From the link in the article:
What files cannot be shared by WD Anywhere Access?
Answer
Due to unverifiable media license authentication, the following file types cannot be shared by different users using WD Anywhere Access.
If these file types are on a share on the WD My Book World Edition system and another user accesses the share, these file will not be displayed for sharing. Any other file types can be shared using WD Anywhere Access. It appears to be a hard drive plus a nic card. I'd imagine it wouldn't be terribly hard to use it without loading the proprietary accessing software?
~Sk
(1) FCC gets petition to prohibit bandwidth throttling (2) all bandwidth is "unthrottled" (3) all (at least US-based) ISPs have lack-of-bandwidth issues (4a) all ISPs revoke any claim to "unlimited bandwidth" in a revised agreement notice upon which you have no say, and begin charging per-kb. (4b) all ISPs actually perform the service upgrades for which they were already paid years ago.
Methinks that if 1 leads to 2, then it leads to 4a. 4b is there just for giggles. They'll never actually do that, of course.
Plastic can be recycled many, many times; more than just "a few." The phenomenon to which you are referring is due to dyes. Clear plastics are highly desirable for recycling, because they can be reused for many different applications and/or products. When you recycle dyed plastics, you limit your options--you can't make the plastic clear again--so you just add more dyes and, making the plastic opaque and darker, limit the desirability. Eventually, the recycled plastic does become filler for concrete bumpers or liner for jackets, in some end-of-life (i.e. no more recycling) stage.
The problem with switching to glass is the weight and size. Plastic is more durable & flexible at a much lighter mass. Glass means extra weight and usually less product per unit area, both of which add up to extra shipping costs (i.e. more gasoline burned).
There is a time to stand up for fairness and justice. Raising a fuss over an issue so trivial as this is laughable. There are plenty of other, more important, issues about which one should make a stand. The slow erosion of citizens' and consumers' rights over time, by stepping-stone "trivial" issues, is preventable.
This gentleman makes me proud. If it didn't cost everyone $7,500 to stand up to injustice, I guarantee there would be less injustice. I can't afford that, and I wager most others cannot either, so we tolerate the injustice because fighting it means we can't also "live."
I was talking with a family friend who works for CBS many years ago, and this very topic came up: cable cost and paying for only what channels you use. His remark was that if the piecemeal system is used instead of the package system, most of the smaller channels would vanish because they would no longer have enough revenue to sustain them. In other words, the Food channel may be beloved by many people, but everyone that would pay (extra) for it may still not be enough to keep it on the air.
The problem here isn't that Flash is an inherently bad medium, bandwitdh concerns aside, for advertising. The problem is that there have been countless other, absolutely obnoxious, intrusive, deceptive, and/or fradulent flash advertisements, and those all came first.
The viewing public, myself included, is jaded by the predecessors and is likely now consciously or subconsiously trained to ignore the flash ads in favor of focusing on the text of the article (or whatever) in question. Anything that moves on my browser, bereft of my decision, gets ignored. And that will include Google's new ads.
For the record, I actually DO click on the google text-based advertisements. They're tasteful, obviously advertisements, non-intrusive, and they've (admittedly) done a good job of targeting my interests.
I'm at a loss as to why incineration isn't being touted as the next wave of energy production. I suppose the common man doesn't understand that the fuel stock doesn't greatly matter or differ when it comes out of the stack, provided the usual pollution control devices.
You're going to have nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and depending on the fuel & control devices used, varying levels of particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). You're going to get this whether you burn the horribly-connoted "coal" or the relatively-benignly-connoted "wood". Plant matter, like that specified in TFA, isn't all that different from "wood", and actually used to be lumped together in the "biomass" definition until the US Supreme Court vacated the appropriate legislation set forth by the EPA.
Point being... all of this is the generation of additional waste stream for fuel, instead of utilizing an existing waste stream for fuel. I applaud the thought and intent, but why not use the garbage we already generate for fuel? RDF (refuse-derived fuel) boilers already exist for electrical generation...
