Or even better: use dimmer switches and... turn bulb off when not in use. Perhaps even use motion sensors to automatically shut off lights in unused rooms. An incandescent bulb switched off burns less energy than a flourescent in an unused but still on flourescent.
* Replace bulky monitors for flat screens
Too minor (see below). Now, change out all the CRT Television screens and you've got something.
* Incentivate low-power CPU's
One word: Cell. Again though, this won't matter much since outside the Linux world (i.e. most people) PCs get shut off for most of the day.
* Invest in information campaigns about not using home electronics in stand-by mode
You clearly did not get the memo. Today's standard "standby" mode is the same thing we used to call "off". The only difference is that now there is an annoying-ass red LED sitting there staring at your reminding you that you are not using the device. And burning a small amount of energy (heh, think the ol' "half cent rounding" scenarios;) only smaller). There are, however, a few consumer electronics devices that do have a legitamte (i.e. real) standby mode and shuttung them off would be mostly pointless. For example, DVR systems. Put them in standby and they stay in low power mode until they need to record something. Turn it *off* (if possible) and you have just eliminated about 80% of the purpose and use of the DVR.
* Invest in solar power R&D for home applications
Already been done. Been going on for decades. It is mostly a money pit. Unless you plan to rebuild nearly every house (uhhh for the momennt leave out the gulf coast states where they pretty much ARE doing that...) so you can orient them properly and provide "solar envelopes" to prevent my neighbor's trees (you know, good environmental things to have) from blocking my access to power for my fridge, there is not a lot of potential here. All this despite a butt-load of money doing exactly what you propose.
A more realistic alternative would be simple education of what you are using. In real time. Honestly that little statement you get with your power bill every month, if you even read it, is pointless for monitoring your electricity usage. It's rather like the old Yakoff Smirnoff bit: "I saw an ad that said 'big sale (pause) last week'. I thought to myself 'oh sure, rub it in why don't you'".
Instead have realtime feedback on how much power you draw. Then people will actually get curious and many (particularly we hacker-types) will experiment with their "new toy". They'll turn off lights, turn certain devices on, etc. just to see what does what. I think many would be very suprised.
Not the least of which would be all the people changing all their bulbs to flourescents. The only time you see any real (read: significant) savings (money or energy) is when you change out a bulb that is on for a sizable portion of the day. Ever price what it takes to run a 60 watt bulb for three hours a day in your area? How about a 10W flourescent?
In that scenario (far more common than you may at first think), you go from using.06*3=.18Kw-hours per day to.03. Sounds huge right? Wrong. If you pay 7 cents per KW-hour how much money have you saved from usage if that bulb is on 3hours/day for 30 days? hmmm 37.8 cents verus 6.3 cents. So you saved 32 cents. If that bulb lasts you 6 months your energy savings would be $1.92. If it lasted 6 months. In my experience, I've not found any brand that outlasted the incandescents. Given the higher price of the flourescents vs. incandescents, most of them have been more costly. Which means more trips to the store for replacements. And all this assumes you don't dim the incandescents appropriately. If you do this the savings difference shrinks. What about on a total energy scale? If say 50 million bulbs saved.15Kw/month that would
Yet, there are plenty of economic tricks you can impose to change lifestyles.
There are also a lot of things we can do to cut down transportation energy costs w/o making sacrifices or massive changes. For example, you could more double the effective MPG of 18 wheelers by changing the regulations that limit them so heavily (pun intended) to rather light loads.
For example, Michigan raised it's limits and the largest food quality tanker truck fleet went from 5MPG to an effective 12.5 by carrying more cargo in a single trip. Kind of like making ONE trip to the store in the (E85 powered) Suburban per week than 3 or 4 in the metro, or taking two family sedans@22 MPG each to take the family somewhere instead of taking the 15MPG SUV and no additional vehicles.
For those worried about safety: require an additional acle for GVWR over 110,000 or so pounds. An additional axle will keep the road surface PSI from the truck at or lower than today (meaning no increase in road wear/damage) and the increased braking power from the additional axle will in most cases MORE than compensate for the additional weight - often making the vehicle *safer*.
