This doesn't seem to be really any different than OnStar, with the exception being it seems easier to install in about any vehicle (OnStar tends to work best when installed at the factory, I believe). And, I think OnStar is cheaper (for the most part) at about $30 a month. Not to mention they can do things like call the police if you're in trouble, diagnose car problems remotely, etc. etc. etc.
I could see it beneficial, however, for company vehicles or the 16-year-old kid busting at the seams with testosterone.
Sure, it takes a while to add up 100 numbers, because you're doing a task differently than the best way a brain functions.
Look at it this way. Go outside, on a windy day (adding more variables to the mix) and have someone throw you a football/basketball/baseball/frisbee/whatever. It probably takes 3-4 seconds at most for the ball to reach you, and looooong before that, your brain completed a monstrous calculus problem. It figured in the position of the thrower, the wind velocity and direction, direction/speed of the ball, the ball's arc of travel, and in the next split second, sent signals to your legs and feet to move your body to the ball's expected landing spot.
But wait, it's the ball's landing spot minus about five feet, because your brain figures you want to be positioned to catch the ball when it's about 4-5 feet off the ground. It simultaneously sends signals to your hands and arms, positioning them to catch the ball, taking into account the ball's speed, size and mass.
A lot of calculations in an extremely short period of time! And, if you think that's impressive for a human brain, the brain in that dumb mutt of yours in the back yard can do the same thing when you toss him a tennis ball.
Well, we all saw this coming, if you really think about it. I recall hearing talk of a pure optical network switch a couple years ago, that functioned as a switch without needing to convert fiber back to copper. I think HP made it, I could be wrong.
Anyway, we're about pushing the limits of copper, with 1000bT, and I'd imagine network speeds will only continue to climb with increased use of fiber. I can see, in 5 to 10 years, optical switches becoming more common in office environments as file sizes and network speeds continue increasing.
Granted, most of that post was Greek to me, it's still interesting in that I think in any technology or practically any invention, people will find ways to make them do things never even conceived of by the originator. Coming up with new uses for obscure parts of the TCP/IP stack isn't really any different than other inventive uses for common, everyday items. In all actuality, I think it's all about the oft-used phrase, "thinking outside the box."
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1
What laws is she breaking? Not to be in defense of her, but how is it different than snail-mailing a bunch of stuff? Sure, it's cheaper, but both are legal. It falls under interstate commerce and freedom of speech. She found a business, albeit hated by many, with an astronomical return on investment - and it's legal. How is it corrupting children? They're probably learning the basics of business.
Since the early days of my experiences on the 'net, spam has been a problem (1994 is when I first hopped on). Why is this? Obviously, as indicated in the article, spam does indeed make money. Sure, you may get one percent response, but if it only costs a couple hundred $ to send half a million e-mails, at one percent that's 5,000 people replying! Of course we know they're all real net newbies or suckers, but as with anything else, it's 'buyer beware'. In short, people spam because it does indeed work.
Ummm, no. As the original poster of that comment, I only have the free ADC membership and I can go through those channels to report bugs. It's all through their web site. Works well, you generally get an email back from Apple with a bug ID and it's status and a way to check it's status. Both bugs I submitted were known issues, but it was nice to know they were working on them.
If this is indeed legit, it's scary. Granted, I know there is a lot of pro-Iraq/anti-American sentiment in the world today, particularly in Europe (why, I'll never understand, thank God I'm an American an damn proud of it), but this genuinely looks like aiding and abeting the enemy with some of the messages people have sent him. If I hadn't been medically discharged from the Navy a few years back, I would be proud to help in military action, should it be necessary.
The thing that the world can't seem to get through it's thich ignorant skull is that, contrary to popular belief, President Bush IS NOT itching at the trigger to go in, in fact the administration has made it abundantly clear that not only is military action a last result, the prime goal is to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, not to simply go in and blow things up for fun. My heart goes out to the Iraqi people for the near-genocide they endure on a daily basis.
Agree or disagree politically with my views, don't mod me down for a difference of opinion.
I do this all the time. I do newsletters for a variety of clients, actually going to the trenches in industrial environments. If I see something on a bulletin board, book, etc., that I want, I'll simply take a photo of it. I've also used it to take a photo of my screen in the event of a crash a few times (rare on my Mac, though). Most cameras have a macro mode for close-ups, that's what I'll do.
Well, maybe longer range, I'm not sure how digital works in that regard, but I know with AM, you can get extremely impressive range. I can recall numerous times driving in eastern Arizona at night and listening to KFAB, from OMAHA, NEBRASKA! That's nearly 1,000 miles. There's an AM station in Denver that, at night, advertises they're heard in something like 35 states, 2 Canadian provinces and Mexico!