TFA mentions that it's 14pt font at a meter away, so I'd imagine there's a decent bit of concentration going on, but that aside, what kind of "reading" are they doing?
I can read Harry Potter simply through identifiation of the word shapes; I don't have to recognize each letter because I (i.e. my brain) has a reasonable expectation of the subject matter and the sentence structure. In other words, there is some top-down interpretation--it's not all what I see, it's what my brain thinks I'm seeing.
The same is not true when reading Kant's metaphysics of morals. Translated into English from German (iirc), with a difficult sentence structure and challenging subject matter, I have to read every word carefully. This is not skimming.
Well, you can call it that if it makes you feel better, but the rest of us just call that "wishful thinking". Why was this modded "insightful" rather than "distasteful?" It's rather small-minded from a someone whom I would assume to profess a strong affinity to science. Science can disprove; it cannot prove. And the existence of God cannot be disproven.
From the article:
"It includes some 24,000 samples from young people between 10 and 17 years old, who were arrested but never convicted."
WHO'S ON THE DATABASE?
5.2% of UK population
Nearly 40% of black men
13% of Asian men
9% of white men
"It means where there is ethnic profiling going on disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities get onto the database." If there are only 24,000 retained records of presumed innocents, and the argument for recording everyone is to eliminate ethnic profiling, I think there is a disconnect. 24,000 people aren't going to affect those percentages. The DNA records aren't at fault for profiling, rather they're indicative of a trend that already exists.
Does anyone know? I assume this applies only to the auto dealers, and that the doctrine of first sale applies, namely that the vehicle can be re-sold outside the state in which it was (legally) purchased.
If you really wanted one of these cars, just buy through a proxy; it'll be an impossible law to enforce, seeing as how cars can move across state boundaries readily and legally.
I work with the state government on a regular basis. It's already difficult enough to get them to understand your side of the argument. I can't imagine the additional hassle that will come if the state uses different software than the private businesses, even if the only difference is the formatting: I had a client that the state essentially screwed over for $5k due expressly to a table whose format was mis-adjusted due to program incompatibilities.
So what? What are you going to do when you want a cellular phone (here in the US)? You're going to go to any one of the service providers. You're going to talk with some minimum-wage worker who could honestly care less. If you don't sign the "contract" waiving all your rights and your first born son, then you don't get the phone. You can complain right then and there, but the minimum-wage worker doesn't care about AT&T beyond his paycheck. You are dealing with, and complaining to, the person with the absolute least power to change the status quo. AND you still need a cell phone, because they're a practical necessity for modern life.
[quote]But if this is done right I think it could be a good thing.[/quote]
Agreed. If this improves high-school curriculum such that real-world experience is actually gained, then it'll be a huge bonus all around. Currently, most students (myself included) had ridiculously little real-world experience before actually being in the real-world.
Real world experience and skills are insanely valuable. Get started earlier, imo.
Unfortunately it appears that the uninformed people tend to have just as many opinions, biases, and preferences to influence their judgement -- they're just based on things completely disjoint from the facts of the case. How do you feel about weebles? Shugals? Pyters? Well, you're completely uninformed about these--in fact, I'm 100% certain because I made them up--and therefore, you have no bias on them since you never even remotely heard of them before.
There are two different notions of uninformed, and though I hate to argue over semantics, it's valid in this case. There is "uninformed" as in "not very well informed but know what it is", and then there is "uninformed" as in "never having heard of it before. ever." There may be some grey area in between, but in general, it's a logical impossibility to have a bias against something on which you have never ever heard before.
The problem with the current implementation of the system is that you are actually tried by a load of random, often uninformed, people. In cases hinged on domain-specific information, there should be an understanding that your peers must be people who understand the subject matter. Unfortunately, people who are uninformed are people who are least likely to have a preconcieved bias. When you have people who are informed, especially very well informed, then they have opinions, biases, and preferences which may influence their judgments. Ideally, the lawyers and technical witnesses should be educating the uninformed jury to the point where they can make an informed but unbiased on the facts.
