That may be so. Have there not been upturns in firearms sales since it became likely that Obama would win the election? The McCain political campaign or NRA or someone portrayed Obama as anti-gun. Apparently the sales are a response to this. So, if people anticipating new gun laws respond by buying up guns, what do they intend to do? What will happen if those laws are introduced? How will people respond to enforcement? It seems to me that if people were going to comply with gun-ban laws they wouldn't buy the guns. If they don't comply and the government attempts to enforce the law, you have by nature a very volatile situation.
You answered your own question there. We have a long way to go before people take to the streets with guns. People are just stocking up before a more liberal, not NRA friendly, president comes to power. Big deal, people stocked up on assault rifles before they were banned as well. So far, they haven't revolted.
And typically the mechanism to get states to comply with federal government directives is money.
If you don't see any possibility of a problem with this method, you haven't been paying very much attention.
I've been paying a lot of attention actually. This is common. This has been going on for probably well over 100 years. This is actually a good way to do things. What other enforcement mechanism would you recommend a federal government use on the states? You want them to send in troops for every disagreement? That's just stupid.
Bush was the most hated president certainly in my lifetime... and Obama is still nearly the most popular.
Bush was most hated by people who happen to be in favor of gun bans, Obama is hated by the pro-gun right.
??? So? Bush was hated by the most powerful states in the nation, new york and california. If any states had the clout to declare independence it was those states. I respect economic power much more than rifles in the hands of the citizens. Money will decide independence way before a bullet. Of course, both are often required.
If states didn't openly rebel against Bush, you think they will against Obama?
So HCR6 in NH doesn't mean anything?
Honestly, not really. it's all talk. I skimmed the bill (i'd never heard of it before this), and its just saying "you can't violate the constitution" or we're going to secede from the nation. The *only* thing the federal government might do that has any possibility of becoming reality is the stuff on firearms. The government may restrict firearms and despite what the NRA nuts want to believe, no state will secede from the nation becuase assault rifles aren't allowed to be sold or whatever other restrictions are imposed by a more liberal federal government. It's a silly statement.
The federal government won't and can't restrict *all* gun sales, but they can and will make rules to make the country safer (in their opinion). Weather that's the Brady bill or an assault rifle ban or whatever, they have the right to make those restrictions and no state will do anything of significance because of it.
If the US dollar collapses, it can change a lot. I just don't think it is out of the question to have armed conflict in the US. I think it possible that there will be, as time goes on, a lot of desperate people, many of them armed.
You really believe that the people of the US are such panzies? That amazes me. Ok... so say we have another great depression. 25% unemployment. You think our country is so weak that we disintegrate a la "Mad Max Road Warrior"? It didn't happen in the 30's... so why now?
The current administration may be booted out of office and replace by someone different. Um... big whoop. You think states will start to peal off and start another civil war? You must really think the US has no balls whatsoever and no ability to take even a modicum of suffering.
Um... that's pretty nuts. Obama hasn't done anything likely to piss people off enough to actually warrant such extreme actions.
And typically the mechanism to get states to comply with federal government directives is money. They get money for certain things and politicians in washington. You don't want "no child left behind"? That's fine... "no money for you". It's a pretty straight forward approach and few people turn down (nearly) free cash.
I mean seriously. Bush was the most hated president certainly in my lifetime... and Obama is still nearly the most popular. If states didn't openly rebel against Bush, you think they will against Obama? He needs to trip and fall a few times politically before that quits being anymore than a good joke.
Actually if Conventional telephone companies switch to delivering internet (fiber to the home), they they will care a lot less about losing their telephone business. They would rather have a single fiber line going to the house rather than a fiber and a twisted pair both. (more money for them to install and upkeep two lines).
The problem is that telephones have become so cheap in terms of data trafficing costs that i'm sure they're a major cash cow by now so it's hard for them to let things go. Of course countries that have strong state owned telephone company may have a harder time letting go, but any free country with high internet usage wouldn't need a conventional phones lines soon.
The telco's eventually would rather switch everybody to fiber/internet anyway so they'll just sell you your "landline" as a box they install off your property that converts their internet into VoIP anyway.
I don't see the reason that landlines can't just die. There's no "critical app" that keeps them rooted anymore. The only reason it's still here is legacy. In first world countries, it will die as soon as market penetration gets too low, and i think that'll happen in the next 10 or 20 years.
But as i said, cell phones will do the killing, not VoIP. More people have cell phones than have internet connections.
VoIP will kill conventional telephones? That's just stupid. Cell phones will kill conventional telephones way before VoIP. I bet you that there are a lot more people with cell phones than there are with personal computers and internet connections.
