So say Bob makes 50,000 dollars. This entry was put in the table when he was hired and contains bob's employee record id, bob's salary, the date, and the audit crap. That's it. Then when bob gets a raise to 55,000 there is another simple entry, id, salary, date, audit crap. Etc, etc. All your data is there, you can easily retrieve the history, you know when the changes were made and by whom.
Let's say Bob was hired 20000101 with a salary of $50000. Bob get raise 20050101 to $55000. Bob gets fired 20060606, Bob gets hired again 20070501 with the salary $10000. What is Bob's accumulated salary and how much has he earned on average every month? What was the average salary of the whole company in 1999? How do you prevent someone from inserting a row stating that Bob's salary was $99000 in 20070101?
The answer to all of the above is some very complicated queries, stored procedures and triggers. When you are dealing with temporal data, the relational model doesn't fit anymore. You need something else and better.
I wonder where to draw the line between truly normal price decreases, and jacking the price on something you know will sell like hotcakes...I'm not all that business-savvy, so feel free to educate me if there is indeed such a line.
Supply, demand. If the stupid iPhone was selling like hotcakes right now (high supply), then you wouldn't lower the price with $200 because that is the same as losing $200 on every product sold. Therefore, not as many people wants an iPhone right now (low demand) and earning $200 less is better than not earning anything at all. Something is fishy!
The sane thing to me seems to be to just skip the oltp step since the data contained therein is a strict subset of the data in the warehouse. Let's say you design a relation database for a company. You have a table with Employees and another with their Positions, a Project table and so on like the orthodox relational model tells you to. Which works great until someone quits, then you have a problem.
Naturally, you don't want to delete that person because then you lose lots of important archival data. So you introduce two fields in the Employee table which contains the dates when the employee started and quitted. You also need to do the same for almost all other data. If Bob gets a raise, you don't want to simply update his salary field, you want the data to state that Bob had salary $x during the dates $A-$B and $y during the dates $B-$C. So you need even more fields for validity intervals to fully describe your data. It gets incredibly messy, all your queries becomes really complicated and you need to employ stored procedures and triggers to keep your data intact. The relational model breaks down.
What you need at this point, is some kind of "event based data storage." Like "Bob got a 5% raise 20070801" or "Company address changed from $x to $y 20001010." For these kinds of data, a warehouse is much better suited. A column based storage would probably also be much faster than a row based for it.
Actually, an overarching broadband fee which would be shared out among copyright holders
might be the most sensible way to deal with this whole mess. And not just in sweden.
Yes, it is a good idea and it does work. The thing is that in Sweden, we already have these fees in place. We have Svenska Filminstitutet, Film i Väst, subsidies from the EU, Kulturrådet and dozens of other regional and national institutions in place to support movie makers, music artists and writers. We pay lots of money in taxes to subsidize the movie industry because it is very hard to make profitable movies in Swedish. Each movie gets many millions in subsidizes from the state which is the only reason why people still make movies here.
That's fine by me, quality often not profitable. But it is not ok when these same people decide to turn the backs on the people that, in reality, feed them and demand even more money. I think it is my moral right to download every Swedish movie I want, for free, I already payed for it. There should be some kind of rule that each company that complains about file sharers is banned from receiving subsidies, see how long that lasts.
What has actually happened was very different. My great-grandfather's 7 out of 12 children have died in Ukraine in the beginning of 1930th from hunger along with 30 million other people.
Why do you have to make up stuff like this? The population of Ukraine was in 1927 32 million, so it is completely unimaginable that 30 million of them died. Historians place the death toll to anywhere between 2 to 7 million, not 30. Also note that while Stalin's collectivization program undoubtedly catalyzed the famine, famines occured regularily in Ukraine due to poor harvests (leading to millions in deaths).
If the low intellectual tone of some of the comments in this thread are anything to go by, I would say that there are virtually no women using Slashdot, and to be honest, I can see why...
Are you actually trying to argue that women are NOT more social than men? Yeah, the comments about yapping, gabbing, catty women are low-brow. That doesn't invalidate the basic point that women are more inclined to gossip. It's not sexist, it's truth. In other news, men have penises.
But what the fuck you literal dickhead. Slashdot is a blog which you are reading and from a quick glance at your userpage reveails, have written 3829 comments to. That makes you a pretty "chatty" person and, unless you are a female, does "invalidate the basic point." There are over a million other mostly male users on Slashdot wasting away their days reading and writing stupid comments, and if that doesn't prove that men are just as yapping, gabbing and chatty as women then I don't know what.