I've had XM Radio in my car for several months, and really enjoy it. When I go back to regular radio, I have to stop myself from hitting buttons to see the song title and artist, etc., as I can with my XM. If this type of technology will be incorporated into digital radio (why wouldn't it be?), it could be a pretty cool thing. We hear from time to time about goofy systems using your cell phone where you can call a number and automatically purchase the CD containing the song playing on the radio (I don't think that idea ever took off) but I could see something more along these lines with digital radio.
But, I could see this end up like digital TV as well, where it's hindered with restrictions, requires expensive equipment, and will ultimately (likely) result in the FCC forcing it upon us. I can see five or ten years down the road when my beautiful vacuum-tube antique console stereo won't have any radio signals to pick up! Ultimately, sadly, this is probably a way for the big shots to control more and more of what we listen to and how we listen to it, not to mention it'll probably make obsolete the nice, expensive receiver I purchased recently (thinking I'd use it for years to come).
Why can't the cronies at the FCC get it through their thick, ugly skulls to LET THE MARKET dictate what happens! C'mon, it's basic economics. Look at satellite TV and digital cable. No government agency forced this upon us, but people buy it in droves! Granted, digital radio isn't being forced on us (yet), but it's probably on the horizon.
I sincerely hope this has the ramifications it deserves. The general public (read: stupid masses) truly needs to know about things like this, so we all continue to pressure RIAA and it's member companies where it hurts - our wallets. The sooner they understand they are in business to satisfy the desires of the CONSUMER, not the desires of a few extreme fat cats, we all win. Make the consumer happy and the fat cats (and us lowly consumers) all come out better.
Mr. Cerf, in light of the copyright battles, DMCA, legal battles, etc., surrounding organizations like RIAA, MPAA, etc., as well as the increasing popularity of broadband and wireless, what do you see the Internet as in five years?
Personally, I don't see it as a crime to simply find open networks. While that point is likely debatable, I've got a couple access points set up, and quite frankly it doesn't matter to me if anyone were to jump on and use the connection. Granted, if someone is constantly sucking up all my bandwidth, that's a different story. But, while I don't publicly flaunt these access points, it doesn't bother me if they're used. It's sort of a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" mentality. MY ISP is quite open when it comes to the types of traffic, so that's not a concern to me. Yeah, some idiot could download kiddie porn or something and it's probably muddy waters legally, but I treat people in general with trust, I don't look at everyone as a criminal because they're not.
Quite frankly, I never watch TV, nor do I buy music. Sure, I'll rent DVDs from a local video place (LOCAL, not the big monopolies) fairly often, but it's extremely rare I ever watch broadcast television. And, the only music I buy is what I find on vinal at GoodWill. Of course I've got a CD player, but I'm interested in expanding my musical taste to Classical, and when you can pick up Bach on vinal for 50 cents, why not? RIAA sure as hell doesn't get anything off that.
I think, in cases such as this, you need to combat idiocy and absurdity with the same thing, otherwise no one will listen. The DMCA is one of the biggest Constitutional violations in a long time (aside from perhaps campaign finance, but that's a different story) and no one cares. Well, we do, and so does EFF, but the big boys don't care a whit. The people making the laws (Congressweasles who just do what they are paid to do) don't care and probably wouldn't know what a computer was if someone whacked them upside the head with a keyboard.
While I don't know for sure, I'd suspect it's to stretch out the revenue stream. They sell it in the US for half a year, then when sales slow because everyone who wants it has it, they release it elsewhere so they can keep raking in more money, as opposed to having it all come in basically in one chunk.
Keep in mind that this thing burned up near the end of it's journey. About the shuttle landing, your reply makes no sense. A slope of 15 km? All the shuttle needs to land is a long enough runway. Heck, where I live, Lincoln, Neb., one of three runways at our airport (also used by the Air Guard base here) is 2 1/2 miles long, and it's actually one of the alternate shuttle landing sites (something like 10th on the list). Sure, it's coming in faster than Mach 1, but not anywhere near Mach 7.
Also, for the trivia-minded, Lincoln was also near the top of the list to be nuked by the Commies during the cold war, as that particular runway could serve as a base for B-52s, etc.
The thing I don't like about Mach numbers is it's not consistent. Reason being, the speed of sound changes based on your altitude. Higher, where the air is thinner, sound travels slower. So Mach 7.6 at 50,000 feet is a lot slower than Mach 7.6 at sea level. Sure, it's a cool sounding number, but I wish we'd see these numbers represented in miles or kilometers per hour as well as a Mach speed. When the author of the article gave the comparison of a London-Sydney flight, (2 hours vs. 20), was he/she figuring that based on Mach 7.6 at sea level or at 75,000 feet? (not to metion it'll be decades before, if ever, we see passenger planes anywhere near this speed)
Read the article people! That 3-degree variation ended up LOWERING the temperature by 3 degress on account of air traffic, not raising it. So, if we're all worried about global warming, fly more!