But people don't like to think or talk about the "easy" changes we can make. Considering that the change I mentioned above would represent about a 40% savings in fuel costs ( one of the two most costly aspects of heavy transport), the no loss and likely increase in safety of the trucks, and the resulting lower costs and lower magnitude shockwaves to the economy you'd think it would be an easy, almost no-brainer. You'd think that the Environmentalism preachers would be railing away at it.
But that would require that "Environmentalism" be actually about making the world a *better* place.
Sure there are non-whackos who "care about the environment". It's one of the reasons I have a Suburban. It runs on E85. Here, the cost diffrence is usually a wash (lower MPGf, lower $$PGf) or tilted in favor of the E85. for example last fall when gasoline was pushing three bucks/gallon, I paid under two bucks for E85. When I get 10MPG on E85, I am getting 67MPG of gasoline. Now who requires more oil to drive around, my Suburban or the Prius?
Curiously enough, vehicles that get significantly higher MPGf will lead directly to a higher per-gallon tax. Why? Do you think the government will want to "lose" that revenue? Already some states are looking to increase their gas tax simply to keep up with a) better fuel economy and b) people driving less due to high prices.
There is always the conspiracy theory that the Fed doesn't raise CAFE because of the oil companies and car makers. I suspect a more realistic consideration is the loss in revenue they'd have to experience (or significantly raise the gas tax).
We done it many times before. Or do you believe that humans have always driven cars to work?
How many billions of people were there with jobs when cars were invented? Or do you believe we've always had this many people with jobs far enough away they had to get there somehow other than walking and were dragged kicking and screaming into the world of travelling THIRTY miles in half an hour or less, let alone under a DAY?
However... I'm sure Blogger.com is still a viable business, but it's increasingly irrelevant.
Consider the "side effects" of such a business, for google. With the increasing services Google has been playing with, tying a better Blogger into it could be a very nice step forward. If, for example, blog entries and comments are immediately available in Google search results, they may have something of value to both searchers and advertisers, as well as authors. For example, view the crap that is www.weblogs.com. Compare that to a Google blog search, with their own blog "businesses" available immediately in search (with an option to not have it done, of course).
Tying in Gmail, Blog, and whatever else they decide to do can still have benefits/rewards for Google (and us) with blogger.com.
Now, I'm not saying they will/plan to do this, nor even that it is a good idea. Just that it might be.
But instead of reducing their prices to reflect the change in cost to deliver the product to market, these companies decided to increase their costs, in the name of profitability and growth and investors. When customers saw that the companies were overcharging them, they began to deliberately turn away, continuing to take the product, but without paying for it. In turn, the companies decided to increase their prices further, to make a greater profit off of the shrinking market. But the more they increased the cost, the fewer customers they seemed to have...
Wait, when did we start talking about the US Postal Service?
You mean the same way that Airlines have a two hour wait, chance of getting bumped due to intentional overbooking, chance of being used as a hostage or missile, chance of blowing up, chance of crashing, and so on and so forth for a few hours trip when a reasonably priced train ride will get you there in perhaps twice as long?
Don't get me wrong, strapping into a seat and firing off massive rocket-like engines to blast into the air is cool. But heavier than air travel will need to deal with these issues lest they go the way of the Hindenburg.
---
Now, sarcasm and pointing out absurdity using absurdity aside, current suborbital travel plans do not include you. Yes, you. You who don't have the funds nor the desire to do it until it can be "made safe". Probably never will. But that won't stop it. Looking back at all prior transportation mode advancements, the same could be said. Horses to walking, horseless carriages to horse-drawn buggies. Steamer ships to sail driven craft. Balloons to land based transportation, and even airplanes to balloons. If this were a hundred years ago people such as yourself would be pooh-poohing air travel.
Have you ever looked at the accident rate on a per-mile basis of rocket and/or orbital/space travel in the US versus, say, planes, trains and automobiles? You might be suprised. If you knew the real statistical risk level of travelling by automobile you might be a bit more concerned about your everyday travel. But probably not since you couldn't pooh-pooh it safe in the knowledge you'll never have the opportuinity to use it.
