Yup I agree. IMHO "the cloud" is just the latest iteration of a theme that IBM, SUN (RIP) and others keep bringing out every decade or so. They want to centralize (from the user point of view) computing... "just get a dumb terminal and connect to our mainframe", "just get an X-Term and connect to our fast server", "just get a low power machine and run your apps on the web", "just get a little local storage and keep everything else 'in the cloud'"... all attempts to put control of your computing experience in "their" hands. And of course once they have control they also have control of you. The same thing happens internally in organizations where the IT dept. tries to centralize control of everything... sometimes that actually makes sense, sometimes it doesn't but it's almost always about centralizing power.
No thanks.
That's why I won't use Ubuntu One. Now if they had released it as a service you could easily install on one of your home machines so your desktops, netbooks, smartphones etc. could access a centralized store from your home... that would have been sweet.
Where I live one of the local radio stations broadcasts the locations of speed traps and stops for seatbelt checks (wearing seatbelts being mandatory here).
I don't know if the video will produce a 3D effect in the brain - I"m guessing yes or they wouldn't have released it (and remember the "artistic license" they mentioned). I do know that if you look through an actual telescope using a binocular eyepiece holder that what you perceive is significantly different than if you just look using one eye. To be clear that means a telescope with one optical train, i.e. what most people think of when they think telescope, and in the eyepiece holder there is an adapter to split the image to go to two eyepieces so the user can look with both eyes simultaneously. Apparently the brain does do something with the duplicated info, because people report seeing more detail etc. etc.
There are also binocular telescopes which are essentially a giant set of binoculars... again not enough separation for real depth perception but people report it as being an enhanced viewing experience. And of course people frequently use regular binoculars in amateur astronomy - it's one of the recommended things to do when starting out.
I wouldn't object too much to all the sweeteners in BBQ sauce - I'd just skip the sauce or make some without sweeteners. It is putting all those sweeteners (mostly, it seems, HFCS and Corn Syrup) in the sausages themselves... it's like not being able to buy a roast that isn't covered in candy apple coating!
I started paying attention to this a few years ago and it is amazing the number of goods that get HFCS, corn-syrup, fructose, etc. etc. I like BBQ sausages (not franks) and breakfast sausages and looking through three separate grocery chains I could only find one "flavor" of one brand that didn't have corn syrup - out of about 30 brand-flavor combinations I looked at. I mean please, if I want sugar with my meat I'll pour/sprinkle some on myself.
Well well. I should read my sig should I? And I should think about it should I? Congratulations, I think that's probably the most arrogant response I've had all year. I wonder, could it possibly be - just possibly - that you and the previous poster I responded to not only missed the point of my comment but have nothing worthwhile to offer? It sure seems like it.
A reasonable point but I'm not sure it is entirely complete. Plants absorb solar energy (what they don't reflect) and use it. The plants have absorbed a certain amount of energy some of which has turned into heat and some of which hasn't been turned into heat. If the process stops there then the addition of heat to the Earth has stopped there.
The amount of solar energy that we turn into heat depends on how much we try to use that energy. If we "capture" solar energy using solar panels, solar ovens or whatnot then we are converting that energy into heat (eventually). Or if we use the plants above in some way we turn more of that energy into heat.
For the sake of convenience assume that "plants" have the same reflectivity as solar electric panels, i.e. they each absorb the same amount of energy per m^2 and they each reflect the same amount of energy per m^2. If we use the electricity the solar panels create then we will at each stage increasingly turn it into heat. If we leave solar energy "in" the plants (and nothing else eats them, or they don't decay etc. etc.) then they are "fixing" a certain amount of that energy without turning it into heat.
Each attempt to use energy increases the amount of energy converted to heat... there's no way to beat thermodynamics, or even break even, although we can as you say deliberately reflect solar radiation back into space, but even that will have its limits. I wonder what they are?
Most of your electricity may come from burning fossil fuels. Most of mine (and everyone within 500 miles in my part of the country) comes from gravity. Amazingly enough we do have excess gravity, which could be used to produce even more electricity.
Our nation's energy needs, no matter how much we try to conserve, are going to continue to grow,
Every nation will experience growing energy needs unless they have zero or negative population growth. It's inevitable.
To play devil's advocate for a bit...
if all our power were provided through clean sources, what possible rationale could anyone have for wanting people to conserve energy at that point?
Because all energy use, no matter the source, eventually becomes heat at a 100% conversion factor. Regardless of the original source of the energy. Eventually the global use of energy will have to be limited to the amount of energy that the Earth is capable of radiating into space. That amount might be a lot but with unfettered population growth we will reach that limit someday, if we haven't already.
I don't know about where you live but where I am the government extracts profits from electricity production. They don't subsidize it although they do eliminate the financial rape that would occur if it was left as a private unfettered monopoly.
Why should they be mandating energy efficiency instead of energy consumption? For example, you get this many KwH/month use it how you like. Why does the government get to decide how I use my energy?