I know people who were giving up their land lines years ago in the states and switching exclusively to their cells... I've yet to meet someone who has done the same with VoIP. (with out them owning a cell that is. I myself use VoIP for international calls and a cell for in-country here in Japan.)
So for those countries that outlaw VoIP, what is the extent of their laws? If I play a game on Steam and it has voice chat as part of the game, will I be thrown in jail? If you play xbox live with the headset on, are you busted? If you use an IM which has voice capability is it illegal to turn that on?
Seriously, how can they make this work and still keep a functioning internet? This just seems like craziness to me.
Ok... i'm not a nuclear scientists obviously and I need a little more information to help me out. What's so great about nuclear fusion? If this works does that mean we'll have clean energy without radioactive byproducts? If not, why is this better than nuclear power plants today?
Next, assuming we get this working, what material does it require to make it work successfully? And really, what then becomes the bottle neck to producing infinite cheap energy?
I went and skimmed the wikipedia page but in my 3 min search i couldn't find anything to answer my questions. Without this knowledge I don't think I can appreciate this discussion.
As I understand it, it is illegal to perform surveillance on a US government building/office/site, etc. So probably despite the fact that you can drive by and see all these things in the open, actively reporting this information on a continuing basis to anybody would probably get you in legal hot water.
I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Low earth orbit is defined as 100 miles to 1240 miles (according to wikipedia). So the *closest* you can possibily get with a satalite is 100 miles... now the problem is that if you're 100 miles above the earth you have to be spinning around the earth at a tremondous speed in order to stay in orbit. This means you can't really aim your power sending beam of whatever (uwave in this stupid article) at a single base station and you've got to be rotating A LOT to keep aiming this at the right spot. Very problematic. You're probably spinning around the planet once every 15 min or so. I don't care what population center you're aiming for, you're only going to be over it for a very short period of time.
Ok... so assume a geosynchronous orbit. This is now muuuuuch worse. You're 26,000 miles from the planet. This is not exactly what I'd call "near" a population center despite the fact that you can now be over it for 24 hours a day. Keep in mind the two cities on this plant can not be more than 12k miles apart.
Real numbers just doesn't back this crazy concept up in any way shape or form.
Actually, you're wrong, the real question is why the hell are you up there in the first place trying to get power? There are literally thousand of square miles here on earth where you can put solar power panels that are 10,000 times cheaper. Yes, they may drop to 33% efficiency compared to an equivalent panel in space due to atmospheric absorption/reflection of the light. Yes, you may have to clean the solar panels here on earth more often, but there is nothing here that makes up for a 10,000 to 1 installation cost difference.
Until someone can explain that, this whole business model is all pie int he sky BS. This doesn't pass the laugh test.
Oh... and once you handle that hurdle (good luck), THEN you have to deal with the "how do you get it back to earth" question in a way that *maintains* the 3x power advantage you gained by being up there in the first place.
Thank you! Someone else who actually had the same thought I did. I like this idea. It sounds great. I'd love to share files with friends and videos of the kids with the parents in an easy seamless way.
The problem is, of course Windows 7. I have nothing against MS other than a dislike for some of their previous heavy handed tactics and i don't have a dislike for windows 7, but I want to use this today, not 5 years from now when people actually have windows 7.
What we need now is a good open source alternative...... (hint hint)
Windows 7 degrades audio inputs when playing sounds? Um... yeah right. Lets just say you're the maker of a sound card and you build a kick ass high fidelity input... oh for something say like a karaoke app. Now windows in their newest version "degrades" your input so you don't function for your wanna-be pro singers. You guys don't think this isn't an actionable thing? Actionable as in lawsuit city?
Give me a break. I'm not a friend of MS, but you guys are willing to believe any thing thrown your way. First off, what's the benefit to MS here from this action that would clearly get them into tons of hot water legally and with consumer ill-will? A tiny payoff from the music industry? Like cash cow MS needs money from the cash poor RIAA. Access to media files? DRM is already gone fromt he music industry selling strategy so tell me again why they would do this???? "i'm going to play a DRM free mp3 file so I can record it as a DRM free mp3 file." ?????
Truly guys... WTF? I know we're all supposed to jump on the "i hate MS" bandwagon when we sign up for slashdot, but wait until this stuff passes the smell test before forming a lynch mob. You only come off as zealots and nuts if you don't.
We are not in a war, legal or otherwise... unless you also consider the "war on drugs" a war too. Drugs have easily killed more americans than terrorists and like "terror" it will never go away.
Anyone who has used the phrase "we're at war" during this entire discussion here on slashdot is a weak minded panzy who doesn't have the brains to realize that this is simply a line used to make them sheep for the government to push around. "oh, we're at war, well then it's ok for me to give up all my rights and do whatever you say mr. bush. right-o."