But somehow, writing comments on Slashdot is considered equivalent to partaking in a high-brow, intellectual conversation so Slashdot is "good" while discussing pie recipes on some blog is considered yappy. Well, check this stupid article and the fucking morons posting their boring gender-stereotyping jokes that they probably learnt from a porno-mag.
From the research that has been done in gender differences, very few conclusions can be drawn. Yes, men are in general better at chess and Sudoku while females are better in Scrabble and crossword solving, but the facts ends there. You cannot from the available evidence try and conclude that women are more chatty - the facts are just no there.
Consider one very common mis-feature. The address book limitations on phones with many MB of memory exist for one reason and one reason only: as a lever to up-sell people to a more expensive phone model.
Truly incorrect. Address book limitations exist because some manufacturers implements their address books using O(n) algorithms and/or using databases rather than using more efficient methods. Type-ahead search is to slow when you are using linear search and have 1000+ items. A binary search tree is more efficient but there probably wasn't enough time and/or the developers didn't anticipate people having more than 200 contacts.
Guess you were payed to little. The thing that most techies don't seem to realize is that how competent you are perceived to be is directly proportional to your salary. Having a consultant that costs 50$/hour doing crap work might not be so bad. But a boss would think twice about assigning a 500$/hour consultant to do such a job even if there is nothing else worthwhile to do. Money equals respect, the more you make the less shit you have to take.
China will be self-sufficient. Does China have expansionist of imperialist aims? Would they be interested in conquering the USA and enslaving us while stealing our resources? The way we've been acting, we probably deserve it.
How can they be self-sufficient when their economy is totally dependent on exports? They don't have a significant home market so if some countries decided not to buy from them or add trade tariffs, they would be pretty much screwed. One billion DVD players is only worth something if someone buys them. On the other hand, the way the US is going, they are losing their own market due to reduced purchasing power of the population and increasing economic inequalities. That is, it is much more a threat to the US economy that the standards of living is increasing in China because when enough Chinese can afford to buy DVD players, they don't need to sell them to the West.
The US is actually perfect proof of why your socialist ideas don't work everywhere.
We *do* pay telecoms to build our infrastructure out of our supposedly "low" (they're actually pretty average unless you're rich and can dodge them or poor and mostly-exempt) taxes. We provide them with *billions* in tax breaks and subsidies.
And what do they do?
Put it in marketing and/or pocket it and run away.
It's not a Socialist idea to think that the state should be responsible to provide basic services (yes, broadband is becoming a "basic service") to its citizen. I think it is just common sense. Neither is it a Socialist idea to throw the public's money at private enterprises and hope that they will do what you want them to. There are other options. If the US took home one division troops from Iraq and retrofitted them as cable diggers, you could have 100MB fiber to each and every household in a matter of months.
Mugshot seem to be what he's looking for. It is an open, free software, community, meta site. It tries to create a interconnect all different community sites and place them under one roof so to say. With one centralized user management system. Seems like a very, very ambitious project because it is damn hard to anticipate human behaviour and social patterns. In the broad sense, an internet community is everything from mailing lists to MySpace to Slashdot to various forums and even BitTorrent trackers.
It is all just endless streams of bull shit. Consider how much it cost to do the original copper telephone network, which contrary to the bull was far, far more expensive they any new fibre network and guess what the population has risen since then quite a lot in fact, so not only is copper tech more expensive but it had to be done with a far far lower population density, it had to be done with far more primitive technology, it had to be done using backward switching technology, telephone exchanges as major buildings and even the local was not a box but a whole building. Think each and every copper connection had to have it own line, it's own independent bit of wire, nothing like fibre at all with thousands of connections down the same line.
Key is who built it. Building a network with 99.99% penetration isn't economically defensible, you don't make any money providing fibre to a single family 100 km from the nearest town. It is an investment that it takes 50 years to become profitable so no company would ever do that. However, a fibre network to each household benefits society in a number of ways, just like telephone lines do. Which is why it was state owned entities that built the telephone network. But in the US, it is somehow expected of the cable companies to provide a completely covering network. So strong is the American belief in Capitalism that companies are expected to do things for the greater good of society even if they cannot profit from it.
