I don't know if anyone else has thought about this, or if it's even practical, but why not establish a court system for High-Tech cases? They could hear things like the **AA cases and examples such as this one, and would have judges that are actually paid to keep up with the changes in technology. In fact, I'm sure you would have no problem finding volunteers among the existing pool of judges that are actually aware of legal issues. So you take a pool of existing judges with knowledge of tech issues, ask them to keep their knowledge current (I'm sure they have aides to help them with this), and have any cases dealing with computer crime and/or civil cases involving the Internet go through this 'special' court system. It would not be any more lenient than the existing courts, however the parties involved would have a basic understanding of the issues that face high tech companies and individuals.
Of course, the hard part would be to determine which cases go before this court. For this, I propose that all cases have to be heard before the regular system, and if one or more of the parties involved wants to have it moved to the high tech court, both parties should have to make an argument as to why / why not. Thoughts, anyone?
I already have a nice filter installed. It's called me not letting them use the PC without my being within eyesight of the PC This is the approach that my parents took for many years (we were early adopters of the Internet, and as such parental controls were unheard of). It was remarkably effective. They even kept the computer that had the modem in a room with a locked door, so that we had to get them to unlock the door if we wanted to use the computer. There was another 'public' computer that wasn't online that we could use at any time, but if we needed to go online, it had to be done in the study under the supervision of one or more parent.
Agreed. Most ISPs already offer filtering software on a PC level, so why is there a need to enforce it on an ISP level? Why can we not just allow the parents to take control of their childrens' web viewing? They call them "Parental Controls", not "Government Controls". It all sounds a bit too sneaky for me. Why would they not mandate that all ISPs have to offer filtering software for the end user's PCs, in stead of making the ISP filter on their end?
Only once we learn that they can count backwards from four...that way they know how many mini-torpedoes they have left based on how many they've fired.
IMHO, the only way to prevent this sort of thing from happening is for parents to take responsibility for their children's actions and time online. When I was growing up, my parents were very controlling of what I was able to do online (not the the Internet was widespread - it was more limited to BBSs), and they continued this trend with the rest of my siblings (all younger). The end result was that we all had no issues with cyber-bullying, or any other online-related issues. Sure, we all got in trouble for trying to do things we weren't supposed to, but the end result was that we were better people because our parents took an interest in what we were doing and tried to make our time as constructive (read: not wasteful) as possible. So when I read something like this, all I can think is "What is a 13-year-old girl doing on the Internet?" When I was 13, if I were allowed to connect to an online service (I did use Compuserve at one point), I was under direct supervision. I was not allowed to keep my actions secret, and I am grateful for it!
I can't help but wonder about the costs. If they are paying $100 per baloon found, that's a huge chunk of change - for every baloon, 36,500/year (100/day, 24 hour float time). I would think that having tethered baloons would be a better idea, as they would not have to try to find them. Of course, you're still looking at occupying air space, and real estate on top of it if you secure them. Perhaps a better model would be to pay individuals $100/month to have a baloon tied out in their back yard, or some such.
Well now, that is informative. I'm glad to hear that it was likely this, rather than a virus, although concerned that someone other than me (with that amount of technical knowledge, my gf is non-technical) was using my computer.
Regardless, I will gladly take the benefit of having automatic updates over the cost of having a single advertisement a day for the free version; I don't mind the ads at all, and it's not browser-based ads, so I have no complaints.
Anyhow, removing the offending hosts entries solved my problem and I was off to the races again.
I understand your point, but this was clearly a targetted attack - no other servers were listed, the only entries in my hosts file were the ones I had inserted and the four AV servers. In addition, I do not use a mainstream AV program (i.e. Norton or McAfee) - I use Avira Antivir. It is primarily unheard of in North America, although it is, hands down, the best AV software I have ever used (or at least since the days of F-Prot for DOS). This is why it baffled me so much. If you were to write a worm to modify the hosts file, why not make it for one of the big-name AV programs? Or, as mentioned, why not make it for as many as you can think of?
I don't know how this would happen, but there was a brief time (about 3 days, before the software warned me it needed to update) that my antivirus software update servers were pointed to localhost using my hosts file. This was a bit disconcerting for me, given that there is no way someone should have been able to pull off that hack, without knowing exactly what AV software I use and have access to my hosts file. Funny thing is, it only affected one of the four computers on my network, all of which run the same AV software.