I love how republicans love to think they're all brave but at the first sign of the terrorist boogieman they cower in a corner and offer up all their precious "freedoms" at the drop of a hat while the weak kneed liberal pink-o's say "screw the terrorists, we want our freedoms!"
LOL. What a world we live in.... If i didn't have to live here i'd think it was hilarious.
Wow. I can't believe what an echo chamber it is in here.
First of all, why would the FCC care one whit about the anti-DRM movement? As far as their concerned this is the same stuff that cable companies have been putting on their lines for years for movies and pay channels. Why is this any different for them?
So what's the big deal. They think "ah, just move the cable industry model to the internet and you now have streaming TV and movies, great!" And again, i don't actually see a problem with this... until they try to stop you from being able to record on your VCR or something and destroy the cable legacy user model we have today. That's where the problem is and that's what you should be arguing against.
Now again, this whole bittorrent thing eats into their business. First off, they're basically there to support industry. They don't care about us as consumers, they just want to control the content that we can see and view. I mean really, in this day and age, what else do they do? Manage airwave frequencies? Um... yeah... that would take about 10 people for the whole US if that's all they did.
So they're basically the morals gatekeeper to keep us from seeing Janet Jackson's boob. The whole bittorrent thing really eats into that control. I can DL anything from Bambi to 2 girls 1 cup with out any form of content control... and so can any unsupervised 5 yr old. O M G!~
From their point of view, internet filtering is great and DRM is totally old news. So unless you're a religious organization that can whip your people into having orgies of indignation at the drop of a hat, they don't care about your rights as an individual or your rights as a consumer. They only care about your rights to pony up money for the latest Hollywood flick... and maybe about how messed up if little Timmy hears a swear word or sees a (gasp) boob.
Look for other people to protect your rights, the FCC is about limiting, not protecting. Don't expect any different. I hate to say it, but congress and the courts are the path to protecting your rights, not the FCC.
I'm sorry, but i don't get it. Phone companies give you phones or discount phones for you purely to get you to sign their contract. Why do they care one whit for how open or not a phone is? they wouldn't care if they had to give you a "massage" from a beautiful girl if it would get you to sign the contract just so long as you put your John Hancock on the dotted line.
The only time this appears to be a factor is when they sell you the special features, text messaging etc, ring tones, etc. Is this really what you're arguing is that they absolutely refuse to "open" the OS to keep those two cash cows restricted to their 10 cents a letter pricing scheme? That doesn't really smell right. There's just no way they can contain those in the era of the smart phone.
Beyond that, using a phone on a different network seems rather a small concern. After 2 years on a contract every phone company is trying to "sell" you a shinny new phone anyway to temp you into switching. So the concern that you might pick up and move to a different company with the same phone seems like peanuts.
The Android won't change that either. Even if the Android took off and you purchase an "open" model... you don't think that in two years you wouldn't want to pick up the new faster model that's smaller, looks cooler, has more memory and a better screen?
I feel like i'm missing something in the whole "there's no way a phone company wouldn't lock down their phones" argument.
Wow dude, i hope you never change the channel when a commercial comes or else that would be like going into NBC headquarters stealing their camera equipment! You cheap bastard!
actually your post just goes to the argument that this should be thrown out. Where's are the two compaines competing that is causing this friction? If a guy can't walk out of IBM a massive chip and mainframe company and into apple, a front end MP3 player, computer maker, and computer maker without some conflict then the idea of his non-compete is too broad.
IBM and Apple don't compete any more than a any other two massive tech companies and less than most. These two companies are about as far apart as you can expect any two massive tech companies to be. Name any other two massive tech companies that have less in common.
Becuase IBM is pissed that apple "dumped their processors" and went with anther companies has exactly zero baring on weather this guy violated his contract. EVEN IF Apple hires him to go and manage the group who is going to go to Intel to buy chips, it's "non-competing" becuase they are NOT making chips. It's the opposite side of the supplier/vendor divide.
Yes, apples makes a few chips... all big tech compaines make a few ASICs. If that's the criteria for a non-compete then this guy can't do anything but flip burgers. They also bought a 100 per
This really smells bad. This is not a jump to another big super computer company or massive chip maker. Where's the conflict of interest? I just don't see it.
Hm.. really that's a pretty horrible analogy for taxes and social standing. AS IF they all get the same beer. Let's change the story a little bit...
The all go into the bar, the poorest man is given thimble full of piss and told it's beer... "so drink up schmuck and be happy i let you stand in the corner of my bar". The next few lowest are given whatever Coors knockoff is cheapest, in warm and dented cans. After about the mid point the customers start getting decent beer that's cold and in mugs. Life is good. The top guy is led into the back room where he's out of sight of the other 9... and there's where the bar opens up and becomes a luxury resort with show girls catering to his every whim, girls in bikini's giving massages, plush leather couches, and he gets a bath in warm champagne.
