Re: farm vehicles or more pedestrian drivers and overtake.
farm vehicles and more pedestrian drivers?
You should see what happens when there's an Amish horse and buggy on the road!
7611 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
It's not a question of cell phone coverage. Even in traveling to remote areas I usually have signal. What you might not have is the helicopter on stand-by for emergency evacuation to trauma unit at top tier university research hospital.
But then again in rural areas you don't usually have enough of those kinds of accidents to justify the expense of having that helicopter and its flight crew.
Good points, but having grown up in a rural area and moved to the city, I'm willing to bet the so-called brain boffin didn't bother to properly analyze his data. In either location I'd rather be driving with people who learned to drive in the rural America than the line crowding, tailgating, non-signaling when changing lanes morons from the city. I'd put up a paycheck that at least half of those rural accidents were caused by city drivers.
Hell, it takes me a week to decompress and get back to good driving practices* when I visit my parents who still live where I grew up.
*in practice for where I live I found the following definitions to be true:
- Safe following distance is your front quarter panel placed at about the mid-point of the rear quarter panel of the car next to you
- Safe speed is 10 mph over the posted limit in patrolled areas, 15-20 in unpatrolled areas, dead in known locations for speed cameras.
- the first 3 seconds of a red light are optional, so be prepared when you get a green
- on divided highways with two lanes on either side, the passing lane is the safe travel lane
- never use a turn signal for a lane change, that's really a signal for the guy next to you to move to Safe Following distance as defined above
Oh, and rush hour accidents are just the randomizers for relocating the usual slowdowns.
Right, complete non-issue that why we have MADD and insanely low blood alcohol levels for DUI now.
Yeah, I lived with someone for a while who thought nothing of drinking and driving. He was a twit. Just like your friends. The friends I hang out with don't drink and drive. If there's a party with alcohol the people drinking are likely to be crashing at the host's domicile or riding back to a hotel with friends.
You need to choose your friends more carefully. Might I suggest staying away from the idiots in cities and getting to know some folks in the suburbs?
Continents aren't islands. Plus it needs to be uninhabited by humans. Plus a million other details. Once used as a training site, they're also pretty hard to put back into general purpose use. So if it was designated before the Reef was made a world heritage park, it pretty much stays a training range.
It's not a question of easy or hard (although actual training sites tend not to be easy even if twits think they ought to be), it's a matter of duplicating the conditions for the flight and bomb run: temperature, actual water content in the air, wind patterns, etc.
I don't think they have a problem spotting the missing students. I think the problem is that by the time they know the student is missing it is too late to prevent it. Then the school district loses money. Maybe extra teachers would help, maybe not. Given that the issue is money, I'm guessing it's an inner city school with little involvement from parents, or worse what involvement they do have inhibits a good educational environment. It's a tough nut to crack.
Personally I'm willing to try a radical experiment: provide a set amount of money available to each student for his schooling. Student can go to any public or private institution which admit him. If you are truant, you lose the access to the money. Keep the pot of money relatively fixed based on census data, so that if someone drops out, more money becomes available to the kids who remain. Formula should include more money for special needs students than average Joe to handle that aspect.
Either that or make it illegal to go to school so all the kids will want to try it.
IF they had been enforcing it from the beginning I'd be more willing to consider the two points of law. The passage of time between between issuance and suit to me screams abuse of law. If it had been enforced at the start, we might have found a different way to implement the desired behavior. Or it might have been challenged and found overly broad at the outset.
I suppose you could say my biggest objection to these kinds of suits is that they seek to change the rules in the middle of the game. Especially in this case where the university was previously promoting the free use of the idea.
Your third option is the most sensible. And unfortunately, therefore the least likely to be enacted.
While I admire the intent of your first option, in practice it would be difficult to implement. How do you determine "awareness" of the patent company with respect to enforcement?
Your second option is a bit of a mixed bag. I think companies that simply roll over instead of fighting should lose something. Whatever they paid to settle instead of fighting seems like a good start. But I think the other suggestion that those who rolled over get to also contribute to the legal fees for the people who eventually won is better. It changes the money calculation on paying off the bastages just to make them go away. To preserve what I believe is the intent of your suggestion, I'd say that any money paid to the troll (plus interest compounded annually from the time it was received) should be forfeit to the public treasury. That way we at least get some use from it as well as changing the money calculations for the trolls.
No idea why this thread is in this topic but...
The US route system emerged before the Interstate system. To that point States built their own road systems with their own numbering schemes. Typically these days people will put the two digit zip code designation for the state in front of the state route to identify location. The US route system was implemented to help people navigate across the country. Basic concept is to keep the road name the same the whole was across. Nominally three digit east-west routes and two digit north south routes. Then along came Ike and the Interstate system, which was billed as a national defense project. The interstates were the first roads with standardized lane sizes (originally to allow the transport of Sherman tanks on carrier vehicles IIRC) and other construction features like divided lanes. These are the "I" routes and are specifically federally funded. Other routes might get money from federal appropriations, might get funded from the state, or maybe some of both (rarely more than 50% from feds). To some extent the other systems have adopted the I- standards and the naming conventions just differentiate the roads.