And in truth, your so-called "good chance fo blowing up" is naught but hot air. The actual risk of blowing up is small. What you percevie as risk of occurrence is really impact of occurrence. It is not a common event (the so-called "good chance"), but it is a spectacular attention grabbing event. Thus you think it is a good chance of occurrence because you only remember the few times it happens. But like much of so-called "common sense", it is actually the opposite.
How many women do you know go cliffjumping or start street racing just because of the type of car that pulled up next to her at the stop light?
Just get yourself a Corvette. You would be suprised by the number of soccer moms in minvans see you pull up next to them and decide "I can take him" and try to street race you.
Joking aside, it is more likely a matter of hazardous *jobs* than risky hobbies. Ho wmany women work(ed) in the mines, served on the front, hunted for the family food, etc.?
It has the potential to usher in a UI revolution, or serve as the groundwork for it. New devices could be the sci-fi UI favorite: gloves.
With the capabilities to provide the visual aspect of the GI "Glove Interface", the glove can actually be practical. With the current 2D "desktop" metaphor, mouse and keyboard are pretty much it.
In the meantime.. hey it's cool!;) Seriously though I do see host of interface improvements that can come from this. But as said, it won't be coming from the big boys first. IN particular watch the desktop organization video. Note the window dispay, how it shrinks and expands. This is an alternative the the ubiquitous taskbar, perhaps even virtual screens.
Take this display technology and mate it with VR goggles or HUD systems. Combine the GI and you've got a very significant departure in computing interface. Whether or not this helps us use our systems better (safer, more efficiently or effectively, yadda yadda) remains to be seen. I am, however, quite optimistic that it will be.
As far as data/text entry in the GI/VR display combination, it could range from *real* gestures to a virtual keyboard that can be displayed on the "screen". I wonder how much that would help "learning to type". Picture a virtual keyboard with virtual hands. As you progress, the hands and/or the keyboard would gradually become transparent. Hmmm....
Do you seriously think WalMart CIOs had anything to do with HOW the software made it's decisions? Maybe in small companies, MAYBE. But not in a company the size of Walmart or even a quarter of that size.
Given YOU don't know how it works, how can you expect the CIO of a company that large to know?
Ok, so you are offended, but you missed the main thrust: WHY are you offended.
Honestly, if you walked into a video store and saw King Kong sitting next to or on the same shelf as an MLK documentary, would you still be offended? Why?
In this case, as in most cases of personal offense, the offense is a result of *your* perceptions, not those you accuse. How can I say this?
Do you have any evidence this was done intentionally to offend? You offer none, and give no indication of having it, so I assume you do not have any. Therefore you are offended for some perceived affront.
This happens all the time, and not just in terms of racism or sexism. it happens as misunderstanding all the time in such places as pure science, programming, or everyday communication. A phrase everyone could do well to remember is "No offense taken where none was intended."
Indeed, the argument that saying this event is indicative of racism is likely itself a racist statement. After all, you are claiming that someone not of your race was intentionally trying to hurt (emotionally) someone of your race simply because they were not of your race. And you do it with absolutely no evidence.
We don't need to know why you feel someone tried to offend you. The most important thing is for YOU to figure it out. It is YOUR bias here. You assume that 1) it was intentionally done to cause some sort of hurt and 2) the people responsible for the result were not black. Personally, I quite it quite racist for you to assume that a black person could not have coded the program or entered the data, or even decided the two items were related. And you claim to be a black person. That doesn't suprise me though.
I learned long ago as one of three white kids in a half mile radius in Hilltop Tacoma that more anti-black racism comes from black people than white people today. Sure we hear it now, but it isn't a new thing.
And that shouldn't suprise anyone. After all, racism is pretty much the result of insecurity or a desire to dominate. And all humans have some degree of either or both. Sadly, for many people turning it into a racist thing is much easier than dealing with their own insecurities and feelings. At least for those growing up in less-than-ideal conditions, insecurity is very common. If it is made to be dangerous or improper to disclose and discuss these feelings, some sort of directed anger or chosen inferior quality is a natural result.
I do find it sadly ironic that King called for a color blind society. yet far too many of his followers didn't hear that part of the message. And too many people today, of all colors, still refuse to hear it.
Look up "The Law" by Bastiat. Read it. See if you see any parallels. Particularly on the "changing of the guard" issues.