I will certainly not dispute that Vista is becoming the dominant desktop OS in a home environment, but on that same note, I have two younger siblings who both bought computers with Vista on them this year. My sister took hers back and got one with XP installed on it within a week. My brother went out and purchased a copy of Windows XP. While neither of them considered Linux (despite my attempts to convince them), they both preferred XP over Vista. In addition, with Microsoft touting the upcoming Windows 7 as a lighter OS than Vista, I personally don't see Vista taking over the market to the extent that XP did.
In addition, MS Operating Systems seem to have a skip-generation effect.
Windows 95 --> High adoption
Windows 98 --> High adoption
Windows ME --> Low adoption
Windows 2K --> Low adoption in home use, high in business
Windows XP --> High adoption
Windows Vista --> ???
Only time will tell. Perhaps by the time Windows 7 comes out, people will be accustomed to Vista, and will flock to it in droves. Personally, I'm looking forward to a windows that doesn't make my computer feel like a pepto bismol ad.
Don't sell Windows at all, and make most Linux PCs? That's got to be the best possible license price, right? The only problem with this logic is that 90% of the computer users who are purchasing a new PC do not want linux. They may not be overly thrilled about Windows, but at least it's somewhat familiar. You may be able to drop the cost of the system by 10% by only including Linux, but what good is that if you lose 90% of your sales? That's still a drop of 91% in revenue, by my math (and I'm a Financial Analyst by trade). So, there is a trade-off in using a free OS vs. using a commonly-accepted OS. Despite the fact that certain OEMs have recently started selling systems with Linux on them, the majority of their sales are for Windows machines because it is what people are most comfortable with. There are elements that do not change in their basic nature from XP to Vista that would be dramatically changed if you go from XP to any Linux distribution. I won't even begin to list the differences, anyone that has used both Linux and Windows knows full-well the differences between the two. For a person that has never touched a computer in their life, it could be easier to use Linux over Vista, but for someone that has only ever used Windows boxes, the leap between XP and Vista will always be smaller than the leap between XP and Linux.
The reason that OEMs appear to love Vista so much is that Microsoft forces it down their throats. Years ago I was a Microsoft OEM vendor. In order to obtain the best possible license price, you had to meet a certain quota. This was a hard-and-fast number of licenses that you had to sell to maintain your price point. So obviously the OEMs will want to sell as many copies of Vista as they can in order to maximize their profits. In addition to this, I also work in a technical support call center (although not as Tech Support). For the OEMs that my company handles, do you think that they want to have to train every new class on multiple operating systems? It's far cheaper for them to retrain the people who have XP and 2000 training, and then ONLY train the new agents in Vista and XP, and then drop XP completely when they are no longer supporting systems with XP installed on them. For the OEM, it pays them in the long run to force Vista down our throats.
To summarize:
Microsoft has quotas for license pricing that ensures OEMs will want to sell as many Vista licenses as possible
OEMs do not want to have to train new technical support representatives on any more operating systems than they absolutely have to, and are therefore quick to throw an older version aside in favour of the newer version, even if the older version causes fewer problems.
I read the article speech, and here are a few points of contention:
1. He states that the band (U2) is making more money than ever on live shows. Why not do more live shows then? Why bitch and moan about record sales, when your bread and butter is performances?
2. He promotes a DRM-mechanism called SIMRAN, and then states that he is an investor in the company that created it. Does this not seem self-serving to anyone else?
3. He claims that the Radiohead initiative "backfired". It strikes me that Radiohead received 100% of the profit, instead of 5% of the profit, from sales of their last album. I wonder if Radiohead thinks that this backfired?
4. From TFA:
Kids don't pay $25 a month for broadband just to share their photos, do their homework and email their pals. Hrm. It strikes me that the kids aren't the ones paying for the broadband access. It also strikes me that their parents are often the ones that shell out the money for the albums they do buy, be it from iTunes or from a record store. So does this mean that the parents should stop paying for the Internet? Or does it mean that the parents should stop paying for the albums? Or does this mean that we need a revolution in the music industry, one that focuses on live performances, with record sales being the gravy?
