You're forgetting that there are quite a few people living in apartments (and thus can't install solar panels).
(Warning: Pipe dream ahead.) Also, who says that the power companies can't augment their current source with these new, cheaper solar cells? If it's cheaper and more efficient, they could either lower costs and maintain profits by burning less fuel or they can keep the same price and make more to help balance out the number of people switching, again by burning less fuel.
Although, it would still take eons to catch on at that level. After all, we don't see that many wind farms either.
Except that Apple controls the hardware they put it on (or at least know what type of hardware people upgrading to their next OS will have) because they supply it. Apple knows exactly much of a resource hog they can make OSX each version. Microsoft doesn't and should be more conservative on flashy GUI effects and focus on efficient programming (Besides, people use a computer to use programs, not to stare at how the buttons on the title bar light up on mouseover.)
Yes, it indeed is a clone. But isn't that a good thing? Granted, Dell's probably approaching this more for potential monetary gain than for charity, but does it matter? The OLPC project doesn't have enough financial backing to supply every underprivileged child with a notebook. Do you think those actually only cost $100 to make? Even if they can manage it on the first pass, you have to take into account that everything breaks eventually.
If more companies did the same, it means a few more kids can become interested in computers, learn more about them, and even get a high-paying job later in life. Send in the clones!
And further, why are people so god damn willing to give up their money to the fucking government?!
You're right. Let's just leave mass transit, maintaining the roads, and law enforcement up to large corporations. Then we wouldn't have to pay taxes to the government. Of course, then those corporations would need a steady flow of income to make up for how much they're spending on these services. I got it! They could collect fees from people using the roadways at certain points, charge a percentage for all goods sold on their land, and charge everyone in the area based on how much they make each year.
I really can't see how they need such publicity at this point. They own five networks and are well known because of that. It seems rather pointless to me to depend on a search engine for popularity once your logo is being flashed at least 10 times per hour on hundreds of thousands to millions of TV screens.
But I could be wrong. Is there anything Viacom uses the Internet for that isn't already ridiculously well-known?
So does this mean that I can re-record a public domain recording playing on a television and assert copyright on the new recording?
It makes sense to me why C-SPAN should have a say in what is done with what they pay to record and broadcast, but at the same time it seems absurd that they should be able to do so on something that they merely recorded and broadcasted. They contributed nothing to the proceedings in the way of creativity, other than the camera angle.
It is better not to attempt anything significant with a nation full of whiny obstructionists. Wait a few years and somebody with a WILL will pick up the torch we've dropped. It is too late for us.
Or maybe anyone who could do it will end up wrapped in the popular thought of everyone else: "Wait for someone else to do it for us."
If this became the popular way of thinking about this, the only people who would step up would be those looking to feed their egos and pad their wallets. We can either wait for a solution, hoping that at least one of us isn't waiting with us, or we can all look for ways to help to bring our ideas to fruition.
I concur. It could drastically cut costs of running large-scale server farms if .
I really don't see much savings for someone with one or two machines.
Although, no one can really say for sure, since we're witnessing round 2 of the MHz wars.
Well, I imagine we'd need one implant, for the brain to receive information from the false eye, but who says the false eye needs to be implanted?
You could find all kinds of crazy applications for an electronic eye,like night vision. Why stick to imitating the eye and its limited peripheral vision? Am I the only one thinking of an eye helmet?
You're all doing it wrong! We should build a massive, mobile catapult to launch a giant rock at everything so it would land on the moon.
Aside from clearing some space, this would provide plenty of supplies if we ever set up a base on the moon, and would also be the largest game of Arkanoid yet.
I don't really see why people try this (fake blogs to promote their products).
How can the chance at getting a few thousand people to think "Hey, that looks like a decent product." when they also risk alienating countless more if their plans were to come to light?
Slashdot Mirror
You're forgetting that there are quite a few people living in apartments (and thus can't install solar panels).
(Warning: Pipe dream ahead.) Also, who says that the power companies can't augment their current source with these new, cheaper solar cells? If it's cheaper and more efficient, they could either lower costs and maintain profits by burning less fuel or they can keep the same price and make more to help balance out the number of people switching, again by burning less fuel.
Although, it would still take eons to catch on at that level. After all, we don't see that many wind farms either.
Except that Apple controls the hardware they put it on (or at least know what type of hardware people upgrading to their next OS will have) because they supply it. Apple knows exactly much of a resource hog they can make OSX each version. Microsoft doesn't and should be more conservative on flashy GUI effects and focus on efficient programming (Besides, people use a computer to use programs, not to stare at how the buttons on the title bar light up on mouseover.)
I suppose even vendor lock-in has its advantages.
Just correcting myself. I meant to say Intel instead of Dell.
Yes, it indeed is a clone. But isn't that a good thing? Granted, Dell's probably approaching this more for potential monetary gain than for charity, but does it matter?
The OLPC project doesn't have enough financial backing to supply every underprivileged child with a notebook. Do you think those actually only cost $100 to make?
Even if they can manage it on the first pass, you have to take into account that everything breaks eventually.
If more companies did the same, it means a few more kids can become interested in computers, learn more about them, and even get a high-paying job later in life. Send in the clones!
You're right. Let's just leave mass transit, maintaining the roads, and law enforcement up to large corporations. Then we wouldn't have to pay taxes to the government.
Of course, then those corporations would need a steady flow of income to make up for how much they're spending on these services. I got it! They could collect fees from people using the roadways at certain points, charge a percentage for all goods sold on their land, and charge everyone in the area based on how much they make each year.
Then we wouldn't have to pay those stupid taxes.
I really can't see how they need such publicity at this point. They own five networks and are well known because of that. It seems rather pointless to me to depend on a search engine for popularity once your logo is being flashed at least 10 times per hour on hundreds of thousands to millions of TV screens.
But I could be wrong. Is there anything Viacom uses the Internet for that isn't already ridiculously well-known?
We'll just take a plasma welder to the affected area. Aside from being relatively quick, it's also cost-effective.
So does this mean that I can re-record a public domain recording playing on a television and assert copyright on the new recording?
It makes sense to me why C-SPAN should have a say in what is done with what they pay to record and broadcast, but at the same time it seems absurd that they should be able to do so on something that they merely recorded and broadcasted. They contributed nothing to the proceedings in the way of creativity, other than the camera angle.
Actually, now that I think of it, I'm pretty sure they can't.
Does this mean they'll be using these?
Pfft. I'd be too busy laughing at the 'bully' for having a Segway for legs.
But can it run Linux?
I concur. It could drastically cut costs of running large-scale server farms if . I really don't see much savings for someone with one or two machines. Although, no one can really say for sure, since we're witnessing round 2 of the MHz wars.
Well, I imagine we'd need one implant, for the brain to receive information from the false eye, but who says the false eye needs to be implanted? You could find all kinds of crazy applications for an electronic eye,like night vision. Why stick to imitating the eye and its limited peripheral vision? Am I the only one thinking of an eye helmet?
You're all doing it wrong! We should build a massive, mobile catapult to launch a giant rock at everything so it would land on the moon. Aside from clearing some space, this would provide plenty of supplies if we ever set up a base on the moon, and would also be the largest game of Arkanoid yet.
Sword impales 42" LCD HDTV, public demands stronger wrist straps.
I don't really see why people try this (fake blogs to promote their products). How can the chance at getting a few thousand people to think "Hey, that looks like a decent product." when they also risk alienating countless more if their plans were to come to light?
Curious. How will this agreement mean anything if MS is still going to have Vista DRM'ed up the wazoo?