The world just doesn't work that way. But in the US they have choosen the low taxes and each man for himself way and crappy infrastructure is the price they pay.
What's the point of bringing it up in an election debate? Aside from educational funding, stance on evolution really isn't even on my radar for politicians.
I assume the point is to weed out the Dubyas. You don't want someone who can't immidiately answer what ten squared is. You don't want a candidate that is to dumb to understand evolution. What politician is most likely to act appropriately on reports that details people dying because they can't afford health insurance, and who is most likely to dismiss it as liberal-communist kook propaganda? The one who denies evolution or the one who does not?
Hear hear. The same kind of regression is causing havoc for thousands of Feisty users. A bug in acpi on Linux > 2.6.17 causes knotify to steal 100% cpu after linux has run for a little while. I don't think even Microsoft could leave such a regression unfixed for so long.
Agreed. Their testing methods is pretty weird and their results doesn't show anything it all. Caviar SE16 is really fast on one test and then slow at another. Instead of benchmarking how fast Doom 3 loads a level or how fast Windows boots, it would have been much more interesting to see some low-level performance tests. How fast can the disk write 1k bytes to 1000 10k bytes spread out on the disk when it is full? Synchronously? Test the same thing for reads. Such tests would have tested the seek times for the disks in different scenarios which is much more interesting than reading or writing huge chunks of data.
"Even if it FAILS, it's technology, features, etc. will be copied into many other phones."
This is a very good point. Even though the above article was obviously written by an iPhone fanboi of the nth degree, you must admire Apple for creating such a media marketing blitz to drive technology. Tech companies want to emulate and then we only reap the benefits. I bought a Creative Zen instead of an iPhone, but I admire Apple for pushing the competition.
That is certainly the optimists view. What tech companies want is profit, and Apple certainly has generated quite a bit of that, so yes, other companies will definitely imitate Apple. But it is not technological innovation that is selling the iPhone, it is marketing. Apple spent hundreds of millions of dollars before the iPhone was launched trying to hype its phone and they are probably spending even more now when it is on the market.
That is the lession other mobile phone manufacturers will learn from Apple. Expect many more lame attempts to create "buzz" in the future. People, even technology enthusiasts, are sheep and it works. Paying Madonna, Brad Pitt or whatever the cool dudes are called these days millions to flash your phone is a much better investment than paying those millions to Q&A engineers. And that is what we're seeing with the iPhone. The software is of beta quality and updates are pushed through iTunes. Safari crashes frequently. Well I have a three year old Sony Ericsson K608i phone whose browser has never ever crashed and I have never had to install any stupid update.
Well, it is pretty obvious that they were using touch screen keyboards in Star Trek: TNG, they even blip when you press them. Not sure if it counts as prior art since the setting is the 24th century, but still.
How can you not know that batteries can be recycled? Do you live in a third world country or something where your government is to poor to provide a battery recycling program or something? Here is how it works, when your battery doesn't work anymore, you do not throw it in the forest or dump it in a lake. Instead, you put it in a some form of container, like this. When that container is full, it is then transported to a "battery recycling center" where the batteries are dismantled. The different alloys in the batteries are melted into their pure metallic form which are then extracted. The metals are then used to manufacture new batteries.
It would probably help if you didn't say things like "The racist Jews at The New York Times simply desire to preserve what little credibility they have remaining..."
It is not racist to claim that a group of people not primarily selected by their race, is racist as you imply. If a high-profile paper in Sweden claimed that Sweden was the homeland for the aryans, then that would be racist. It would select one race (or ethnicity) -- indegenous, non-Saami, blue-eyed blonde Swedes -- and exclude other ethnicities. On the other hand, stating that Sweden is the homeland for the Vikings would probably be ok. Vikings aren't an ethnicity (not anymore atleast) and it would be just as easy for a Vietnamese or Egyptian to become a real "Viking" as for anyone else.
But what journalists and editors at New York Times and other American newspapers claim, is that Israel is the homeland for the Jews. That is definitely racist. Jew is a specific ethnicity and so the claim excludes other ethnicities in favor of that one. Pretending that that is not racism is just hypocrisy and the only reason why it is accepted is because the Israeli-American lobby is very strong. It is exactly the same kind of Nationalistic thinking that was so popular in Europe 100 years ago. Each nation was a homeland for some ethnicity and other ethnicities in that nation was a problem to be dealt with...