I don't care for Microsoft, I'll freely admit that. I have a chosen preference away from their products. But if it were MS software that did this, I still would not care. Why? I believe in my fellow man.
Besides, I choose when to be offended, and why. I choose to only take offense (as much as I can) when it is intentional, and meant to cause harm. Yes, it takes work. But if you aren't willing to make yourself a better person, how dare you demand others make changes for you?
And no, I won't stoop to your ASSumed level of "bashing", despite your thinly veiled request for it.
I have yet to work-out why this was recommended to me, by Amazon, but in there is "The Lesbian Karma Sutra"! I kid you not... I've never bought any books on lesbianism before; heck, I'm male for goodness sake! What need do I have for mutual carpet munching?!
Well you are male, right? Do you not realize that a lot of heterosexual men will buy that book because of what is in it? Dude, chick on chick!
Observing "mutual carpet munching" need not be a need for you. But as a man you are a natural market for a book about it.;) *Generally* speaking, men do seem to like to see women together.
Heck, I'd be happy to get that book recommended, as I didn't know that a) it existed and more importantly b) Amazon had it.;^)
Now, if you'll excuse me, I must prepare myself for the expected deluge of innuendo. This is/. after all.
Nope, no innuendo here. That would be reseved for a book on Male Homosexual Kama Sutra book. ba-dump-bump.
o, I'd say it's somewhat disingenuous to say "Gosh, I don't know why people would get so upset that someone is comparing Monkeys Gone Wild with Martin Luther King! It's so absurd!" It comes off as rather false.
Well we are talking about a result of a computer process, right? Are computers now racist?!?
What is absurd is to assume that because a *software program* links two or more products we *humans* don't quite get, then it MUST be racist/sexist/insensitive/whatever. We are dealing with a result of following a set of rules.
I'd bet that at the base level, all of the "related items" programs boil down to keywords, keyphrases, etc.. Is it so absurd to consider that a piece of software with a programmed intent of finding *related items* would put together King Kong and Martin Luther King?
Well first they both share "King". Second, if the posted reviews (which is likely where much of this is taken from) both have the same words/phrases in them, they are quite likely to be considered by the software as "similar".
How does that phrase go... "Do not so easiily attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to negligence or stupidity." or some such.
Is it logical for a computer program following a given algorithm to conclude that these two products are similar? Absolutely. Therefore, the "social commentary" of your post is more a commentary on your biases and mindsets, and not those of people or inanimate programs you'd label as "racist", clever or otherwise.
Re:Recommend Everyone Read This Guy's Comment
on
The Patent Epidemic
·
· Score: 1
As a practicing patent attorney, I've observed that both proponents and opponents of the patent system use unprincipled, flawed, utilitarian (wealth-maximization) reasoning to support their position. The primarily principled opponents of patents are anti-industrialist, anti-private-property socialists.
Hardly. Most of them are "anarcho-capitalists", "libertarians", "Libertarians", and "free marketers". Patents are a government creation of monopoly, an interference with the natural flow. or so the argument goes.
While I am sure there are "anti-industrialist, anti-private-property socialists" opposing patents, they are more likely to be in the minority. And my experience as someone who has studied the situation for many years (long before people such as yourself even thought there to be a problem), my experience has shown that socialists are rarely in opposition to the patent system. Imdeed, most are growing ever more fond of it. After all, you can't prevent everyone from having private property until you control most of it. As long as there are patents, socialists can purchase or use them to garner more power. With stronger concentrations of power (bigger corporations), they have less work to do to achieve their agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
* Switch light bulbs for fluorescent bulbs
... turn bulb off when not in use. Perhaps even use motion sensors to automatically shut off lights in unused rooms. An incandescent bulb switched off burns less energy than a flourescent in an unused but still on flourescent.
;) only smaller). There are, however, a few consumer electronics devices that do have a legitamte (i.e. real) standby mode and shuttung them off would be mostly pointless. For example, DVR systems. Put them in standby and they stay in low power mode until they need to record something. Turn it *off* (if possible) and you have just eliminated about 80% of the purpose and use of the DVR.