After they're all done... then the tab comes out about what you said.
To argue that each person in our country taxes the resources of our government the same is sheer stupidity on it's face. For any business owner rolling in money there's a business that's utilizing the resources of country to support the business. Weather it's driving shipping trucks on our roads, selling in foreign countries, relying on the military to keep their business safe them safe overseas, or relying on public schools to train their workforce or give their workforce health care when they don't. it's all being supported by our country and our tax dollars. Don't think for a second that you can make millions in this country without heavily sucking up to the government tit in some way or another.
Ok... i'm not an athority but...as i heard it, this is the way it happened. ACORN is turning in fraudulent voter registration cards but they're TELLING the government that they think they're fake.
Now think about it for a second... They've got some guy being paid squat that wrote in a bunch of names to look like he was working instead of watching TV and ACORN figured it out... now what do they do? Do they just throw away the forms? I would bet money that it is ILLEGAL for ACORN to throw away ANY voter registration cards. Why? Well... all those republican voter registration cards would suddenly get lost... or the opposite for republican leaning voter registration drives. Who do you want making the decisions over the validity of the information on a voter registration card, a political organization or the government?
So... 1. ACORN gets fake voter registration cards 2. ACORN tells government "we think these are fake" but turns them in anyway 3. Government makes the call
Sounds like the way it should work to me.
Don't be stupid, just because someone fills in a card doesn't mean they can vote. This sounds like 100% political mud slinging to me.
Sorry guys, but this is obvious and a lame observation in and of itself. Who cares if evolution has stopped? It takes way too damn long anyway. Natural evolution of humans is done. The next step is genetic engineering.
This will come and it will be a good thing. The human race will evolve by change their own DNA. It will start slowly at first... changing genetics to remove abnormalities or genetic diseases. It'll then slowly move into genetic alterations for intelligence and then into the cosmetic. Think about what people are willing to spend for a better school... now imagine they can spend that on child intelligence upgrades. "Ok sir, you'd like the 115 IQ package... would you like blue eyes with that?"
It'll then become the next arms race. Some prudish countries will be squeamish about this as they were about stem cells... but some countries will embrace it. In less than a generation they will have smarter and better children and will dominate economically. All other countries will drop their objections and agree with the idea to an extent. There will probably be lots of push back by the genetically disadvantaged, but eventually agreed upon limits will exist where people will get smarter through genetic engineering.
So fear not, the human race will keep evolving... it just won't be the painful 100,000 year, kill off the slightly weaker type of evolution. It'll be the kind you pull out your credit card for and tell the nice man behind the counter how much you're willing to pay today to make your child a "better person" tomorrow.
"most of the cost to military to oil" is a bit of a stretch... but the cost of the iraq war would be a valid claim. You think we'd give two shakes of a rats ass about iraq if it weren't for oil? i think not.
I used to own a small MR2 spyder (mid engine two seater) and i tried this on an road late one night... now I was only going 45-55 mph, and i'm sure this is different with a big ass SUV or something, but that thing stopped so fast I'm not sure i could have turned if i wanted to. I was too busy being pushed into my seat belt.
I know, I know... sporty car on a dry road, not really going that fast, but damn the stopping speed was impressive!
It makes me shake my head at all the people who tell you about accelerating out of danger. I tried that in that same car when some guy was coming up behind me ready to plow into me on the freeway... and all i remember is that nothing happened. Given a choice between the two, decelerating out of danger will keep you safe 49 out of 50 times more than the opposite.
so... you do realize that even if all you want to do is stop in a straight line it is STILL better to keep the tires moving, right? You get the difference between static and dynamic friction? Your comment makes it sound like you don't.
Before the days of ABS, the common thing that was taught was to "pump he brakes" to stop quickly... this is to avoid skidding so you can stop faster. Squealing in a straight line is not the fastest way to stop.
As I understand it... and i'm not a car guy either... there was an investigative report back in the 90's or late 80's by 60 minutes i believe... or maybe consumer reports or somebody big and reputable like that. They did testing with a bunch of then modern cars and ran them into a pole at 5 mph... this sounds tame, but the resulting damage for most cars ran from like $1000 to $5000 in damage. (They basically damaged the front or back metal shell... see i don't even know the right terms... and it cost major money to replace it becuase car companies had gotten all cheap on making bumpers.
So I believe that's why you see "5 mph bumpers" around becuase car companies said "oh shit, we better address this issue".