5. He argues that the ISPs that claim they should not have to police the Internet are "relying on outdated excuses from an earlier technological age" to avoid responsibility. Well, it strikes me that the police deal with Criminal offences, not civil. If we want to have anyone 'police' the Internet, should it not relate to criminal offences? The last time I checked, copyright infringement was a civil offense, not a criminal one.
6. From TFA:
A simple three strikes and you are out enforcement process will see all serial illegal uploaders who resist the law face a stark choice: change or lose your ISP subscription. Hrm. Well, how do you determine what a strike is? Is it using p2p software? Is it downloading a U2 song? Is it uploading a U2 song? How do we define a strike? For that matter, how do we determine when someone has violated these policies? With data encryption, is there any sure way to tell, aside from criminally hacking into the end user's computer to determine what files are being shared from their hard drives?
7. From TFA:
To me, prosecuting the customer is counter intuitive... these prosecutions have... [a] propaganda effect So, prosecuting the customer is counterintuitive, and have a propoganda effect. Hrm. Does this mean that he believes that we should not be prosecuting the customer? Nope, instead he goes on to say that it shows stealing music is wrong. I'm confused. Is he for or against suing his customer base?
8.
When the volume of illegal movie and music P2P activity was slowing down their network for legitimate users recently in California, Comcast were able to isolate and close down BitTorrent temporarily without difficulty. And then they got sued. 'Nuf said.
9. He goes on to say that ISPs can filter content easily, citing Google blocking BMW when BMW started 'playing games'. I think this guy needs to learn the difference between a search engine and an ISP!
10. Here is my last point. From TFA:
Cheap technology has made it easy to start a band and make music. Well, that same 'cheap technology' has allowed these bands to distribute their music and get heard, which most artists are quite happy with. The money is made from the live performances, and I will happily pay to see a good band live rather than listen to a mediocre band on a CD. I will even pay double, triple, or quadruple the price of a single CD to see one live show!
Well, all that being said, does anyone have any thoughts?
I must admit, when I first read the headline on this one I was baffled - I had no idea what it was. However, after reading the article, I have come to understand just what this means for the medical community. The article talks about using lasers to destroy harmful, and previously incurable, diseases from stored blood in our blood banks, including HIV. This is a tremendous step forward for the scientific and medical communities. Of course, they still have to test it, since it has only been used in a test-tube environment. In addition, I expect the drug companies to attempt to suppress this, as it takes away from their ability to market drugs to the afflicted.
One can only hope that this discovery is given all the attention it deserves. It is even more impressive that the inventors did not come up with the concept in a laboratory, but outside having a discussion about the need for more effective treatments than vaccines for viruses. Way to go, guys!
I likewise agree. On that note, it should be mentioned that, a few years ago, I moved to a small community in the Northwest Territories, and they only had 33.6 dialup there. During this time, despite the fact that I had a second phone line that was dedicated to this slow connection, I stopped visiting many of the web sites that I previously frequented. In fact, there were only two that I visited every day. One was slashdot, and the other was User Friendly. Slashdot kept me in touch with the tech community, something that was very needed in a community where there was a grand total of ONE technical person (aside from myself) in the whole town. That guy had to wear multiple hats - he was the IT guy for the oil company in town (the #1 employer), and he was the line tech for the phone company. He has moved on to bigger and better things, and now the new IT guy for that oil co is struggling just to maintain the status quo - he even begged me to move back and take over his job. Of course, to do that would be to give up my high speed Internet connection (AKA my lifeline), and that's not going to happen.
Anyhow, I digress. Slashdot has been a big part of my life. I first came across it when I was in high school, back in the early days, and am now on my second account (I lost the password on my first one, and no longer had the e-mail address) - and I love it. Slashdot has been my source for all IT related news for almost nine years now, and I wouldn't give it up for the world. Keep up the good work, guys, and we will all keep coming back!
I would also like to make a note that, in my younger days, I was involved in some minor Slashdot-related graffiti - I have on a few occasions written/. in bathroom stalls and various other places, a stark contrast to the graffiti that most people leave. I can only hope that this has encouraged some people to find out what the site was, and to increase the knowledge of the site. Unfortunately, I think it only contributed to the amount of work that the janitorial staff had to do. This isn't something that I continue to do, as I have grown into a much more respectable person than I was then, but I still am tempted any time I walk into a washroom that is covered in graffiti!