.06*3=.18Kw-hours per day to .03. Sounds huge right? Wrong. If you pay 7 cents per KW-hour how much money have you saved from usage if that bulb is on 3hours/day for 30 days? hmmm 37.8 cents verus 6.3 cents. So you saved 32 cents. If that bulb lasts you 6 months your energy savings would be $1.92. If it lasted 6 months. In my experience, I've not found any brand that outlasted the incandescents. Given the higher price of the flourescents vs. incandescents, most of them have been more costly. Which means more trips to the store for replacements. And all this assumes you don't dim the incandescents appropriately. If you do this the savings difference shrinks. What about on a total energy scale? If say 50 million bulbs saved .15Kw/month that would
Or even better: use dimmer switches and
* Replace bulky monitors for flat screens
Too minor (see below). Now, change out all the CRT Television screens and you've got something.
* Incentivate low-power CPU's
One word: Cell. Again though, this won't matter much since outside the Linux world (i.e. most people) PCs get shut off for most of the day.
* Invest in information campaigns about not using home electronics in stand-by mode
You clearly did not get the memo. Today's standard "standby" mode is the same thing we used to call "off". The only difference is that now there is an annoying-ass red LED sitting there staring at your reminding you that you are not using the device. And burning a small amount of energy (heh, think the ol' "half cent rounding" scenarios
* Invest in solar power R&D for home applications
Already been done. Been going on for decades. It is mostly a money pit. Unless you plan to rebuild nearly every house (uhhh for the momennt leave out the gulf coast states where they pretty much ARE doing that...) so you can orient them properly and provide "solar envelopes" to prevent my neighbor's trees (you know, good environmental things to have) from blocking my access to power for my fridge, there is not a lot of potential here. All this despite a butt-load of money doing exactly what you propose.
A more realistic alternative would be simple education of what you are using. In real time. Honestly that little statement you get with your power bill every month, if you even read it, is pointless for monitoring your electricity usage. It's rather like the old Yakoff Smirnoff bit: "I saw an ad that said 'big sale (pause) last week'. I thought to myself 'oh sure, rub it in why don't you'".
Instead have realtime feedback on how much power you draw. Then people will actually get curious and many (particularly we hacker-types) will experiment with their "new toy". They'll turn off lights, turn certain devices on, etc. just to see what does what. I think many would be very suprised.
Not the least of which would be all the people changing all their bulbs to flourescents. The only time you see any real (read: significant) savings (money or energy) is when you change out a bulb that is on for a sizable portion of the day. Ever price what it takes to run a 60 watt bulb for three hours a day in your area? How about a 10W flourescent?
In that scenario (far more common than you may at first think), you go from using
Yet, there are plenty of economic tricks you can impose to change lifestyles.
There are also a lot of things we can do to cut down transportation energy costs w/o making sacrifices or massive changes. For example, you could more double the effective MPG of 18 wheelers by changing the regulations that limit them so heavily (pun intended) to rather light loads.
For example, Michigan raised it's limits and the largest food quality tanker truck fleet went from 5MPG to an effective 12.5 by carrying more cargo in a single trip. Kind of like making ONE trip to the store in the (E85 powered) Suburban per week than 3 or 4 in the metro, or taking two family sedans@22 MPG each to take the family somewhere instead of taking the 15MPG SUV and no additional vehicles.
For those worried about safety: require an additional acle for GVWR over 110,000 or so pounds. An additional axle will keep the road surface PSI from the truck at or lower than today (meaning no increase in road wear/damage) and the increased braking power from the additional axle will in most cases MORE than compensate for the additional weight - often making the vehicle *safer*.
But people don't like to think or talk about the "easy" changes we can make. Considering that the change I mentioned above would represent about a 40% savings in fuel costs ( one of the two most costly aspects of heavy transport), the no loss and likely increase in safety of the trucks, and the resulting lower costs and lower magnitude shockwaves to the economy you'd think it would be an easy, almost no-brainer. You'd think that the Environmentalism preachers would be railing away at it.
But that would require that "Environmentalism" be actually about making the world a *better* place.