That's my take on it... but again, i'm not a car guy.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be so. Have there not been upturns in firearms sales since it became likely that Obama would win the election? The McCain political campaign or NRA or someone portrayed Obama as anti-gun. Apparently the sales are a response to this. So, if people anticipating new gun laws respond by buying up guns, what do they intend to do? What will happen if those laws are introduced? How will people respond to enforcement? It seems to me that if people were going to comply with gun-ban laws they wouldn't buy the guns. If they don't comply and the government attempts to enforce the law, you have by nature a very volatile situation.
You answered your own question there. We have a long way to go before people take to the streets with guns. People are just stocking up before a more liberal, not NRA friendly, president comes to power. Big deal, people stocked up on assault rifles before they were banned as well. So far, they haven't revolted.
And typically the mechanism to get states to comply with federal government directives is money.
If you don't see any possibility of a problem with this method, you haven't been paying very much attention.
I've been paying a lot of attention actually. This is common. This has been going on for probably well over 100 years. This is actually a good way to do things. What other enforcement mechanism would you recommend a federal government use on the states? You want them to send in troops for every disagreement? That's just stupid.
Bush was the most hated president certainly in my lifetime... and Obama is still nearly the most popular.
Bush was most hated by people who happen to be in favor of gun bans, Obama is hated by the pro-gun right.
??? So? Bush was hated by the most powerful states in the nation, new york and california. If any states had the clout to declare independence it was those states. I respect economic power much more than rifles in the hands of the citizens. Money will decide independence way before a bullet. Of course, both are often required.
If states didn't openly rebel against Bush, you think they will against Obama?
So HCR6 in NH doesn't mean anything?
Honestly, not really. it's all talk. I skimmed the bill (i'd never heard of it before this), and its just saying "you can't violate the constitution" or we're going to secede from the nation. The *only* thing the federal government might do that has any possibility of becoming reality is the stuff on firearms. The government may restrict firearms and despite what the NRA nuts want to believe, no state will secede from the nation becuase assault rifles aren't allowed to be sold or whatever other restrictions are imposed by a more liberal federal government. It's a silly statement.
The federal government won't and can't restrict *all* gun sales, but they can and will make rules to make the country safer (in their opinion). Weather that's the Brady bill or an assault rifle ban or whatever, they have the right to make those restrictions and no state will do anything of significance because of it.
If the US dollar collapses, it can change a lot. I just don't think it is out of the question to have armed conflict in the US. I think it possible that there will be, as time goes on, a lot of desperate people, many of them armed.
You really believe that the people of the US are such panzies? That amazes me. Ok... so say we have another great depression. 25% unemployment. You think our country is so weak that we disintegrate a la "Mad Max Road Warrior"? It didn't happen in the 30's... so why now?
The current administration may be booted out of office and replace by someone different. Um... big whoop. You think states will start to peal off and start another civil war? You must really think the US has no balls whatsoever and no ability to take even a modicum of suffering.
d
Um... that's pretty nuts. Obama hasn't done anything likely to piss people off enough to actually warrant such extreme actions.
And typically the mechanism to get states to comply with federal government directives is money. They get money for certain things and politicians in washington. You don't want "no child left behind"? That's fine... "no money for you". It's a pretty straight forward approach and few people turn down (nearly) free cash.
I mean seriously. Bush was the most hated president certainly in my lifetime... and Obama is still nearly the most popular. If states didn't openly rebel against Bush, you think they will against Obama? He needs to trip and fall a few times politically before that quits being anymore than a good joke.
d
Actually if Conventional telephone companies switch to delivering internet (fiber to the home), they they will care a lot less about losing their telephone business. They would rather have a single fiber line going to the house rather than a fiber and a twisted pair both. (more money for them to install and upkeep two lines).
The problem is that telephones have become so cheap in terms of data trafficing costs that i'm sure they're a major cash cow by now so it's hard for them to let things go. Of course countries that have strong state owned telephone company may have a harder time letting go, but any free country with high internet usage wouldn't need a conventional phones lines soon.
The telco's eventually would rather switch everybody to fiber/internet anyway so they'll just sell you your "landline" as a box they install off your property that converts their internet into VoIP anyway.
I don't see the reason that landlines can't just die. There's no "critical app" that keeps them rooted anymore. The only reason it's still here is legacy. In first world countries, it will die as soon as market penetration gets too low, and i think that'll happen in the next 10 or 20 years.
But as i said, cell phones will do the killing, not VoIP. More people have cell phones than have internet connections.
d
VoIP will kill conventional telephones? That's just stupid. Cell phones will kill conventional telephones way before VoIP. I bet you that there are a lot more people with cell phones than there are with personal computers and internet connections.
I know people who were giving up their land lines years ago in the states and switching exclusively to their cells... I've yet to meet someone who has done the same with VoIP. (with out them owning a cell that is. I myself use VoIP for international calls and a cell for in-country here in Japan.)