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a stupid move myself, but I think that in ten years we will, for the most part, be able to handle this sort of thing. At least in North America. I wouldn't dare try running something like this in Africa, for example, or (god forbid) Antarctica, but at least in North America we have a solid backbone, and hopefully it will expand faster than the increase in demand for web apps.
This is probably not the smartest thing that Adobe has ever come up with, but who thought in 1993 that PDF would become the standard for printable documents? (Open for debate, of course)
I hope that Adobe changes their perspective on this issue, but at the same time it could be a primary driver for technology leaps in the area of web applications and bandwidth availability. It would also, most likely, put an end to graphic designers working from home - I know the connection I have at work is faster than the connection I have at home!
I can understand this, but think about this: how fast will the Internet be in ten years? My ISP recently started offering an 18mbps HFC connection. I currently have an 8mbps HFC connection, which is fast enough for most anything today. If we see an increase in bandwidth demand, ISPs will be forced to expand their offering, or be left in the dust. It will no longer be a 10mbps pipe. Also, I would imagine that with this model, a lot of the processing will be done server-side, reducing the load on the connection.
I'd love to see how you're going to implement full-blown, resource-heavy photo editing in a browser.
You should take note of the timeframe. It is most likely that, in ten years, we will have computers that are more than powerful enough to run photoshop in a browser. I have a copy of Corel Draw 3 that I used to run on a 386, and I would never consider running Photoshop CS3 on that same 386. It all has to do with the level of technology that is available. Another great example of this is in the Office suite category. I used to run Office 4.3 on that same 386. A few years later, I got myself a Pentium 75, and installed Microsoft Office. It was blazing fast, and infinitely easier to use, however it lacked some features that future versions had. A couple of years after that, I switched to Office '97, and noticed right away that it consumed more resources, but had more features (including VBA, Microsof't greatest feat in the office software category). The software industry tends to play catch-up to the hardware industry (with the obvious exception of the gaming category). In ten years, I would expect that the current version of Photoshop would load in a fraction of the time it does now, and that the functions of the software would also perform with a similar increase in speed. So, with what we expect out of our computers now, I'm sure that by 2017 we will be able to run it within a browser and notice approximately the same processing times.
That being said, I think that this is just a ploy by Adobe to stop piracy, and for this I applaud them. It's certainly better than some copy protection methods I've seen! (That Office 97 I was talking about would only install on an OEM-installed version of Windows - there was a fix, but it was months after I purchased it. Good thing I was a system builder at the time!)
See, now that's why I need to do more research. When the Wii initially came out, it did not include the nunchuck, and now they do. I know that they didn't, because my brother bought one the day they came out, and was complaining bitterly about it. That being said, that makes the Wii even more attractive as a system to buy this Christmas. Of course, I would want to get a second controller and a classic controller, but I'm still going to need additional controllers when I buy my 360, too.
I'm inclined to agree that the Wii will pull ahead during the holiday season. How many parents will be buying a new console for their child for Christmas? Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I have recently been pricing out both a Wii and a 360 (the girlfriend wants both), and I noticed that they both have similar base prices (with the 360 still being more expensive), however the Wii is the only one that will work the way I want it to out of the box for that price. Buying a 360 requires the additional purchase of an external hard drive, and I see no point to buying the base system. That, in combination with Microsoft's incredibly large SKU catalogue, mean that it is rather difficult to decide which system to buy. The Wii, on the other hand, requires only the purchase of a nunchuck controller, and includes a game in the box. When confronted with this, how many parents will say "It's cheaper, it has a game, and it's designed for the whole family", and then purchase the Wii?
The real question, though, is will Nintendo have the supply to meet the demand for their system? I would imagine, given the comments so far, that they may be having supply issues. If they were able to meet demand, who would be in the lead?
Then again, you'll get the suckers like me who buy a Wii AND a 360, bowing to pressure from outside sources (namely my girlfriend). I guess Microsoft is going to get my money either way, but I won't contribute to them being in the sales lead!
And all this time we've been worried about an invasion by the Martians...when we should have really been worried about the invasion from the Saturnians!
I remember hearing years ago (I don't remember where) that reptiles, as they age, develop bony plates and spikes (a defensive mechanism as they slow down in age), and that they do not stop growing and changing until they die. Could it be that the more cold-blooded animals do not evolve as a species because they evolve as individuals?