Sure there are non-whackos who "care about the environment". It's one of the reasons I have a Suburban. It runs on E85. Here, the cost diffrence is usually a wash (lower MPGf, lower $$PGf) or tilted in favor of the E85. for example last fall when gasoline was pushing three bucks/gallon, I paid under two bucks for E85. When I get 10MPG on E85, I am getting 67MPG of gasoline. Now who requires more oil to drive around, my Suburban or the Prius?
Curiously enough, vehicles that get significantly higher MPGf will lead directly to a higher per-gallon tax. Why? Do you think the government will want to "lose" that revenue? Already some states are looking to increase their gas tax simply to keep up with a) better fuel economy and b) people driving less due to high prices.
There is always the conspiracy theory that the Fed doesn't raise CAFE because of the oil companies and car makers. I suspect a more realistic consideration is the loss in revenue they'd have to experience (or significantly raise the gas tax).
How many billions of people were there with jobs when cars were invented? Or do you believe we've always had this many people with jobs far enough away they had to get there somehow other than walking and were dragged kicking and screaming into the world of travelling THIRTY miles in half an hour or less, let alone under a DAY?
doubling nuclear capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035
Doubling Hybrid and electric car use would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035.
There you go, some perspective.
but in order to help protect our network and users
Shouldn't that read:
"...but in order to protect our network of users from jumping ship to better products..." ?
Nice, well done post. I agree with most of it.
...
However
I'm sure Blogger.com is still a viable business, but it's increasingly irrelevant.
Consider the "side effects" of such a business, for google. With the increasing services Google has been playing with, tying a better Blogger into it could be a very nice step forward. If, for example, blog entries and comments are immediately available in Google search results, they may have something of value to both searchers and advertisers, as well as authors. For example, view the crap that is www.weblogs.com. Compare that to a Google blog search, with their own blog "businesses" available immediately in search (with an option to not have it done, of course).
Tying in Gmail, Blog, and whatever else they decide to do can still have benefits/rewards for Google (and us) with blogger.com.
Now, I'm not saying they will/plan to do this, nor even that it is a good idea. Just that it might be.
Here you go
Wait, when did we start talking about the US Postal Service?
...that read it as "UAC"?
yes.
but it did have a nice big back seat (wink, wink), which produced a lot more fun than any Sony equipment I've ever owned.
Just imagine how much fun it would have been with someone else back there with you.
You mean the same way that Airlines have a two hour wait, chance of getting bumped due to intentional overbooking, chance of being used as a hostage or missile, chance of blowing up, chance of crashing, and so on and so forth for a few hours trip when a reasonably priced train ride will get you there in perhaps twice as long?
Don't get me wrong, strapping into a seat and firing off massive rocket-like engines to blast into the air is cool. But heavier than air travel will need to deal with these issues lest they go the way of the Hindenburg.
---
Now, sarcasm and pointing out absurdity using absurdity aside, current suborbital travel plans do not include you. Yes, you. You who don't have the funds nor the desire to do it until it can be "made safe". Probably never will. But that won't stop it. Looking back at all prior transportation mode advancements, the same could be said. Horses to walking, horseless carriages to horse-drawn buggies. Steamer ships to sail driven craft. Balloons to land based transportation, and even airplanes to balloons. If this were a hundred years ago people such as yourself would be pooh-poohing air travel.
Have you ever looked at the accident rate on a per-mile basis of rocket and/or orbital/space travel in the US versus, say, planes, trains and automobiles? You might be suprised. If you knew the real statistical risk level of travelling by automobile you might be a bit more concerned about your everyday travel. But probably not since you couldn't pooh-pooh it safe in the knowledge you'll never have the opportuinity to use it.
And in truth, your so-called "good chance fo blowing up" is naught but hot air. The actual risk of blowing up is small. What you percevie as risk of occurrence is really impact of occurrence. It is not a common event (the so-called "good chance"), but it is a spectacular attention grabbing event. Thus you think it is a good chance of occurrence because you only remember the few times it happens. But like much of so-called "common sense", it is actually the opposite.
This desire to exlore mars is reliant on our mastering reaching and taming the moon.
No it isn't. I desire to go Mars w/o ever settign foot on the Moon.
Nor is going to the moon technologically required to get to Mars. The exact rockets that took men to Luna could have taken them to Mars.