So for those countries that outlaw VoIP, what is the extent of their laws? If I play a game on Steam and it has voice chat as part of the game, will I be thrown in jail? If you play xbox live with the headset on, are you busted? If you use an IM which has voice capability is it illegal to turn that on?
Seriously, how can they make this work and still keep a functioning internet? This just seems like craziness to me.
d
Ok... i'm not a nuclear scientists obviously and I need a little more information to help me out. What's so great about nuclear fusion? If this works does that mean we'll have clean energy without radioactive byproducts? If not, why is this better than nuclear power plants today?
Next, assuming we get this working, what material does it require to make it work successfully? And really, what then becomes the bottle neck to producing infinite cheap energy?
I went and skimmed the wikipedia page but in my 3 min search i couldn't find anything to answer my questions. Without this knowledge I don't think I can appreciate this discussion.
Thanks in advance.
d
As I understand it, it is illegal to perform surveillance on a US government building/office/site, etc. So probably despite the fact that you can drive by and see all these things in the open, actively reporting this information on a continuing basis to anybody would probably get you in legal hot water.
d
You should read TFA... they're asking google to blur real life as well.
d
I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Low earth orbit is defined as 100 miles to 1240 miles (according to wikipedia). So the *closest* you can possibily get with a satalite is 100 miles... now the problem is that if you're 100 miles above the earth you have to be spinning around the earth at a tremondous speed in order to stay in orbit. This means you can't really aim your power sending beam of whatever (uwave in this stupid article) at a single base station and you've got to be rotating A LOT to keep aiming this at the right spot. Very problematic. You're probably spinning around the planet once every 15 min or so. I don't care what population center you're aiming for, you're only going to be over it for a very short period of time.
Ok... so assume a geosynchronous orbit. This is now muuuuuch worse. You're 26,000 miles from the planet. This is not exactly what I'd call "near" a population center despite the fact that you can now be over it for 24 hours a day. Keep in mind the two cities on this plant can not be more than 12k miles apart.
Real numbers just doesn't back this crazy concept up in any way shape or form.
d
Actually, you're wrong, the real question is why the hell are you up there in the first place trying to get power? There are literally thousand of square miles here on earth where you can put solar power panels that are 10,000 times cheaper. Yes, they may drop to 33% efficiency compared to an equivalent panel in space due to atmospheric absorption/reflection of the light. Yes, you may have to clean the solar panels here on earth more often, but there is nothing here that makes up for a 10,000 to 1 installation cost difference.
Until someone can explain that, this whole business model is all pie int he sky BS. This doesn't pass the laugh test.
Oh... and once you handle that hurdle (good luck), THEN you have to deal with the "how do you get it back to earth" question in a way that *maintains* the 3x power advantage you gained by being up there in the first place.
d
Thank you! Someone else who actually had the same thought I did. I like this idea. It sounds great. I'd love to share files with friends and videos of the kids with the parents in an easy seamless way.
The problem is, of course Windows 7. I have nothing against MS other than a dislike for some of their previous heavy handed tactics and i don't have a dislike for windows 7, but I want to use this today, not 5 years from now when people actually have windows 7.
What we need now is a good open source alternative...... (hint hint)
Windows 7 degrades audio inputs when playing sounds? Um... yeah right. Lets just say you're the maker of a sound card and you build a kick ass high fidelity input... oh for something say like a karaoke app. Now windows in their newest version "degrades" your input so you don't function for your wanna-be pro singers. You guys don't think this isn't an actionable thing? Actionable as in lawsuit city?
Give me a break. I'm not a friend of MS, but you guys are willing to believe any thing thrown your way. First off, what's the benefit to MS here from this action that would clearly get them into tons of hot water legally and with consumer ill-will? A tiny payoff from the music industry? Like cash cow MS needs money from the cash poor RIAA. Access to media files? DRM is already gone fromt he music industry selling strategy so tell me again why they would do this???? "i'm going to play a DRM free mp3 file so I can record it as a DRM free mp3 file." ?????
Truly guys... WTF? I know we're all supposed to jump on the "i hate MS" bandwagon when we sign up for slashdot, but wait until this stuff passes the smell test before forming a lynch mob. You only come off as zealots and nuts if you don't.
d
We are not in a war, legal or otherwise... unless you also consider the "war on drugs" a war too. Drugs have easily killed more americans than terrorists and like "terror" it will never go away.
Anyone who has used the phrase "we're at war" during this entire discussion here on slashdot is a weak minded panzy who doesn't have the brains to realize that this is simply a line used to make them sheep for the government to push around. "oh, we're at war, well then it's ok for me to give up all my rights and do whatever you say mr. bush. right-o."