I was operating a high powered transmitter in a small village with lousy tv reception. One of the locals came down to the site and complained to me that my equipment was interfering with his tv. I asked him if it was happening right now. He said yes and we went up to his house to check out the symptoms. His tv reception was quite noisy. When he drove me back to the transmitter I asked him to come in and take a look. "See that big switch there. It's the main power. It's turned off."
I have heard that story a few dozen times before in different incarnations. Ignorant villagers complaining about dangerous radiowaves, technician proving that the equipment is off. In fact, I've heard it so many times that I bet it is an urban legend. Always without specific details such as when it happened, where it happened and who was involved. So unless you or someone else can provide those crucial details for the story, I call bullshit.
Ah....the GP gave me the impression that even the basic foodstuffs came with HFCS in them in the US, which would be just plain deceitful and leave even those who care about what they eat with no choice. If you're buying 'milk drinks' to put on your cornflakes or in your tea then you deserve everything you get...
It very much depends on what you define as basic foodstuff. If you're talking about raw, bloody meat then hopefully, not much sugar has been added (however water might have, to increase the weight of the meat). However, if you are talking about meatballs, hamburgers, pork chops, weiners, sausages, smoked or salted ham, liver pate, bacon or any other kind of processed meat product, then sugar is definitely added.
The producers, naturally, claim that it is made to increase the flavor of the meat. Which is true, but the problem is that sugar is tightly tied to the brains reward system. Sweets give the same kind of reaction in the brain as crack. The easiest way to make food taste better is to add sugar to it. Everyone who cooks knows that, just add more butter/whipped cream/sugar/chocolate/what have you and your meal will taste better. The producers knows that too, if your competitor adds 1g sugar/100g meat, just add 2 grammes/100g meat and more consumers will prefer your product. It leads to a sugary arms race in which the sweetest product wins.
Your argument falls down because there is no possible way to avoid the sugar. It is added to everything from meat, milk, coffee to bread. So you get fat of things you shouldn't get fat of and there is no way to know because typically American foodstuff doesn't have to declare how much sugar they contain like in more regulated countries.
Slashdot Mirror
So say Bob makes 50,000 dollars. This entry was put in the table when he was hired and contains bob's employee record id, bob's salary, the date, and the audit crap. That's it. Then when bob gets a raise to 55,000 there is another simple entry, id, salary, date, audit crap. Etc, etc. All your data is there, you can easily retrieve the history, you know when the changes were made and by whom.
Let's say Bob was hired 20000101 with a salary of $50000. Bob get raise 20050101 to $55000. Bob gets fired 20060606, Bob gets hired again 20070501 with the salary $10000. What is Bob's accumulated salary and how much has he earned on average every month? What was the average salary of the whole company in 1999? How do you prevent someone from inserting a row stating that Bob's salary was $99000 in 20070101?
The answer to all of the above is some very complicated queries, stored procedures and triggers. When you are dealing with temporal data, the relational model doesn't fit anymore. You need something else and better.
I wonder where to draw the line between truly normal price decreases, and jacking the price on something you know will sell like hotcakes...I'm not all that business-savvy, so feel free to educate me if there is indeed such a line.
Supply, demand. If the stupid iPhone was selling like hotcakes right now (high supply), then you wouldn't lower the price with $200 because that is the same as losing $200 on every product sold. Therefore, not as many people wants an iPhone right now (low demand) and earning $200 less is better than not earning anything at all. Something is fishy!
The sane thing to me seems to be to just skip the oltp step since the data contained therein is a strict subset of the data in the warehouse. Let's say you design a relation database for a company. You have a table with Employees and another with their Positions, a Project table and so on like the orthodox relational model tells you to. Which works great until someone quits, then you have a problem.
Naturally, you don't want to delete that person because then you lose lots of important archival data. So you introduce two fields in the Employee table which contains the dates when the employee started and quitted. You also need to do the same for almost all other data. If Bob gets a raise, you don't want to simply update his salary field, you want the data to state that Bob had salary $x during the dates $A-$B and $y during the dates $B-$C. So you need even more fields for validity intervals to fully describe your data. It gets incredibly messy, all your queries becomes really complicated and you need to employ stored procedures and triggers to keep your data intact. The relational model breaks down.
What you need at this point, is some kind of "event based data storage." Like "Bob got a 5% raise 20070801" or "Company address changed from $x to $y 20001010." For these kinds of data, a warehouse is much better suited. A column based storage would probably also be much faster than a row based for it.