In reality, however, and having been removed from a jury selection process, I agree with you 100%: laywers don't want informed people who can think for themselves, which is really deplorable.
How did this modded up? It's only tangentially related to the topic...
On topic:
Fact 1: In the united states, it's usually cheaper and usually more efficient to use technology than to use manpower to complete a task. Hence, technology will be used.
Fact 2: Technology is fallable at some level. Hence, law enforcement will have to assign actual people to oversee the technology.
Fact 3a: People work at slower speeds than technology. Hence, the records will need to be stored until they can be reviewed by a human being.
Fact 3b: Legal/procedural/insurance proceedings may continue take place long after the instantaneous point where a car (for example) is identified as stolen. Hence, the records will need to be stored until absolutely unnecessary.
When it comes down to it, the use of technology isn't some hidden deal with the devil, nor is it the sign of a corrupt government or some other impending doom. It's just the cheapest most efficient method.
And as a victim of grand theft auto earlier this year, I honestly can't see any issues with photographing license plates in a public location (for example) for identification of vehicle theft. I do have a general problem with anyone storing more information on me--and anyone else--for periods longer than is necessary... This won't likely be used (for very long) to identify criminals due to constitutional and technical concerns. For example, in the state of Minnesota, the use of photographic devices to identify and fine people who run red lights was used, but then later ruled unconstitutional, because it was impossible to determine the driver.
So, does the potential inclusion of advertising banners in my Windows OS, in Microsoft Word & Excel, and the like mean that Microsoft will just give us this stuff for free? I know it's posh to villify Microsoft and everything, but it'd be tough to swallow paying for software and/or OS supported by, or perhaps entirely funded by, advertising revenue.
I just checked mine yesterday while I was using it for web browsing. It was about 275 watts according to the wattage meter, and that was for the CRT monitor (on and displaying), speakers (powered sub), computer (AMD 64 X2 with a 7800 gts card), and UPS. Kill-A-Watt reported 184 KWh usage over 981 hours; my entire system has been on for 40 days (restarted when necessary) to examine power consumption.
Wasn't the emotion engine supposed to be the next thing since sliced bread? How will removing something powerful make your system sell more? Sure, it will cut down in price, but Sony already took the "Expensive System, sure, but look at the power!" stance. If they buckle on it, I predict they'll continue to crumble.
At any rate, for myself, selling me a crappier system for $100 less is worse than selling me the real deal for the original price.
Who determines what an appropriate protective operating system is? Does that rule out XP SP1? (or Win2K. Win ME, Win 98, etc) Does lack of AV software on my Mac or Linux box define my computer as 'unprotected'? And does 'up to date' refer to the AV definitions, the OS patches or just the latest & greatest releases (such as Vista and/or IE 7)? Expounding upon this, what if you (gasp) don't use a firewall or anti-spyware software on your computer? The absense of any "security" software is NOT an indictment of a compromised system. What if you have it, but they're not able to detect it like (perhaps Vista would throw up a security alert?). What if you have it but they'd never be able to know, such as if build your own linux router and the firewall is on the router, not on your computer?
This idea is foolish. As one poster put simply, if banks make it costly (in effort, time, or money) for me to use their online and therefore cost-saving method of banking, then I'll just go back to the local branch.
I think its reasonable because 75 dollars is not an effective deterrent. If you shoplift a purse from a department store and the penalty is you have to pay whatever the purse is worth it seems kind of pointless doesnt it? Damages should be high enough to deter people from committing the crime, this is a principle that is often espoused by members of our legal system. Well written and good points, and I don't disagree, except tangentially with the point I quoted above. Specifically, in your case, the victim of the theft should not realistically expect more returned than the value of the item(s) stolen. I can speak from experience: I had my freaking car stolen recently---grand theft auto is a felony---no one is going to pay me for the *hassle* I had to go through, though my insurance paid for most of the damage.