I love how republicans love to think they're all brave but at the first sign of the terrorist boogieman they cower in a corner and offer up all their precious "freedoms" at the drop of a hat while the weak kneed liberal pink-o's say "screw the terrorists, we want our freedoms!"
LOL. What a world we live in.... If i didn't have to live here i'd think it was hilarious.
d
Wow. I can't believe what an echo chamber it is in here.
First of all, why would the FCC care one whit about the anti-DRM movement? As far as their concerned this is the same stuff that cable companies have been putting on their lines for years for movies and pay channels. Why is this any different for them?
So what's the big deal. They think "ah, just move the cable industry model to the internet and you now have streaming TV and movies, great!" And again, i don't actually see a problem with this... until they try to stop you from being able to record on your VCR or something and destroy the cable legacy user model we have today. That's where the problem is and that's what you should be arguing against.
Now again, this whole bittorrent thing eats into their business. First off, they're basically there to support industry. They don't care about us as consumers, they just want to control the content that we can see and view. I mean really, in this day and age, what else do they do? Manage airwave frequencies? Um... yeah... that would take about 10 people for the whole US if that's all they did.
So they're basically the morals gatekeeper to keep us from seeing Janet Jackson's boob. The whole bittorrent thing really eats into that control. I can DL anything from Bambi to 2 girls 1 cup with out any form of content control... and so can any unsupervised 5 yr old. O M G!~
From their point of view, internet filtering is great and DRM is totally old news. So unless you're a religious organization that can whip your people into having orgies of indignation at the drop of a hat, they don't care about your rights as an individual or your rights as a consumer. They only care about your rights to pony up money for the latest Hollywood flick... and maybe about how messed up if little Timmy hears a swear word or sees a (gasp) boob.
Look for other people to protect your rights, the FCC is about limiting, not protecting. Don't expect any different. I hate to say it, but congress and the courts are the path to protecting your rights, not the FCC.
d
I'm sorry, but i don't get it. Phone companies give you phones or discount phones for you purely to get you to sign their contract. Why do they care one whit for how open or not a phone is? they wouldn't care if they had to give you a "massage" from a beautiful girl if it would get you to sign the contract just so long as you put your John Hancock on the dotted line.
The only time this appears to be a factor is when they sell you the special features, text messaging etc, ring tones, etc. Is this really what you're arguing is that they absolutely refuse to "open" the OS to keep those two cash cows restricted to their 10 cents a letter pricing scheme? That doesn't really smell right. There's just no way they can contain those in the era of the smart phone.
Beyond that, using a phone on a different network seems rather a small concern. After 2 years on a contract every phone company is trying to "sell" you a shinny new phone anyway to temp you into switching. So the concern that you might pick up and move to a different company with the same phone seems like peanuts.
The Android won't change that either. Even if the Android took off and you purchase an "open" model... you don't think that in two years you wouldn't want to pick up the new faster model that's smaller, looks cooler, has more memory and a better screen?
I feel like i'm missing something in the whole "there's no way a phone company wouldn't lock down their phones" argument.
d
Wow dude, i hope you never change the channel when a commercial comes or else that would be like going into NBC headquarters stealing their camera equipment! You cheap bastard!
d
actually your post just goes to the argument that this should be thrown out. Where's are the two compaines competing that is causing this friction? If a guy can't walk out of IBM a massive chip and mainframe company and into apple, a front end MP3 player, computer maker, and computer maker without some conflict then the idea of his non-compete is too broad.
IBM and Apple don't compete any more than a any other two massive tech companies and less than most. These two companies are about as far apart as you can expect any two massive tech companies to be. Name any other two massive tech companies that have less in common.
Becuase IBM is pissed that apple "dumped their processors" and went with anther companies has exactly zero baring on weather this guy violated his contract. EVEN IF Apple hires him to go and manage the group who is going to go to Intel to buy chips, it's "non-competing" becuase they are NOT making chips. It's the opposite side of the supplier/vendor divide.
Yes, apples makes a few chips... all big tech compaines make a few ASICs. If that's the criteria for a non-compete then this guy can't do anything but flip burgers. They also bought a 100 per
This really smells bad. This is not a jump to another big super computer company or massive chip maker. Where's the conflict of interest? I just don't see it.
d
Hm.. really that's a pretty horrible analogy for taxes and social standing. AS IF they all get the same beer. Let's change the story a little bit...
The all go into the bar, the poorest man is given thimble full of piss and told it's beer... "so drink up schmuck and be happy i let you stand in the corner of my bar". The next few lowest are given whatever Coors knockoff is cheapest, in warm and dented cans. After about the mid point the customers start getting decent beer that's cold and in mugs. Life is good. The top guy is led into the back room where he's out of sight of the other 9... and there's where the bar opens up and becomes a luxury resort with show girls catering to his every whim, girls in bikini's giving massages, plush leather couches, and he gets a bath in warm champagne.