Actually, an overarching broadband fee which would be shared out among copyright holders might be the most sensible way to deal with this whole mess. And not just in sweden.
Yes, it is a good idea and it does work. The thing is that in Sweden, we already have these fees in place. We have Svenska Filminstitutet, Film i Väst, subsidies from the EU, Kulturrådet and dozens of other regional and national institutions in place to support movie makers, music artists and writers. We pay lots of money in taxes to subsidize the movie industry because it is very hard to make profitable movies in Swedish. Each movie gets many millions in subsidizes from the state which is the only reason why people still make movies here.
That's fine by me, quality often not profitable. But it is not ok when these same people decide to turn the backs on the people that, in reality, feed them and demand even more money. I think it is my moral right to download every Swedish movie I want, for free, I already payed for it. There should be some kind of rule that each company that complains about file sharers is banned from receiving subsidies, see how long that lasts.
Yes, yes, you can do whatever you want with that hemmbränningsmaskin of yours.
What has actually happened was very different. My great-grandfather's 7 out of 12 children have died in Ukraine in the beginning of 1930th from hunger along with 30 million other people.
Why do you have to make up stuff like this? The population of Ukraine was in 1927 32 million, so it is completely unimaginable that 30 million of them died. Historians place the death toll to anywhere between 2 to 7 million, not 30. Also note that while Stalin's collectivization program undoubtedly catalyzed the famine, famines occured regularily in Ukraine due to poor harvests (leading to millions in deaths).
If the low intellectual tone of some of the comments in this thread are anything to go by, I would say that there are virtually no women using Slashdot, and to be honest, I can see why... Are you actually trying to argue that women are NOT more social than men? Yeah, the comments about yapping, gabbing, catty women are low-brow. That doesn't invalidate the basic point that women are more inclined to gossip. It's not sexist, it's truth. In other news, men have penises.
But what the fuck you literal dickhead. Slashdot is a blog which you are reading and from a quick glance at your userpage reveails, have written 3829 comments to. That makes you a pretty "chatty" person and, unless you are a female, does "invalidate the basic point." There are over a million other mostly male users on Slashdot wasting away their days reading and writing stupid comments, and if that doesn't prove that men are just as yapping, gabbing and chatty as women then I don't know what.
But somehow, writing comments on Slashdot is considered equivalent to partaking in a high-brow, intellectual conversation so Slashdot is "good" while discussing pie recipes on some blog is considered yappy. Well, check this stupid article and the fucking morons posting their boring gender-stereotyping jokes that they probably learnt from a porno-mag.
From the research that has been done in gender differences, very few conclusions can be drawn. Yes, men are in general better at chess and Sudoku while females are better in Scrabble and crossword solving, but the facts ends there. You cannot from the available evidence try and conclude that women are more chatty - the facts are just no there.
Consider one very common mis-feature. The address book limitations on phones with many MB of memory exist for one reason and one reason only: as a lever to up-sell people to a more expensive phone model.
Truly incorrect. Address book limitations exist because some manufacturers implements their address books using O(n) algorithms and/or using databases rather than using more efficient methods. Type-ahead search is to slow when you are using linear search and have 1000+ items. A binary search tree is more efficient but there probably wasn't enough time and/or the developers didn't anticipate people having more than 200 contacts.
Guess you were payed to little. The thing that most techies don't seem to realize is that how competent you are perceived to be is directly proportional to your salary. Having a consultant that costs 50$/hour doing crap work might not be so bad. But a boss would think twice about assigning a 500$/hour consultant to do such a job even if there is nothing else worthwhile to do. Money equals respect, the more you make the less shit you have to take.
China will be self-sufficient. Does China have expansionist of imperialist aims? Would they be interested in conquering the USA and enslaving us while stealing our resources? The way we've been acting, we probably deserve it.
How can they be self-sufficient when their economy is totally dependent on exports? They don't have a significant home market so if some countries decided not to buy from them or add trade tariffs, they would be pretty much screwed. One billion DVD players is only worth something if someone buys them. On the other hand, the way the US is going, they are losing their own market due to reduced purchasing power of the population and increasing economic inequalities. That is, it is much more a threat to the US economy that the standards of living is increasing in China because when enough Chinese can afford to buy DVD players, they don't need to sell them to the West.