The thing that just gets my goat about the whole digital TV thing is, it's the federal government mandating things that are best left to the free market. I shudder to think what would happen if the government mandated how fast computer processors had to be, or mandated the features in the radio sitting on my desk. Quite frankly, it's not their job. Let the free market sort it out, supply and demand. If consumers demand it, cool, but if Joe DollarSign doesn't care about digital TV, why should it be forced upon us? Look at DVDs. The government didn't say "by 200X, DVD players must be....." It's bad enough they mandate how my air conditioner is built, and how many gallons of water my toilet can use. The whole federal government seems to have completely lost any respect for the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
1) The relationship between Apple and Microsoft has been strained by the lackluster sales of Office v.X. Apple supports the porting of StarOffice because it doesn't want MacOS X to be cutoff from the ability to interact with the ever-important Microsoft dominated office file formats should Microsoft decide to abandon the platform.
Maybe that's on account of people not wanting to fork over an arm and a leg for Office. Kinda hard to type with only one arm.
Slashdot Mirror
I could see it beneficial, however, for company vehicles or the 16-year-old kid busting at the seams with testosterone.
Look at it this way. Go outside, on a windy day (adding more variables to the mix) and have someone throw you a football/basketball/baseball/frisbee/whatever. It probably takes 3-4 seconds at most for the ball to reach you, and looooong before that, your brain completed a monstrous calculus problem. It figured in the position of the thrower, the wind velocity and direction, direction/speed of the ball, the ball's arc of travel, and in the next split second, sent signals to your legs and feet to move your body to the ball's expected landing spot.
But wait, it's the ball's landing spot minus about five feet, because your brain figures you want to be positioned to catch the ball when it's about 4-5 feet off the ground. It simultaneously sends signals to your hands and arms, positioning them to catch the ball, taking into account the ball's speed, size and mass.
A lot of calculations in an extremely short period of time! And, if you think that's impressive for a human brain, the brain in that dumb mutt of yours in the back yard can do the same thing when you toss him a tennis ball.
Anyway, we're about pushing the limits of copper, with 1000bT, and I'd imagine network speeds will only continue to climb with increased use of fiber. I can see, in 5 to 10 years, optical switches becoming more common in office environments as file sizes and network speeds continue increasing.
Granted, most of that post was Greek to me, it's still interesting in that I think in any technology or practically any invention, people will find ways to make them do things never even conceived of by the originator. Coming up with new uses for obscure parts of the TCP/IP stack isn't really any different than other inventive uses for common, everyday items. In all actuality, I think it's all about the oft-used phrase, "thinking outside the box."
What laws is she breaking? Not to be in defense of her, but how is it different than snail-mailing a bunch of stuff? Sure, it's cheaper, but both are legal. It falls under interstate commerce and freedom of speech. She found a business, albeit hated by many, with an astronomical return on investment - and it's legal. How is it corrupting children? They're probably learning the basics of business.
Since the early days of my experiences on the 'net, spam has been a problem (1994 is when I first hopped on). Why is this? Obviously, as indicated in the article, spam does indeed make money. Sure, you may get one percent response, but if it only costs a couple hundred $ to send half a million e-mails, at one percent that's 5,000 people replying! Of course we know they're all real net newbies or suckers, but as with anything else, it's 'buyer beware'. In short, people spam because it does indeed work.
Ummm, no. As the original poster of that comment, I only have the free ADC membership and I can go through those channels to report bugs. It's all through their web site. Works well, you generally get an email back from Apple with a bug ID and it's status and a way to check it's status. Both bugs I submitted were known issues, but it was nice to know they were working on them.
-andy
If only I had to worry about this situation!
# Addresses a potential issue in which an unauthorized user could log in as a deleted user.
Glad to see Apple still on the top with security.
# Improves Address Book compatibility with users that are already on an AIM Buddy List.
Good, this was an issue I submitted through Developer bug reporting, glad to see it fixed!
Ahhhh! How could you people forget one of the best - Inspector Gadget!
The thing that the world can't seem to get through it's thich ignorant skull is that, contrary to popular belief, President Bush IS NOT itching at the trigger to go in, in fact the administration has made it abundantly clear that not only is military action a last result, the prime goal is to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, not to simply go in and blow things up for fun. My heart goes out to the Iraqi people for the near-genocide they endure on a daily basis.
Agree or disagree politically with my views, don't mod me down for a difference of opinion.
I do this all the time. I do newsletters for a variety of clients, actually going to the trenches in industrial environments. If I see something on a bulletin board, book, etc., that I want, I'll simply take a photo of it. I've also used it to take a photo of my screen in the event of a crash a few times (rare on my Mac, though). Most cameras have a macro mode for close-ups, that's what I'll do.