Just a thought, and I'm no scientist, but this does seem feasible. Any thoughts?
I should make it clear that, by no means, do I believe that any scripture has the answers to the universe. I was raised in a very religous (Baptist) home, however I was always taught that we should question everything. This includes the conflicts between scriptures and known facts (i.e. Science). I have done some research into the origins of the scriptures that are used today, and they can all be traced back to myths that predate any form of religion currently practiced. As such, we need to factor in the changes in language and other factors. Such other factors could include the natural evolution of men, as well as scientific advances made over the course of several centuries. My parents are biblical literalists; I believe scriptures to be a good reference of morality. That being said, we have to accept the fact that myths originate in fact, and there is some shred of truth. Dragons could be dinosaurs. Unicorns could by Rhinocerouses. All discrepancies in the scripture can be attributed to human error if we so desire, however we need to realise that scientific facts, such as the existence of dinosaurs, may not be correctly translated from the source documents.
Regardless, it's wonderful that the scientific community has made this discovery, and I hope (and pray?) that they will continue to discover more and more about the history of our planet, unravelling the mysteries that are 'explained' by religion.
Fair enough, however can you deny that there is a certain amount of dependence on technology when operating a vehicle, be that a plane, or even a car? For example, if you're driving your car down the road, would you know if you were going too fast without the spedometer? Would you know your car was overheating without the temperature gague? Would you know you're running low on gas without the gas gauge?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if anyone else has thought about this, or if it's even practical, but why not establish a court system for High-Tech cases? They could hear things like the **AA cases and examples such as this one, and would have judges that are actually paid to keep up with the changes in technology. In fact, I'm sure you would have no problem finding volunteers among the existing pool of judges that are actually aware of legal issues. So you take a pool of existing judges with knowledge of tech issues, ask them to keep their knowledge current (I'm sure they have aides to help them with this), and have any cases dealing with computer crime and/or civil cases involving the Internet go through this 'special' court system. It would not be any more lenient than the existing courts, however the parties involved would have a basic understanding of the issues that face high tech companies and individuals. Of course, the hard part would be to determine which cases go before this court. For this, I propose that all cases have to be heard before the regular system, and if one or more of the parties involved wants to have it moved to the high tech court, both parties should have to make an argument as to why / why not. Thoughts, anyone?
Agreed. Most ISPs already offer filtering software on a PC level, so why is there a need to enforce it on an ISP level? Why can we not just allow the parents to take control of their childrens' web viewing? They call them "Parental Controls", not "Government Controls". It all sounds a bit too sneaky for me. Why would they not mandate that all ISPs have to offer filtering software for the end user's PCs, in stead of making the ISP filter on their end?
Only once we learn that they can count backwards from four...that way they know how many mini-torpedoes they have left based on how many they've fired.
IMHO, the only way to prevent this sort of thing from happening is for parents to take responsibility for their children's actions and time online. When I was growing up, my parents were very controlling of what I was able to do online (not the the Internet was widespread - it was more limited to BBSs), and they continued this trend with the rest of my siblings (all younger). The end result was that we all had no issues with cyber-bullying, or any other online-related issues. Sure, we all got in trouble for trying to do things we weren't supposed to, but the end result was that we were better people because our parents took an interest in what we were doing and tried to make our time as constructive (read: not wasteful) as possible. So when I read something like this, all I can think is "What is a 13-year-old girl doing on the Internet?" When I was 13, if I were allowed to connect to an online service (I did use Compuserve at one point), I was under direct supervision. I was not allowed to keep my actions secret, and I am grateful for it!
I can't help but wonder about the costs. If they are paying $100 per baloon found, that's a huge chunk of change - for every baloon, 36,500/year (100/day, 24 hour float time). I would think that having tethered baloons would be a better idea, as they would not have to try to find them. Of course, you're still looking at occupying air space, and real estate on top of it if you secure them. Perhaps a better model would be to pay individuals $100/month to have a baloon tied out in their back yard, or some such.
Well now, that is informative. I'm glad to hear that it was likely this, rather than a virus, although concerned that someone other than me (with that amount of technical knowledge, my gf is non-technical) was using my computer. Regardless, I will gladly take the benefit of having automatic updates over the cost of having a single advertisement a day for the free version; I don't mind the ads at all, and it's not browser-based ads, so I have no complaints. Anyhow, removing the offending hosts entries solved my problem and I was off to the races again.