Also, since this is regional in nature, in [wherever you live] are they actually requiring efficiency or just banning incandescent bulbs in particular? If I can make an efficient incandescent bulb do I still get to market it?
Finally, maybe governments should set an example. Where I live I can go for a walk at 3am and anywhere on the block I could read a book without needing extra light. Partly it is the number of jillion watt porch lights left burning all night but mostly it is the insane number of street lights left burning from dusk until dawn, all of which have some significant component of horizontal and even vertical light dispersion (astronomers love this).
And yet your authoritative source (BMO) encourages people to use Interac email money transfers. That seems to imply they must think it's safe. And the user can always easily verify that the link does in fact point at https://gateway.certapay.com/
Since they don't charge for receiving it sounds perfect for a business and since the sender doesn't need to know what kind of account it is going to end up in, or the account #, it also sounds like you could just use a personal account to receive the money and then forward it (by whatever means) to your business account.
Ahhh that is good to know - mine (BMO) doesn't allow use by small business... hmmm at least not incorporated ones,,, I'll have to ask what their policy is on unincorporated small businesses, Might be a reason to change my bank. Which ones do you know of that allow this?
I don't know if they are in the US but in Canada HyperWallet performs a similar service. Also you can use Interac email money transfers to send money (having the advantage that the receiver has to have a bank account which means they have provided reasonable id etc. (tax man requires it) to get the account in the first place... so there is some sort of verifiable trail showing where the money went.
Yes. In Canada you can do an Interac email money transfer from most banks for about $1. If the receiver is with one of the major banks they can have the money in their account within minutes of receiving the email from the sender and if they are with one of the institutions not participating in the scheme then they can use a middleman-service and still get the money within IIRC 3 days. There is also HyperWallet which seems favoured by the credit unions and a few of the banks and they provide a similar service... in fact the fastest way to get money into your PayPal account from a Canadian bank is to use HyperWallet.
I used to use Western Union wire transfers but they have become insanely expensive IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup I agree. IMHO "the cloud" is just the latest iteration of a theme that IBM, SUN (RIP) and others keep bringing out every decade or so. They want to centralize (from the user point of view) computing... "just get a dumb terminal and connect to our mainframe", "just get an X-Term and connect to our fast server", "just get a low power machine and run your apps on the web", "just get a little local storage and keep everything else 'in the cloud'"... all attempts to put control of your computing experience in "their" hands. And of course once they have control they also have control of you. The same thing happens internally in organizations where the IT dept. tries to centralize control of everything... sometimes that actually makes sense, sometimes it doesn't but it's almost always about centralizing power.
No thanks.
That's why I won't use Ubuntu One. Now if they had released it as a service you could easily install on one of your home machines so your desktops, netbooks, smartphones etc. could access a centralized store from your home... that would have been sweet.
Where I live one of the local radio stations broadcasts the locations of speed traps and stops for seatbelt checks (wearing seatbelts being mandatory here).
I don't know if the video will produce a 3D effect in the brain - I"m guessing yes or they wouldn't have released it (and remember the "artistic license" they mentioned). I do know that if you look through an actual telescope using a binocular eyepiece holder that what you perceive is significantly different than if you just look using one eye. To be clear that means a telescope with one optical train, i.e. what most people think of when they think telescope, and in the eyepiece holder there is an adapter to split the image to go to two eyepieces so the user can look with both eyes simultaneously. Apparently the brain does do something with the duplicated info, because people report seeing more detail etc. etc.
There are also binocular telescopes which are essentially a giant set of binoculars... again not enough separation for real depth perception but people report it as being an enhanced viewing experience. And of course people frequently use regular binoculars in amateur astronomy - it's one of the recommended things to do when starting out.
I wouldn't object too much to all the sweeteners in BBQ sauce - I'd just skip the sauce or make some without sweeteners. It is putting all those sweeteners (mostly, it seems, HFCS and Corn Syrup) in the sausages themselves... it's like not being able to buy a roast that isn't covered in candy apple coating!
I started paying attention to this a few years ago and it is amazing the number of goods that get HFCS, corn-syrup, fructose, etc. etc. I like BBQ sausages (not franks) and breakfast sausages and looking through three separate grocery chains I could only find one "flavor" of one brand that didn't have corn syrup - out of about 30 brand-flavor combinations I looked at. I mean please, if I want sugar with my meat I'll pour/sprinkle some on myself.
Well well. I should read my sig should I? And I should think about it should I? Congratulations, I think that's probably the most arrogant response I've had all year. I wonder, could it possibly be - just possibly - that you and the previous poster I responded to not only missed the point of my comment but have nothing worthwhile to offer? It sure seems like it.
LOL, in lieu of any actual argument you make an ad hominem attack - it makes your particular comment so very ironic. Thanks.