After they're all done... then the tab comes out about what you said.
To argue that each person in our country taxes the resources of our government the same is sheer stupidity on it's face. For any business owner rolling in money there's a business that's utilizing the resources of country to support the business. Weather it's driving shipping trucks on our roads, selling in foreign countries, relying on the military to keep their business safe them safe overseas, or relying on public schools to train their workforce or give their workforce health care when they don't. it's all being supported by our country and our tax dollars. Don't think for a second that you can make millions in this country without heavily sucking up to the government tit in some way or another.
d
Ok... i'm not an athority but...as i heard it, this is the way it happened. ACORN is turning in fraudulent voter registration cards but they're TELLING the government that they think they're fake.
Now think about it for a second... They've got some guy being paid squat that wrote in a bunch of names to look like he was working instead of watching TV and ACORN figured it out... now what do they do? Do they just throw away the forms? I would bet money that it is ILLEGAL for ACORN to throw away ANY voter registration cards. Why? Well... all those republican voter registration cards would suddenly get lost... or the opposite for republican leaning voter registration drives. Who do you want making the decisions over the validity of the information on a voter registration card, a political organization or the government?
So...
1. ACORN gets fake voter registration cards
2. ACORN tells government "we think these are fake" but turns them in anyway
3. Government makes the call
Sounds like the way it should work to me.
Don't be stupid, just because someone fills in a card doesn't mean they can vote. This sounds like 100% political mud slinging to me.
don
Sorry guys, but this is obvious and a lame observation in and of itself. Who cares if evolution has stopped? It takes way too damn long anyway. Natural evolution of humans is done. The next step is genetic engineering.
This will come and it will be a good thing. The human race will evolve by change their own DNA. It will start slowly at first... changing genetics to remove abnormalities or genetic diseases. It'll then slowly move into genetic alterations for intelligence and then into the cosmetic. Think about what people are willing to spend for a better school... now imagine they can spend that on child intelligence upgrades. "Ok sir, you'd like the 115 IQ package... would you like blue eyes with that?"
It'll then become the next arms race. Some prudish countries will be squeamish about this as they were about stem cells... but some countries will embrace it. In less than a generation they will have smarter and better children and will dominate economically. All other countries will drop their objections and agree with the idea to an extent. There will probably be lots of push back by the genetically disadvantaged, but eventually agreed upon limits will exist where people will get smarter through genetic engineering.
So fear not, the human race will keep evolving... it just won't be the painful 100,000 year, kill off the slightly weaker type of evolution. It'll be the kind you pull out your credit card for and tell the nice man behind the counter how much you're willing to pay today to make your child a "better person" tomorrow.
d
"most of the cost to military to oil" is a bit of a stretch... but the cost of the iraq war would be a valid claim. You think we'd give two shakes of a rats ass about iraq if it weren't for oil? i think not.
d
I used to own a small MR2 spyder (mid engine two seater) and i tried this on an road late one night... now I was only going 45-55 mph, and i'm sure this is different with a big ass SUV or something, but that thing stopped so fast I'm not sure i could have turned if i wanted to. I was too busy being pushed into my seat belt.
I know, I know... sporty car on a dry road, not really going that fast, but damn the stopping speed was impressive!
It makes me shake my head at all the people who tell you about accelerating out of danger. I tried that in that same car when some guy was coming up behind me ready to plow into me on the freeway... and all i remember is that nothing happened. Given a choice between the two, decelerating out of danger will keep you safe 49 out of 50 times more than the opposite.
so... you do realize that even if all you want to do is stop in a straight line it is STILL better to keep the tires moving, right? You get the difference between static and dynamic friction? Your comment makes it sound like you don't.
Before the days of ABS, the common thing that was taught was to "pump he brakes" to stop quickly... this is to avoid skidding so you can stop faster. Squealing in a straight line is not the fastest way to stop.
d
+1 hilarious (for using the term "paranoid little pumpkin")
As I understand it... and i'm not a car guy either... there was an investigative report back in the 90's or late 80's by 60 minutes i believe... or maybe consumer reports or somebody big and reputable like that. They did testing with a bunch of then modern cars and ran them into a pole at 5 mph... this sounds tame, but the resulting damage for most cars ran from like $1000 to $5000 in damage. (They basically damaged the front or back metal shell ... see i don't even know the right terms... and it cost major money to replace it becuase car companies had gotten all cheap on making bumpers.
So I believe that's why you see "5 mph bumpers" around becuase car companies said "oh shit, we better address this issue".
That's my take on it... but again, i'm not a car guy.
d