I understand your point, but this was clearly a targetted attack - no other servers were listed, the only entries in my hosts file were the ones I had inserted and the four AV servers. In addition, I do not use a mainstream AV program (i.e. Norton or McAfee) - I use Avira Antivir. It is primarily unheard of in North America, although it is, hands down, the best AV software I have ever used (or at least since the days of F-Prot for DOS). This is why it baffled me so much. If you were to write a worm to modify the hosts file, why not make it for one of the big-name AV programs? Or, as mentioned, why not make it for as many as you can think of?
I don't know how this would happen, but there was a brief time (about 3 days, before the software warned me it needed to update) that my antivirus software update servers were pointed to localhost using my hosts file. This was a bit disconcerting for me, given that there is no way someone should have been able to pull off that hack, without knowing exactly what AV software I use and have access to my hosts file. Funny thing is, it only affected one of the four computers on my network, all of which run the same AV software.
I will certainly not dispute that Vista is becoming the dominant desktop OS in a home environment, but on that same note, I have two younger siblings who both bought computers with Vista on them this year. My sister took hers back and got one with XP installed on it within a week. My brother went out and purchased a copy of Windows XP. While neither of them considered Linux (despite my attempts to convince them), they both preferred XP over Vista. In addition, with Microsoft touting the upcoming Windows 7 as a lighter OS than Vista, I personally don't see Vista taking over the market to the extent that XP did.
In addition, MS Operating Systems seem to have a skip-generation effect.
Windows 95 --> High adoption
Windows 98 --> High adoption
Windows ME --> Low adoption
Windows 2K --> Low adoption in home use, high in business
Windows XP --> High adoption
Windows Vista --> ???
Only time will tell. Perhaps by the time Windows 7 comes out, people will be accustomed to Vista, and will flock to it in droves. Personally, I'm looking forward to a windows that doesn't make my computer feel like a pepto bismol ad.
To summarize:
I read the article speech, and here are a few points of contention:
1. He states that the band (U2) is making more money than ever on live shows. Why not do more live shows then? Why bitch and moan about record sales, when your bread and butter is performances?
2. He promotes a DRM-mechanism called SIMRAN, and then states that he is an investor in the company that created it. Does this not seem self-serving to anyone else?
3. He claims that the Radiohead initiative "backfired". It strikes me that Radiohead received 100% of the profit, instead of 5% of the profit, from sales of their last album. I wonder if Radiohead thinks that this backfired?
4. From TFA:
Kids don't pay $25 a month for broadband just to share their photos, do their homework and email their pals. Hrm. It strikes me that the kids aren't the ones paying for the broadband access. It also strikes me that their parents are often the ones that shell out the money for the albums they do buy, be it from iTunes or from a record store. So does this mean that the parents should stop paying for the Internet? Or does it mean that the parents should stop paying for the albums? Or does this mean that we need a revolution in the music industry, one that focuses on live performances, with record sales being the gravy?5. He argues that the ISPs that claim they should not have to police the Internet are "relying on outdated excuses from an earlier technological age" to avoid responsibility. Well, it strikes me that the police deal with Criminal offences, not civil. If we want to have anyone 'police' the Internet, should it not relate to criminal offences? The last time I checked, copyright infringement was a civil offense, not a criminal one.
6. From TFA:
A simple three strikes and you are out enforcement process will see all serial illegal uploaders who resist the law face a stark choice: change or lose your ISP subscription. Hrm. Well, how do you determine what a strike is? Is it using p2p software? Is it downloading a U2 song? Is it uploading a U2 song? How do we define a strike? For that matter, how do we determine when someone has violated these policies? With data encryption, is there any sure way to tell, aside from criminally hacking into the end user's computer to determine what files are being shared from their hard drives?7. From TFA:
To me, prosecuting the customer is counter intuitive8.
When the volume of illegal movie and music P2P activity was slowing down their network for legitimate users recently in California, Comcast were able to isolate and close down BitTorrent temporarily without difficulty. And then they got sued. 'Nuf said.9. He goes on to say that ISPs can filter content easily, citing Google blocking BMW when BMW started 'playing games'. I think this guy needs to learn the difference between a search engine and an ISP!