The US is actually perfect proof of why your socialist ideas don't work everywhere.
We *do* pay telecoms to build our infrastructure out of our supposedly "low" (they're actually pretty average unless you're rich and can dodge them or poor and mostly-exempt) taxes. We provide them with *billions* in tax breaks and subsidies. And what do they do?
Put it in marketing and/or pocket it and run away.
It's not a Socialist idea to think that the state should be responsible to provide basic services (yes, broadband is becoming a "basic service") to its citizen. I think it is just common sense. Neither is it a Socialist idea to throw the public's money at private enterprises and hope that they will do what you want them to. There are other options. If the US took home one division troops from Iraq and retrofitted them as cable diggers, you could have 100MB fiber to each and every household in a matter of months.
Mugshot seem to be what he's looking for. It is an open, free software, community, meta site. It tries to create a interconnect all different community sites and place them under one roof so to say. With one centralized user management system. Seems like a very, very ambitious project because it is damn hard to anticipate human behaviour and social patterns. In the broad sense, an internet community is everything from mailing lists to MySpace to Slashdot to various forums and even BitTorrent trackers.
It is all just endless streams of bull shit. Consider how much it cost to do the original copper telephone network, which contrary to the bull was far, far more expensive they any new fibre network and guess what the population has risen since then quite a lot in fact, so not only is copper tech more expensive but it had to be done with a far far lower population density, it had to be done with far more primitive technology, it had to be done using backward switching technology, telephone exchanges as major buildings and even the local was not a box but a whole building. Think each and every copper connection had to have it own line, it's own independent bit of wire, nothing like fibre at all with thousands of connections down the same line.
Key is who built it. Building a network with 99.99% penetration isn't economically defensible, you don't make any money providing fibre to a single family 100 km from the nearest town. It is an investment that it takes 50 years to become profitable so no company would ever do that. However, a fibre network to each household benefits society in a number of ways, just like telephone lines do. Which is why it was state owned entities that built the telephone network. But in the US, it is somehow expected of the cable companies to provide a completely covering network. So strong is the American belief in Capitalism that companies are expected to do things for the greater good of society even if they cannot profit from it.
The world just doesn't work that way. But in the US they have choosen the low taxes and each man for himself way and crappy infrastructure is the price they pay.
What's the point of bringing it up in an election debate? Aside from educational funding, stance on evolution really isn't even on my radar for politicians.
I assume the point is to weed out the Dubyas. You don't want someone who can't immidiately answer what ten squared is. You don't want a candidate that is to dumb to understand evolution. What politician is most likely to act appropriately on reports that details people dying because they can't afford health insurance, and who is most likely to dismiss it as liberal-communist kook propaganda? The one who denies evolution or the one who does not?
Hear hear. The same kind of regression is causing havoc for thousands of Feisty users. A bug in acpi on Linux > 2.6.17 causes knotify to steal 100% cpu after linux has run for a little while. I don't think even Microsoft could leave such a regression unfixed for so long.
Agreed. Their testing methods is pretty weird and their results doesn't show anything it all. Caviar SE16 is really fast on one test and then slow at another. Instead of benchmarking how fast Doom 3 loads a level or how fast Windows boots, it would have been much more interesting to see some low-level performance tests. How fast can the disk write 1k bytes to 1000 10k bytes spread out on the disk when it is full? Synchronously? Test the same thing for reads. Such tests would have tested the seek times for the disks in different scenarios which is much more interesting than reading or writing huge chunks of data.
"Even if it FAILS, it's technology, features, etc. will be copied into many other phones." This is a very good point. Even though the above article was obviously written by an iPhone fanboi of the nth degree, you must admire Apple for creating such a media marketing blitz to drive technology. Tech companies want to emulate and then we only reap the benefits. I bought a Creative Zen instead of an iPhone, but I admire Apple for pushing the competition.
That is certainly the optimists view. What tech companies want is profit, and Apple certainly has generated quite a bit of that, so yes, other companies will definitely imitate Apple. But it is not technological innovation that is selling the iPhone, it is marketing. Apple spent hundreds of millions of dollars before the iPhone was launched trying to hype its phone and they are probably spending even more now when it is on the market.