Salvage laws as we popularly know them have basically been shredded in the last 50 years. Either it is government property, owned by an insurance company that paid a claim for it, or if it's old enough to be worth something it's an "antiquity" and the the government to which it "belongs" can demand you turn it back over to them or face theft charges. So you shouldn't launch a major salvage operation without first knowing it is either money down the tubes or who and how they are going to pay you if you find something.
Depending on timing proximity, that is one of the markers they use for fraudulent behavior: really cheap purchase followed by a larger one. Once made that mistake when picking up my car from the shop. Put the gas on the credit card first for the car I was driving, then paid for the repairs on the one in the shop. Repairs were declined with a message to call the credit card company. I did, they put the purchase through and explained what happened. I've never done it again since.
Of course if there was more than a day between purchases, I have no idea what happened.
Actually what they should do is the same thing the crooks do with a twist: Follow the money and bag the bad guys.
Somebody is reselling them. That's the weak point. Find them and bag them. Maybe with a few of their suppliers too.
Not that I necessarily object to them looking for better ways of securing the devices. But that should be their SECONDARY objective, not their PRIMARY one.
So when your costs exceed your profit margins you all just happily give stuff away out of the generosity of your hearts?
Fat chance. Somebody in your organization is making damn sure prices keep up with costs, and that includes the costs of credit card processing. They may hide it the same way the whole MBS thing was supposed to hide the high-risk loans, but it works just as effectively.
These are NEVER eaten by the merchant. The merchant ALWAYS passes them along because he doesn't have any choice about it. Because of the restrictive laws about processing them that means yes they spread them to everybody including customers who pay cash.
This isn't me talking out my ass. This is me telling you I've been the person recommending how we were going to pass the cost along to our customers when our organization implemented our credit card processing system. And the 25 other people in the room (because we were a little d democratic organization at the time) agreeing with me. It isn't rocket science.
Smart Greedy bankers tell you that because they are raking in the fees from the vendors on all those purchases you make. Fees the vendors have to charge you in the form of higher prices. Plus of course higher taxes because they are "adding more value" to the product when they sell it.
I did support for a smallish local bank many years ago. One gentleman who was in the lending department had a cartoon prominently displayed on the wall. I don't recall the start of it anymore (probably something like "cash is temporary), but the punchline was "but a mortgage is forever." Bankers all know where they collect their fees. Sounding like they are giving good advice is even more important to fleecing the sheep.
I'm not scared of them. Still use them for some things while I'm paying off the rest.
But I'm not shaking down people who can't afford the bill by asking for more than what I'm paying for on my credit cards. You may not visibly see the cost, but the cost is still there. This is what turns me off most about liberals and progressives: they lord their "moral superiority of caring about others" over conservatives while screwing them over and claiming they aren't. Pay your own bills including the costs for all those people moving the bits around that represent your money.
It's not just the protection for items not shipped. It's also the protection for compromised account numbers. If they get to your bank account, your cash is gone. If they get your credit card they can trash it and your score, but you can get those cleaned up. It's a PITA, but you can clean it up. And while you are cleaning it up, you still have accounts from which you can function.
That's a load of crap and you know it. There's no such thing as a free lunch, so you're paying for those points somewhere. Maybe you're benefiting from cost shifting to the poor who get stuck with 47% rates. More likely you're paying for it in the form of higher prices on the goods you purchase.
There's only one good reason to use a credit card for an internet purchase: fraud protection. Everything else is a rationalization about to justify overspending.
Full disclosure: I've done more rationalizing than most about this in my younger days. I'm spent the last three years trying to clean up the mess I made and am likely to spend the next three years before I'm finished. And I spent the ten years before that pretending I was trying to clean up the mess.
I work in a Windows shop at the Service Desk so I don't have to deal with them about Sun. But I have a friend who works in a Big Data shop that use to run on Sun. Note the past tense. From what he tells me, you should probably be happy they haven't returned your calls. It means you won't burst any blood vessels when they you how much you'll have to pay them for the support contract. All new equipment they buy will be Linux and they are converting from Sun as rapidly as they can given their government environment.
More to the point, in the grand scheme of things I expect that someone will occasionally check in the wrong segment of code. (Oops, I sent the code dated 6/30 instead of 7/30.) At which point the manager of the code base should be the one noticing and taking the corrective action with the coder. In this instance not only did the coder check in untested code, the manager (whose job it is to check for that so Torvalds doesn't have to) just forwarded the untested code for inclusion as part of the final build.
Disasters are rarely the result of single mistake and almost always the result of a chain of mistakes.