10. Here is my last point. From TFA:
Cheap technology has made it easy to start a band and make music. Well, that same 'cheap technology' has allowed these bands to distribute their music and get heard, which most artists are quite happy with. The money is made from the live performances, and I will happily pay to see a good band live rather than listen to a mediocre band on a CD. I will even pay double, triple, or quadruple the price of a single CD to see one live show!Well, all that being said, does anyone have any thoughts?
I must admit, when I first read the headline on this one I was baffled - I had no idea what it was. However, after reading the article, I have come to understand just what this means for the medical community. The article talks about using lasers to destroy harmful, and previously incurable, diseases from stored blood in our blood banks, including HIV. This is a tremendous step forward for the scientific and medical communities. Of course, they still have to test it, since it has only been used in a test-tube environment. In addition, I expect the drug companies to attempt to suppress this, as it takes away from their ability to market drugs to the afflicted.
One can only hope that this discovery is given all the attention it deserves. It is even more impressive that the inventors did not come up with the concept in a laboratory, but outside having a discussion about the need for more effective treatments than vaccines for viruses. Way to go, guys!
I likewise agree. On that note, it should be mentioned that, a few years ago, I moved to a small community in the Northwest Territories, and they only had 33.6 dialup there. During this time, despite the fact that I had a second phone line that was dedicated to this slow connection, I stopped visiting many of the web sites that I previously frequented. In fact, there were only two that I visited every day. One was slashdot, and the other was User Friendly. Slashdot kept me in touch with the tech community, something that was very needed in a community where there was a grand total of ONE technical person (aside from myself) in the whole town. That guy had to wear multiple hats - he was the IT guy for the oil company in town (the #1 employer), and he was the line tech for the phone company. He has moved on to bigger and better things, and now the new IT guy for that oil co is struggling just to maintain the status quo - he even begged me to move back and take over his job. Of course, to do that would be to give up my high speed Internet connection (AKA my lifeline), and that's not going to happen.
/. in bathroom stalls and various other places, a stark contrast to the graffiti that most people leave. I can only hope that this has encouraged some people to find out what the site was, and to increase the knowledge of the site. Unfortunately, I think it only contributed to the amount of work that the janitorial staff had to do. This isn't something that I continue to do, as I have grown into a much more respectable person than I was then, but I still am tempted any time I walk into a washroom that is covered in graffiti!
Anyhow, I digress. Slashdot has been a big part of my life. I first came across it when I was in high school, back in the early days, and am now on my second account (I lost the password on my first one, and no longer had the e-mail address) - and I love it. Slashdot has been my source for all IT related news for almost nine years now, and I wouldn't give it up for the world. Keep up the good work, guys, and we will all keep coming back!
I would also like to make a note that, in my younger days, I was involved in some minor Slashdot-related graffiti - I have on a few occasions written
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a stupid move myself, but I think that in ten years we will, for the most part, be able to handle this sort of thing. At least in North America. I wouldn't dare try running something like this in Africa, for example, or (god forbid) Antarctica, but at least in North America we have a solid backbone, and hopefully it will expand faster than the increase in demand for web apps.
This is probably not the smartest thing that Adobe has ever come up with, but who thought in 1993 that PDF would become the standard for printable documents? (Open for debate, of course)
I hope that Adobe changes their perspective on this issue, but at the same time it could be a primary driver for technology leaps in the area of web applications and bandwidth availability. It would also, most likely, put an end to graphic designers working from home - I know the connection I have at work is faster than the connection I have at home!
I can understand this, but think about this: how fast will the Internet be in ten years? My ISP recently started offering an 18mbps HFC connection. I currently have an 8mbps HFC connection, which is fast enough for most anything today. If we see an increase in bandwidth demand, ISPs will be forced to expand their offering, or be left in the dust. It will no longer be a 10mbps pipe. Also, I would imagine that with this model, a lot of the processing will be done server-side, reducing the load on the connection.
Just my POV, though.
