driving, 50% of people stay under the speed limit and the other 50% are willing to go faster.
Do me a favor: if you come to Washington State, GO WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC.
I don't care if its 4:00 AM or 4:00 PM. The only vehicles I see "go the speed limit" on I-5 are semi-trucks, vehicles that really can't go faster, and a handful of elderly people.
*Everyone* else, including their mother, goes 10-15 miles over the speed limit if the weather is half way nice (eg, its not raining UP).
Granted, this is why there are so many accidents at the start of winter. People are retarded and don't adjust their driving for the conditions.
But I-5 was designed for 75-80 MPH traffic. The speed on the WA side south of Seattle was lowered to 60 during the 80's/90's.
And if you do come to Washington don't think that going over the speed limit applies only to the highways. Unless your city driving, AND not on a main artery, everyone is going to be going 5-10 miles over at best.
And by everyone I really do mean nearly everyone. On my daily commute cars that don't go with traffic are fairly easy to spot. They're the ones that are causing traffic snafus for the most part.
They also tend to be the ones that won't change out of the right lane when they aren't exiting the highway and there are a lot of cars/trucks coming ONTO the highway...
And don't worry about the cops. Unless your driving reckless or its a slow day they don't pull you over for speeding. And if they do, they'll only ticket you for going 65 rather than faster.
And now ignore what I'm saying because I've admitted to speeding and therefore obviously don't know what I'm talking about despite dealing with the same crap on a daily basis.
Aside from that being an ad covered bastard of a page, the majority of the info is taken from Wikipedia without reference. Whomever wrote it seems to be trying to pass it off as original research too.
Go Here. Aside from it being Wikipedia and not an ad-laden cesspool it has more information and less bias. Some of the "missing features" actually DO make sense by the way.
About 2/3rds of the drivers I see on the road are from WA. 1/4 are from Oregon and the rest are a random state or Canadian.
On I-5, and I don't care if its at 4 AM or 2 PM. Except due to an emergency you are going to be driving 10-15 over the speed limit on I-5.
I almost always go over the speed limit. Usually just 5-10 miles per hour. I have people tailgate me because I'm not going fast enough here.
Mind you, going fast is not a problem. The highway was originally designed for 75-80 mph of speed. The limit was knocked down due to new legislation during the Clinton era. Depending on the population of towns on the off/on ramps the speed gets lowered down.
As it stands, most of the time the police do not pull you over for speeding if you are going 5-10 over. Any more than that and they will but they usually let you off very lightly for it unless you give them a hard time.
Country roads are similar. The only exception is in towns/cities. Everyone here seems to go the speed limit once in town. Through traffic in neighborhoods are usually jackasses or punk kids who go 5-10 over even despite children playing.
And I mean *everyone* does this. The VAST minority whenever I'm on the road is going the speed limit, let alone under it. And believe me, if you are going noticibly slower than EVERYONE around you you are the hazard.
In WA the police can pull you over for going over or under the speed limit by 10+ mph. They usually don't if you're 10 under but they can.
Also, the way speed limits are assigned in WA works like this unless something overrides it: What is the fastest speed a driver can go without having to be hypersensitive to his surroundings?
It is easy in nice weather to go over the speed limit and remain in control with no danger to others if you know what you are doing on most of the roads here. Not everyone is that good of a driver though and shouldn't.
Take Padden Parkway for example of this though. This is a vital road now, but it didn't exist a few years ago. It was made for 50-55 MPH. Some people go 40. The road's gradient is working against you at that speed but they do it anyways. Its designed so emergency vehicles can go 80 with ease.
So it depends where you live. I see 1-2 people speed in towns here. On the highway I see maybe 5 people in 30 minutes of highway travel going the speed limit.
Mod me down for not being tottaly scientific, but this is what I experience daily. Speed or move over. This isn't as bad as Montana, but most people have to drive 30-50 miles (usually more) to get to work.
Oh and Oregon sucks to drive in. Their highways are not in good shape and the 55 speed limit for the same road design takes some adjusting. Particularly with oregonians still going 70 when i go through.
Skeptical that will be an end all fix, or even a decent patch. Admitted bias as you think GNU/Linux is a protection against viruses.
For one, killing *anything* has consequence. The weight varies greatly, but the consequence is always there.
Furthermore, religion isn't the only source of morals. If you kill a person, you affect the people that knew and cared for that person. Usually adversely though I'm sure there are some people that need to die (Hitler comes to mind as one evil SOB).
Mod this flamebait down for what it is. I know damn well I could kill if I had to, but as pessimistic as I am I' not callous enough to think human lives are worthless.
Besides, the President will have to be a politician if the other world leaders are politicians. Fight liars with liars.* * I'm sure that, at times, there are leaders who do not lie but they are few and far between. If you did elect an 'honest' President he wouldn't remain innocent for long.
If it were me the answer would be simple: The Bible may or may not be the 'Word of God' but either way it was written by man.
Note also that only Peter out of the Apostles wanted an organized Church with central power. None of the rest thought that Jesus would of wanted that.
I don't care if your Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever. Everyone can appreciate what Jesus Christ allegedly came down to Earth to teach:
Everyone love each other, and care for each other.
The world would be a *far* better place if they did that rather than kill each other over how he said it or kill each other because some paragraph could possibly be twisted into saying "homosexuals must die" or something.
I'm not particularly religious anymore, but I used to be. Some sorrows are too deep for a bit of Atheism to wipe out, and just because someone believes a story to be fact when it might not be doesn't mean the moral of the story isn't a good one.
I'm not just talking about Religion vs Science (stupidest argument ever BTW). Any human dispute has that same, stupidly blind fanaticism.
Maybe that's why humans even have religion as an aspect of culture. We need to believe in something greater than ourselves (examples: marriage, patriotism, religion; depends on the individual). And we have to defend it no matter what (examples: she's not fat just chubby, or my nation is the best even if we possibly are torturing people, or evolution means God doesn't exist and vice versa).
Guess that means its going to be an awful long time before we learn to get along. Maybe we'll figure it out by the time we start colonizing other planets with families and not just science/military.
"If your Bible says that people were made from mud, then either: that Bible story is utterly and completely mistaken; or it is deliberately lying to you."
Spoken like someone who wishes this to be true and in his arrogance claims it must be true.
Why do you have a problem with someone having faith in a religion if they don't let it screw up how they view the world?
Behold! You have someone who believes in God AND thinks evolution is a right clever idea! But rather be grateful that not everyone is insane, instead of seeing hope for the future, you have to attack the person.
You sir, are a moron.
If you are *ever* going to begin convincing people that science has nothing to do with religion (which it doesn't) then STOP attacking them on theological grounds.
Embrace this guy's beliefs the next time some archo-conservative nut tells you the universe is 6000 years old and the world was made in 3 days and that there is no point planning for the future because the world is going to end anyways.
"Any story that tries to tell it otherwise is simply incorrect. Wrong. Utterly mistaken. There is nothing else to it."
You've never heard of allegory then have you? Take a literature class and learn something. There is a reason civilizations have myths and legends they tell stories about, and its NOT because we like to be entertained (though it helps).
Some atheists need to stop treating everything as a personal attack. The egotism sets my teeth on edge.
Again, Windows 7 started development while Vista was still being made. Just because Vista got delayed does not mean Microsoft pushed back the ground breaking for the replacement OS. Sad fact, by the time a Windows version is released its already outdated. The security patches are just to keep people "happy" until they can be conned into buying the 'latest and greatest' Windows version.