Well, maybe longer range, I'm not sure how digital works in that regard, but I know with AM, you can get extremely impressive range. I can recall numerous times driving in eastern Arizona at night and listening to KFAB, from OMAHA, NEBRASKA! That's nearly 1,000 miles. There's an AM station in Denver that, at night, advertises they're heard in something like 35 states, 2 Canadian provinces and Mexico!
But, I could see this end up like digital TV as well, where it's hindered with restrictions, requires expensive equipment, and will ultimately (likely) result in the FCC forcing it upon us. I can see five or ten years down the road when my beautiful vacuum-tube antique console stereo won't have any radio signals to pick up! Ultimately, sadly, this is probably a way for the big shots to control more and more of what we listen to and how we listen to it, not to mention it'll probably make obsolete the nice, expensive receiver I purchased recently (thinking I'd use it for years to come).
Why can't the cronies at the FCC get it through their thick, ugly skulls to LET THE MARKET dictate what happens! C'mon, it's basic economics. Look at satellite TV and digital cable. No government agency forced this upon us, but people buy it in droves! Granted, digital radio isn't being forced on us (yet), but it's probably on the horizon.
I sincerely hope this has the ramifications it deserves. The general public (read: stupid masses) truly needs to know about things like this, so we all continue to pressure RIAA and it's member companies where it hurts - our wallets. The sooner they understand they are in business to satisfy the desires of the CONSUMER, not the desires of a few extreme fat cats, we all win. Make the consumer happy and the fat cats (and us lowly consumers) all come out better.
Mr. Cerf, in light of the copyright battles, DMCA, legal battles, etc., surrounding organizations like RIAA, MPAA, etc., as well as the increasing popularity of broadband and wireless, what do you see the Internet as in five years?
Personally, I don't see it as a crime to simply find open networks. While that point is likely debatable, I've got a couple access points set up, and quite frankly it doesn't matter to me if anyone were to jump on and use the connection. Granted, if someone is constantly sucking up all my bandwidth, that's a different story. But, while I don't publicly flaunt these access points, it doesn't bother me if they're used. It's sort of a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" mentality. MY ISP is quite open when it comes to the types of traffic, so that's not a concern to me. Yeah, some idiot could download kiddie porn or something and it's probably muddy waters legally, but I treat people in general with trust, I don't look at everyone as a criminal because they're not.
From my understanding we would treat this just like any other unauthorized access into our system, and put an end to it as it arose.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
http://www.informationwave.net/news/20020819ria
I'm wondering if IN would ever consider something such as this.
-Andy Ringsmuth
andyring@inebraska.com
Internet Nebraska System Manager - manager@inebraska.com
6942
Quite frankly, I never watch TV, nor do I buy music. Sure, I'll rent DVDs from a local video place (LOCAL, not the big monopolies) fairly often, but it's extremely rare I ever watch broadcast television. And, the only music I buy is what I find on vinal at GoodWill. Of course I've got a CD player, but I'm interested in expanding my musical taste to Classical, and when you can pick up Bach on vinal for 50 cents, why not? RIAA sure as hell doesn't get anything off that.
I think, in cases such as this, you need to combat idiocy and absurdity with the same thing, otherwise no one will listen. The DMCA is one of the biggest Constitutional violations in a long time (aside from perhaps campaign finance, but that's a different story) and no one cares. Well, we do, and so does EFF, but the big boys don't care a whit. The people making the laws (Congressweasles who just do what they are paid to do) don't care and probably wouldn't know what a computer was if someone whacked them upside the head with a keyboard.
While I don't know for sure, I'd suspect it's to stretch out the revenue stream. They sell it in the US for half a year, then when sales slow because everyone who wants it has it, they release it elsewhere so they can keep raking in more money, as opposed to having it all come in basically in one chunk.
Also, for the trivia-minded, Lincoln was also near the top of the list to be nuked by the Commies during the cold war, as that particular runway could serve as a base for B-52s, etc.
The thing I don't like about Mach numbers is it's not consistent. Reason being, the speed of sound changes based on your altitude. Higher, where the air is thinner, sound travels slower. So Mach 7.6 at 50,000 feet is a lot slower than Mach 7.6 at sea level. Sure, it's a cool sounding number, but I wish we'd see these numbers represented in miles or kilometers per hour as well as a Mach speed. When the author of the article gave the comparison of a London-Sydney flight, (2 hours vs. 20), was he/she figuring that based on Mach 7.6 at sea level or at 75,000 feet? (not to metion it'll be decades before, if ever, we see passenger planes anywhere near this speed)
Read the article people! That 3-degree variation ended up LOWERING the temperature by 3 degress on account of air traffic, not raising it. So, if we're all worried about global warming, fly more!
Feds, get the hell out of my living room!
Maybe that's on account of people not wanting to fork over an arm and a leg for Office. Kinda hard to type with only one arm.