You should take note of the timeframe. It is most likely that, in ten years, we will have computers that are more than powerful enough to run photoshop in a browser. I have a copy of Corel Draw 3 that I used to run on a 386, and I would never consider running Photoshop CS3 on that same 386. It all has to do with the level of technology that is available. Another great example of this is in the Office suite category. I used to run Office 4.3 on that same 386. A few years later, I got myself a Pentium 75, and installed Microsoft Office. It was blazing fast, and infinitely easier to use, however it lacked some features that future versions had. A couple of years after that, I switched to Office '97, and noticed right away that it consumed more resources, but had more features (including VBA, Microsof't greatest feat in the office software category). The software industry tends to play catch-up to the hardware industry (with the obvious exception of the gaming category). In ten years, I would expect that the current version of Photoshop would load in a fraction of the time it does now, and that the functions of the software would also perform with a similar increase in speed. So, with what we expect out of our computers now, I'm sure that by 2017 we will be able to run it within a browser and notice approximately the same processing times.
That being said, I think that this is just a ploy by Adobe to stop piracy, and for this I applaud them. It's certainly better than some copy protection methods I've seen! (That Office 97 I was talking about would only install on an OEM-installed version of Windows - there was a fix, but it was months after I purchased it. Good thing I was a system builder at the time!)
See, now that's why I need to do more research. When the Wii initially came out, it did not include the nunchuck, and now they do. I know that they didn't, because my brother bought one the day they came out, and was complaining bitterly about it. That being said, that makes the Wii even more attractive as a system to buy this Christmas. Of course, I would want to get a second controller and a classic controller, but I'm still going to need additional controllers when I buy my 360, too.
I'm inclined to agree that the Wii will pull ahead during the holiday season. How many parents will be buying a new console for their child for Christmas? Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I have recently been pricing out both a Wii and a 360 (the girlfriend wants both), and I noticed that they both have similar base prices (with the 360 still being more expensive), however the Wii is the only one that will work the way I want it to out of the box for that price. Buying a 360 requires the additional purchase of an external hard drive, and I see no point to buying the base system. That, in combination with Microsoft's incredibly large SKU catalogue, mean that it is rather difficult to decide which system to buy. The Wii, on the other hand, requires only the purchase of a nunchuck controller, and includes a game in the box. When confronted with this, how many parents will say "It's cheaper, it has a game, and it's designed for the whole family", and then purchase the Wii?
The real question, though, is will Nintendo have the supply to meet the demand for their system? I would imagine, given the comments so far, that they may be having supply issues. If they were able to meet demand, who would be in the lead?
Then again, you'll get the suckers like me who buy a Wii AND a 360, bowing to pressure from outside sources (namely my girlfriend). I guess Microsoft is going to get my money either way, but I won't contribute to them being in the sales lead!
And all this time we've been worried about an invasion by the Martians...when we should have really been worried about the invasion from the Saturnians!
I remember hearing years ago (I don't remember where) that reptiles, as they age, develop bony plates and spikes (a defensive mechanism as they slow down in age), and that they do not stop growing and changing until they die. Could it be that the more cold-blooded animals do not evolve as a species because they evolve as individuals?
Just a thought, and I'm no scientist, but this does seem feasible. Any thoughts?
I should make it clear that, by no means, do I believe that any scripture has the answers to the universe. I was raised in a very religous (Baptist) home, however I was always taught that we should question everything. This includes the conflicts between scriptures and known facts (i.e. Science). I have done some research into the origins of the scriptures that are used today, and they can all be traced back to myths that predate any form of religion currently practiced. As such, we need to factor in the changes in language and other factors. Such other factors could include the natural evolution of men, as well as scientific advances made over the course of several centuries. My parents are biblical literalists; I believe scriptures to be a good reference of morality. That being said, we have to accept the fact that myths originate in fact, and there is some shred of truth. Dragons could be dinosaurs. Unicorns could by Rhinocerouses. All discrepancies in the scripture can be attributed to human error if we so desire, however we need to realise that scientific facts, such as the existence of dinosaurs, may not be correctly translated from the source documents. Regardless, it's wonderful that the scientific community has made this discovery, and I hope (and pray?) that they will continue to discover more and more about the history of our planet, unravelling the mysteries that are 'explained' by religion.
I bet NASA is wishing they had this ten years ago!
Fair enough, however can you deny that there is a certain amount of dependence on technology when operating a vehicle, be that a plane, or even a car? For example, if you're driving your car down the road, would you know if you were going too fast without the spedometer? Would you know your car was overheating without the temperature gague? Would you know you're running low on gas without the gas gauge?