That is the lession other mobile phone manufacturers will learn from Apple. Expect many more lame attempts to create "buzz" in the future. People, even technology enthusiasts, are sheep and it works. Paying Madonna, Brad Pitt or whatever the cool dudes are called these days millions to flash your phone is a much better investment than paying those millions to Q&A engineers. And that is what we're seeing with the iPhone. The software is of beta quality and updates are pushed through iTunes. Safari crashes frequently. Well I have a three year old Sony Ericsson K608i phone whose browser has never ever crashed and I have never had to install any stupid update.
Well, it is pretty obvious that they were using touch screen keyboards in Star Trek: TNG, they even blip when you press them. Not sure if it counts as prior art since the setting is the 24th century, but still.
How can you not know that batteries can be recycled? Do you live in a third world country or something where your government is to poor to provide a battery recycling program or something? Here is how it works, when your battery doesn't work anymore, you do not throw it in the forest or dump it in a lake. Instead, you put it in a some form of container, like this. When that container is full, it is then transported to a "battery recycling center" where the batteries are dismantled. The different alloys in the batteries are melted into their pure metallic form which are then extracted. The metals are then used to manufacture new batteries.
HTH
Awesome, thank you! I can understand why they were complaining. Those towers really look spooky.
It would probably help if you didn't say things like "The racist Jews at The New York Times simply desire to preserve what little credibility they have remaining..."
It is not racist to claim that a group of people not primarily selected by their race, is racist as you imply. If a high-profile paper in Sweden claimed that Sweden was the homeland for the aryans, then that would be racist. It would select one race (or ethnicity) -- indegenous, non-Saami, blue-eyed blonde Swedes -- and exclude other ethnicities. On the other hand, stating that Sweden is the homeland for the Vikings would probably be ok. Vikings aren't an ethnicity (not anymore atleast) and it would be just as easy for a Vietnamese or Egyptian to become a real "Viking" as for anyone else.
But what journalists and editors at New York Times and other American newspapers claim, is that Israel is the homeland for the Jews. That is definitely racist. Jew is a specific ethnicity and so the claim excludes other ethnicities in favor of that one. Pretending that that is not racism is just hypocrisy and the only reason why it is accepted is because the Israeli-American lobby is very strong. It is exactly the same kind of Nationalistic thinking that was so popular in Europe 100 years ago. Each nation was a homeland for some ethnicity and other ethnicities in that nation was a problem to be dealt with...
I was operating a high powered transmitter in a small village with lousy tv reception. One of the locals came down to the site and complained to me that my equipment was interfering with his tv. I asked him if it was happening right now. He said yes and we went up to his house to check out the symptoms. His tv reception was quite noisy. When he drove me back to the transmitter I asked him to come in and take a look. "See that big switch there. It's the main power. It's turned off."
I have heard that story a few dozen times before in different incarnations. Ignorant villagers complaining about dangerous radiowaves, technician proving that the equipment is off. In fact, I've heard it so many times that I bet it is an urban legend. Always without specific details such as when it happened, where it happened and who was involved. So unless you or someone else can provide those crucial details for the story, I call bullshit.
Ah....the GP gave me the impression that even the basic foodstuffs came with HFCS in them in the US, which would be just plain deceitful and leave even those who care about what they eat with no choice. If you're buying 'milk drinks' to put on your cornflakes or in your tea then you deserve everything you get...
It very much depends on what you define as basic foodstuff. If you're talking about raw, bloody meat then hopefully, not much sugar has been added (however water might have, to increase the weight of the meat). However, if you are talking about meatballs, hamburgers, pork chops, weiners, sausages, smoked or salted ham, liver pate, bacon or any other kind of processed meat product, then sugar is definitely added.
The producers, naturally, claim that it is made to increase the flavor of the meat. Which is true, but the problem is that sugar is tightly tied to the brains reward system. Sweets give the same kind of reaction in the brain as crack. The easiest way to make food taste better is to add sugar to it. Everyone who cooks knows that, just add more butter/whipped cream/sugar/chocolate/what have you and your meal will taste better. The producers knows that too, if your competitor adds 1g sugar/100g meat, just add 2 grammes/100g meat and more consumers will prefer your product. It leads to a sugary arms race in which the sweetest product wins.
The food industry really is that insane.
There is no fork of gcc happening. The story submitter just made things up.
Your argument falls down because there is no possible way to avoid the sugar. It is added to everything from meat, milk, coffee to bread. So you get fat of things you shouldn't get fat of and there is no way to know because typically American foodstuff doesn't have to declare how much sugar they contain like in more regulated countries.