Point being, ethics suggests that the governments, not the private parties, should be the ones that create/set the "deterrents" to breaking laws, as they are also the ones creating the laws. The victim/private party should not expect recompense beyond the damage. It's my understanding based on previous comments that the RIAA is requesting this amount for the settlement, and that perhaps the amount is inflated so as to act as a deterrent. If both of those are true, then much to my chagrin, the RIAA is really nothing more than a mafia-like organization. I can't believe I said that.
Don't bother believing the blurb that it's worth a read. It really isn't. This "article" is nothing more than an attempt to push their political slant/POV. They seriously could have left out the non-sense about the Walmart Nation, etc as it has absolutely nothing to do w/the rest of the article. I'm going to respectfully disagree. The author has opinions and biases like everyone else (in fact, some are admitted directly in the article), but the ideas presented in the article are still worth the read. I used Facebook once upon a time, and Myspace, though I don't use either anymore and never used either much at all.
I'm curious just how disparate the social classes & their use of myspace/facebook can be if both classes have enough internet access to create and regularly use the social networking sites.
And what is the standard error on the particular IQ test they used? Insofar as the IQ test is concerned, I was under the impression that IQs were measured in 10s, as in you could get a score of 100 or 110 but not 103. Correct? Without reading TFA, I would guess that they took the average IQ of their groups and compared them, whereupon they found that the first-sibling average was 2-3 points higher. In that case, sample-size rather than the IQ test itself would be more important/significant for the effect of the outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
(1) FCC gets petition to prohibit bandwidth throttling
(2) all bandwidth is "unthrottled"
(3) all (at least US-based) ISPs have lack-of-bandwidth issues
(4a) all ISPs revoke any claim to "unlimited bandwidth" in a revised agreement notice upon which you have no say, and begin charging per-kb.
(4b) all ISPs actually perform the service upgrades for which they were already paid years ago.
Methinks that if 1 leads to 2, then it leads to 4a. 4b is there just for giggles. They'll never actually do that, of course.
The problem with switching to glass is the weight and size. Plastic is more durable & flexible at a much lighter mass. Glass means extra weight and usually less product per unit area, both of which add up to extra shipping costs (i.e. more gasoline burned).
This gentleman makes me proud. If it didn't cost everyone $7,500 to stand up to injustice, I guarantee there would be less injustice. I can't afford that, and I wager most others cannot either, so we tolerate the injustice because fighting it means we can't also "live."
I was talking with a family friend who works for CBS many years ago, and this very topic came up: cable cost and paying for only what channels you use. His remark was that if the piecemeal system is used instead of the package system, most of the smaller channels would vanish because they would no longer have enough revenue to sustain them. In other words, the Food channel may be beloved by many people, but everyone that would pay (extra) for it may still not be enough to keep it on the air.
The viewing public, myself included, is jaded by the predecessors and is likely now consciously or subconsiously trained to ignore the flash ads in favor of focusing on the text of the article (or whatever) in question. Anything that moves on my browser, bereft of my decision, gets ignored. And that will include Google's new ads.
For the record, I actually DO click on the google text-based advertisements. They're tasteful, obviously advertisements, non-intrusive, and they've (admittedly) done a good job of targeting my interests.
You're going to have nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and depending on the fuel & control devices used, varying levels of particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). You're going to get this whether you burn the horribly-connoted "coal" or the relatively-benignly-connoted "wood". Plant matter, like that specified in TFA, isn't all that different from "wood", and actually used to be lumped together in the "biomass" definition until the US Supreme Court vacated the appropriate legislation set forth by the EPA.
Point being... all of this is the generation of additional waste stream for fuel, instead of utilizing an existing waste stream for fuel. I applaud the thought and intent, but why not use the garbage we already generate for fuel? RDF (refuse-derived fuel) boilers already exist for electrical generation...
I can read Harry Potter simply through identifiation of the word shapes; I don't have to recognize each letter because I (i.e. my brain) has a reasonable expectation of the subject matter and the sentence structure. In other words, there is some top-down interpretation--it's not all what I see, it's what my brain thinks I'm seeing.