We don't *need* the moon to get to Mars anymore than I need to go from Seattle to Los Angeles by way of Chicago.
As far as cost, energy-wise, the Moon is *more* expensive to get to than Mars. Going to Mars today would be cheaper than Apollo cost in equal dollars.
I don't call my second wife Wife 2.0
Don't worry, I still refer to her as Mistress 6.0.
How many women do you know go cliffjumping or start street racing just because of the type of car that pulled up next to her at the stop light?
Just get yourself a Corvette. You would be suprised by the number of soccer moms in minvans see you pull up next to them and decide "I can take him" and try to street race you.
Joking aside, it is more likely a matter of hazardous *jobs* than risky hobbies. Ho wmany women work(ed) in the mines, served on the front, hunted for the family food, etc.?
I guess I just don't see how the RIAA isn't a wholy owned subsidiary of the Mafia.
That's because you have it backward.
I'd have to disagree as I was much better at FPS games with the trackball in the first month of having it than I ever was with the mouse.
It has the potential to usher in a UI revolution, or serve as the groundwork for it. New devices could be the sci-fi UI favorite: gloves.
.. hey it's cool! ;) Seriously though I do see host of interface improvements that can come from this. But as said, it won't be coming from the big boys first. IN particular watch the desktop organization video. Note the window dispay, how it shrinks and expands. This is an alternative the the ubiquitous taskbar, perhaps even virtual screens.
....
With the capabilities to provide the visual aspect of the GI "Glove Interface", the glove can actually be practical. With the current 2D "desktop" metaphor, mouse and keyboard are pretty much it.
In the meantime
Take this display technology and mate it with VR goggles or HUD systems. Combine the GI and you've got a very significant departure in computing interface. Whether or not this helps us use our systems better (safer, more efficiently or effectively, yadda yadda) remains to be seen. I am, however, quite optimistic that it will be.
As far as data/text entry in the GI/VR display combination, it could range from *real* gestures to a virtual keyboard that can be displayed on the "screen". I wonder how much that would help "learning to type". Picture a virtual keyboard with virtual hands. As you progress, the hands and/or the keyboard would gradually become transparent. Hmmm
Asinine?
Abysmal?
Apalling?
Atrocious?
Adversarial?
Anti?
Academic?
Ambiguous?
Agoraphobic?
Anemic?
Archaic?
Assimilate-your-tax-money-but-not-actually-promot
only if he grips the husk.
/begin sarcasm outputter
Oh I'm sure they care about Washington, Lincoln, Franklin and a few other dead presidents.
Do you seriously think WalMart CIOs had anything to do with HOW the software made it's decisions? Maybe in small companies, MAYBE. But not in a company the size of Walmart or even a quarter of that size.
Given YOU don't know how it works, how can you expect the CIO of a company that large to know?
Ok, so you are offended, but you missed the main thrust:
WHY are you offended.
Honestly, if you walked into a video store and saw King Kong sitting next to or on the same shelf as an MLK documentary, would you still be offended? Why?
In this case, as in most cases of personal offense, the offense is a result of *your* perceptions, not those you accuse. How can I say this?
Do you have any evidence this was done intentionally to offend? You offer none, and give no indication of having it, so I assume you do not have any. Therefore you are offended for some perceived affront.
This happens all the time, and not just in terms of racism or sexism. it happens as misunderstanding all the time in such places as pure science, programming, or everyday communication. A phrase everyone could do well to remember is "No offense taken where none was intended."
Indeed, the argument that saying this event is indicative of racism is likely itself a racist statement. After all, you are claiming that someone not of your race was intentionally trying to hurt (emotionally) someone of your race simply because they were not of your race. And you do it with absolutely no evidence.
We don't need to know why you feel someone tried to offend you. The most important thing is for YOU to figure it out. It is YOUR bias here. You assume that 1) it was intentionally done to cause some sort of hurt and 2) the people responsible for the result were not black. Personally, I quite it quite racist for you to assume that a black person could not have coded the program or entered the data, or even decided the two items were related. And you claim to be a black person. That doesn't suprise me though.
I learned long ago as one of three white kids in a half mile radius in Hilltop Tacoma that more anti-black racism comes from black people than white people today. Sure we hear it now, but it isn't a new thing.