Thank-you for considering my point above.
Your analysis of Torvalds is similar to what I hear in other forums where I explain organizational problems.
I'd like you to consider the following:
1) Is Torvalds really trying to get rid of the coder who made the bad commit?
2) Or is he more pissed off about the manager who didn't run a cursory check to make sure the commit was good?
3) Or is Torvalds telling the manager who screwed up that he's getting on his last nerve?
If it's #1, yes Torvalds is probably following a bad strategy.
If it's #3, we've got a 50/50 split and would need more information about past interactions.
If it's number 2, he's probably using the only option available to him.
Taking the kind of abuse Torvalds is dishing is tough, but I've been through worse in a volunteer structure. Torvalds is only going for the coarse language and an industrial grade humiliation. In my case both of those were combined with charges of embezzlement (funneling money to friends in a profit sense from a non-profit org) and wound up having the group meet several times with a lawyer because they were sent via email to the entire support organization. After the dust settled I'm still reasonably good friends with the guy who made the charges (he agreed the person was providing non-group purpose professional services at a huge discount to the group and was uniquely qualified to do so). Oh, and on a later occasion I had to take a similar tongue lashing from the vendor described in this exchange because I had to wake him at 7 in the morning on a nite when he'd gotten to bed around 3 with a simple question to which I didn't know the answer. (I do helpdesk, not databases).
There are a couple of special cases in which they do work. The problem is that even in those special cases there is a management structure, just not the ones we traditionally recognize. Where they can work is on smallish teams where the lead shifts rapidly to whoever is the expert in the specific subject matter being discussed. It does require that the rest of the team recognizes the current lead as the expert in the specific subject matter. They are frequently the only way to realize solutions to previously unsolved problems. They are also very, very rare. And any attempts to duplicate their success in structures which don't meet those requirements are doomed to spectacular failure.
IT people, even the service desk grunts like me, got into IT work because we like solving problems but don't necessarily like or are good at interfacing with other people. So if your IT department isn't solving problems for you, it ain't the techs. It's either upper management or the bean counters.
One question for you:
Did you FUCKING notify the Service Desk you were hiring a new employee before reaming them out on the phone? And no I don't mean the email you sent 5 FUCKING minutes before you called to ream them out for not having the PC ready.
Because if I had a nickel for every time some jackass from management bitched about not having a PC ready for a new employee because nobody FUCKING bothered to tell us, or worse, listen to us when we told them we were all out of hardware and someone was going to have to open their FUCKING wallet to buy some, I'd be happily retired at the beach right now.
Yes, this is a pet peeve guaranteed to set me off. I once had less than 2 hours to setup a new pc from spare parts in the closet for an incoming VP. Like nobody knew they were looking for a new VP. Some guy just walked in off the street and they hired him for it. No FUCKING way.
in fact, with the exception of the occasional hardware upgrade, most of the IT department would probably prefer to be on one of those beaches using a vpn to do most of their work. OK, doesn't work out so well for service desk grunts like me, but 60-70% of the systems admin stuff can be done remotely.
I wouldn't even say IT managers, much as the rest of your statement is true.
He's talking about Security Managers who have somehow gotten lumped into IT. Probably because instead of focusing on where the real security problems are (users doing risky things) they try to buy an IT device to force the users to do what they don't want to pay to train them to do.
You're welcome to build it any time you want to. I just object to you doing it with my tax money.
The path seems fairly straight forward to me. Form a 501(c)4 corp and list your objective as building the train as a social service. All donations then become tax deductible. I think you'll find it will be the eco-nazies on the left who actually stand in your way.
Given the inclusion of an air hockey table in his description, I find that very doubtful. Given that, I expect he's thinking something along the lines of floating the vehicle on air like the puck floats on the air hockey table. Where the rest of it comes in I don't know. How you float a multi-ton object on air is even more of a mystery.
Unless there are law explicitly banning the use of virtual coins, I don't see why they wouldn't allow it. Outside of criminal law prosecutions, it shouldn't be their concern what you use their equipment for. Maybe if they got into some sort of optimization for particular work there would be a business case for it, but even then the business case should be focused on the pricing strategy not prohibiting non-criminal use of their systems.
I grant that as a private company they have the right to do either. But if they follow your model they deserve to be laughed at.
Not even that. Stamp collecting is relatively popular so I suspect you could trade them more readily. And they are certainly easier to convert into a more recognized currency. I think you're looking for something on the order of depression glass collecting or maybe pachinko machines.
This exploit might not be the way the NSA engages in broad data collection. It might be more prevalent amongst normal people trying to slurp data from other normal people. But I assure you, that IF you were a high value target, the NSA would have no qualms about using this attack vector to gather your data. It might even be preferred to the more exotic techniques available to them for precisely the reason that it doesn't immediately point a finger at them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019