A reasonable point but I'm not sure it is entirely complete. Plants absorb solar energy (what they don't reflect) and use it. The plants have absorbed a certain amount of energy some of which has turned into heat and some of which hasn't been turned into heat. If the process stops there then the addition of heat to the Earth has stopped there.
The amount of solar energy that we turn into heat depends on how much we try to use that energy. If we "capture" solar energy using solar panels, solar ovens or whatnot then we are converting that energy into heat (eventually). Or if we use the plants above in some way we turn more of that energy into heat.
For the sake of convenience assume that "plants" have the same reflectivity as solar electric panels, i.e. they each absorb the same amount of energy per m^2 and they each reflect the same amount of energy per m^2. If we use the electricity the solar panels create then we will at each stage increasingly turn it into heat. If we leave solar energy "in" the plants (and nothing else eats them, or they don't decay etc. etc.) then they are "fixing" a certain amount of that energy without turning it into heat.
Each attempt to use energy increases the amount of energy converted to heat... there's no way to beat thermodynamics, or even break even, although we can as you say deliberately reflect solar radiation back into space, but even that will have its limits. I wonder what they are?
Most of your electricity may come from burning fossil fuels. Most of mine (and everyone within 500 miles in my part of the country) comes from gravity. Amazingly enough we do have excess gravity, which could be used to produce even more electricity.
Grocery shopping trips in a Hummer might not be able to be regulated, but production of a Hummer sure can be.
Every nation will experience growing energy needs unless they have zero or negative population growth. It's inevitable.
To play devil's advocate for a bit...
Because all energy use, no matter the source, eventually becomes heat at a 100% conversion factor. Regardless of the original source of the energy. Eventually the global use of energy will have to be limited to the amount of energy that the Earth is capable of radiating into space. That amount might be a lot but with unfettered population growth we will reach that limit someday, if we haven't already.
So if they protect us from being raped does that mean they get to tell us how to have sex?
That raises a question - do incandescents have a shelf life? Does the vacuum slowly lose integrity in any way?
I don't know about where you live but where I am the government extracts profits from electricity production. They don't subsidize it although they do eliminate the financial rape that would occur if it was left as a private unfettered monopoly.
Why should they be mandating energy efficiency instead of energy consumption? For example, you get this many KwH/month use it how you like. Why does the government get to decide how I use my energy?
Also, since this is regional in nature, in [wherever you live] are they actually requiring efficiency or just banning incandescent bulbs in particular? If I can make an efficient incandescent bulb do I still get to market it?
Finally, maybe governments should set an example. Where I live I can go for a walk at 3am and anywhere on the block I could read a book without needing extra light. Partly it is the number of jillion watt porch lights left burning all night but mostly it is the insane number of street lights left burning from dusk until dawn, all of which have some significant component of horizontal and even vertical light dispersion (astronomers love this).
Plus banning candles means we have to burn something else in the colder months because the candles were also giving us some of the heat we need then.
Yup, gotta win that race to the bottom!
We'd better get cracking too because labour in the third world and China has already got a big head start!!!
I notice they are calling the AC100 the "Dynabook"... hope they are going to give credit to Alan Kay and Xerox Parc for that one.
And yet your authoritative source (BMO) encourages people to use Interac email money transfers. That seems to imply they must think it's safe. And the user can always easily verify that the link does in fact point at https://gateway.certapay.com/
Since they don't charge for receiving it sounds perfect for a business and since the sender doesn't need to know what kind of account it is going to end up in, or the account #, it also sounds like you could just use a personal account to receive the money and then forward it (by whatever means) to your business account.
Ahhh that is good to know - mine (BMO) doesn't allow use by small business... hmmm at least not incorporated ones,,, I'll have to ask what their policy is on unincorporated small businesses, Might be a reason to change my bank. Which ones do you know of that allow this?
Sure but that's a huge amount of what PayPal is used for. They don't forbid you using it to pay an individual that you had a private transaction with.
I don't know if they are in the US but in Canada HyperWallet performs a similar service. Also you can use Interac email money transfers to send money (having the advantage that the receiver has to have a bank account which means they have provided reasonable id etc. (tax man requires it) to get the account in the first place... so there is some sort of verifiable trail showing where the money went.
Yes. In Canada you can do an Interac email money transfer from most banks for about $1. If the receiver is with one of the major banks they can have the money in their account within minutes of receiving the email from the sender and if they are with one of the institutions not participating in the scheme then they can use a middleman-service and still get the money within IIRC 3 days. There is also HyperWallet which seems favoured by the credit unions and a few of the banks and they provide a similar service... in fact the fastest way to get money into your PayPal account from a Canadian bank is to use HyperWallet.
I used to use Western Union wire transfers but they have become insanely expensive IMHO.
Your misrepresentations and absurd assertions show you to be a troll. Sorry,you won't get me to waste my time on you. Have a life.
Yes, a perfect example of the "Frontman Fallacy" http://www.dadsnow.org/essay/ZOHRAB1.HTM.
And I'm not your "brother."