And that shouldn't suprise anyone. After all, racism is pretty much the result of insecurity or a desire to dominate. And all humans have some degree of either or both. Sadly, for many people turning it into a racist thing is much easier than dealing with their own insecurities and feelings. At least for those growing up in less-than-ideal conditions, insecurity is very common. If it is made to be dangerous or improper to disclose and discuss these feelings, some sort of directed anger or chosen inferior quality is a natural result.
I do find it sadly ironic that King called for a color blind society. yet far too many of his followers didn't hear that part of the message. And too many people today, of all colors, still refuse to hear it.
Look up "The Law" by Bastiat. Read it. See if you see any parallels. Particularly on the "changing of the guard" issues.
I don't care for Microsoft, I'll freely admit that. I have a chosen preference away from their products. But if it were MS software that did this, I still would not care. Why? I believe in my fellow man.
Besides, I choose when to be offended, and why. I choose to only take offense (as much as I can) when it is intentional, and meant to cause harm. Yes, it takes work. But if you aren't willing to make yourself a better person, how dare you demand others make changes for you?
And no, I won't stoop to your ASSumed level of "bashing", despite your thinly veiled request for it.
I have yet to work-out why this was recommended to me, by Amazon, but in there is "The Lesbian Karma Sutra"! I kid you not... I've never bought any books on lesbianism before; heck, I'm male for goodness sake! What need do I have for mutual carpet munching?!
;) *Generally* speaking, men do seem to like to see women together.
;^)
/. after all.
Well you are male, right? Do you not realize that a lot of heterosexual men will buy that book because of what is in it? Dude, chick on chick!
Observing "mutual carpet munching" need not be a need for you. But as a man you are a natural market for a book about it.
Heck, I'd be happy to get that book recommended, as I didn't know that a) it existed and more importantly b) Amazon had it.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I must prepare myself for the expected deluge of innuendo. This is
Nope, no innuendo here. That would be reseved for a book on Male Homosexual Kama Sutra book. ba-dump-bump.
o, I'd say it's somewhat disingenuous to say "Gosh, I don't know why people would get so upset that someone is comparing Monkeys Gone Wild with Martin Luther King! It's so absurd!" It comes off as rather false.
...
Well we are talking about a result of a computer process, right? Are computers now racist?!?
What is absurd is to assume that because a *software program* links two or more products we *humans* don't quite get, then it MUST be racist/sexist/insensitive/whatever. We are dealing with a result of following a set of rules.
I'd bet that at the base level, all of the "related items" programs boil down to keywords, keyphrases, etc.. Is it so absurd to consider that a piece of software with a programmed intent of finding *related items* would put together King Kong and Martin Luther King?
Well first they both share "King". Second, if the posted reviews (which is likely where much of this is taken from) both have the same words/phrases in them, they are quite likely to be considered by the software as "similar".
How does that phrase go
"Do not so easiily attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to negligence or stupidity." or some such.
Is it logical for a computer program following a given algorithm to conclude that these two products are similar? Absolutely. Therefore, the "social commentary" of your post is more a commentary on your biases and mindsets, and not those of people or inanimate programs you'd label as "racist", clever or otherwise.
As a practicing patent attorney, I've observed that both proponents and opponents of the patent system use unprincipled, flawed, utilitarian (wealth-maximization) reasoning to support their position. The primarily principled opponents of patents are anti-industrialist, anti-private-property socialists.
Hardly. Most of them are "anarcho-capitalists", "libertarians", "Libertarians", and "free marketers". Patents are a government creation of monopoly, an interference with the natural flow. or so the argument goes.
While I am sure there are "anti-industrialist, anti-private-property socialists" opposing patents, they are more likely to be in the minority. And my experience as someone who has studied the situation for many years (long before people such as yourself even thought there to be a problem), my experience has shown that socialists are rarely in opposition to the patent system. Imdeed, most are growing ever more fond of it. After all, you can't prevent everyone from having private property until you control most of it. As long as there are patents, socialists can purchase or use them to garner more power. With stronger concentrations of power (bigger corporations), they have less work to do to achieve their agenda.