The same is not true when reading Kant's metaphysics of morals. Translated into English from German (iirc), with a difficult sentence structure and challenging subject matter, I have to read every word carefully. This is not skimming.
Does anyone know? I assume this applies only to the auto dealers, and that the doctrine of first sale applies, namely that the vehicle can be re-sold outside the state in which it was (legally) purchased. If you really wanted one of these cars, just buy through a proxy; it'll be an impossible law to enforce, seeing as how cars can move across state boundaries readily and legally.
I work with the state government on a regular basis. It's already difficult enough to get them to understand your side of the argument. I can't imagine the additional hassle that will come if the state uses different software than the private businesses, even if the only difference is the formatting: I had a client that the state essentially screwed over for $5k due expressly to a table whose format was mis-adjusted due to program incompatibilities.
So what? What are you going to do when you want a cellular phone (here in the US)? You're going to go to any one of the service providers. You're going to talk with some minimum-wage worker who could honestly care less. If you don't sign the "contract" waiving all your rights and your first born son, then you don't get the phone. You can complain right then and there, but the minimum-wage worker doesn't care about AT&T beyond his paycheck. You are dealing with, and complaining to, the person with the absolute least power to change the status quo. AND you still need a cell phone, because they're a practical necessity for modern life.
[quote]But if this is done right I think it could be a good thing.[/quote] Agreed. If this improves high-school curriculum such that real-world experience is actually gained, then it'll be a huge bonus all around. Currently, most students (myself included) had ridiculously little real-world experience before actually being in the real-world. Real world experience and skills are insanely valuable. Get started earlier, imo.
In reality, however, and having been removed from a jury selection process, I agree with you 100%: laywers don't want informed people who can think for themselves, which is really deplorable.
On topic: Fact 1: In the united states, it's usually cheaper and usually more efficient to use technology than to use manpower to complete a task. Hence, technology will be used.
Fact 2: Technology is fallable at some level. Hence, law enforcement will have to assign actual people to oversee the technology.
Fact 3a: People work at slower speeds than technology. Hence, the records will need to be stored until they can be reviewed by a human being.
Fact 3b: Legal/procedural/insurance proceedings may continue take place long after the instantaneous point where a car (for example) is identified as stolen. Hence, the records will need to be stored until absolutely unnecessary.
When it comes down to it, the use of technology isn't some hidden deal with the devil, nor is it the sign of a corrupt government or some other impending doom. It's just the cheapest most efficient method.
And as a victim of grand theft auto earlier this year, I honestly can't see any issues with photographing license plates in a public location (for example) for identification of vehicle theft. I do have a general problem with anyone storing more information on me--and anyone else--for periods longer than is necessary... This won't likely be used (for very long) to identify criminals due to constitutional and technical concerns. For example, in the state of Minnesota, the use of photographic devices to identify and fine people who run red lights was used, but then later ruled unconstitutional, because it was impossible to determine the driver.
So, does the potential inclusion of advertising banners in my Windows OS, in Microsoft Word & Excel, and the like mean that Microsoft will just give us this stuff for free? I know it's posh to villify Microsoft and everything, but it'd be tough to swallow paying for software and/or OS supported by, or perhaps entirely funded by, advertising revenue.
I just checked mine yesterday while I was using it for web browsing. It was about 275 watts according to the wattage meter, and that was for the CRT monitor (on and displaying), speakers (powered sub), computer (AMD 64 X2 with a 7800 gts card), and UPS. Kill-A-Watt reported 184 KWh usage over 981 hours; my entire system has been on for 40 days (restarted when necessary) to examine power consumption.
At any rate, for myself, selling me a crappier system for $100 less is worse than selling me the real deal for the original price.
This idea is foolish. As one poster put simply, if banks make it costly (in effort, time, or money) for me to use their online and therefore cost-saving method of banking, then I'll just go back to the local branch.
I'm curious just how disparate the social classes & their use of myspace/facebook can be if both classes have enough internet access to create and regularly use the social networking sites.