What have you been using? Even windows is smart enough to batch the updates through. And in the rare case that an update depends on another that requires a restart, it'll apply the new update after the restart. So just hit "update" and either walk away or continue working until it prompts for a restart. The only time I've run into an issue is the RARE update that requires a license agreement. Same goes for linux (minus the license part). If you're that concerned about it, install WSUS and let that manage your updates for you (and then you can set an update schedule, predownload the updates, etc)...
Not quite. The voltage that was varied was the 1.5v CPU voltage. This is regulated on the motherboard (The PSU on the computer supplies +3.3v, +5v, -12v and +12v). So to execute this attack, you'd either need access through the bios to the CPU voltage control, or to physically tamper with the voltage regulator module present on server motherboards (Destop motherboards typically have this integrated instead of socket fit making it a lot harder to tamper with). Since both contain voltage regulators, simply under-voltaging the PSU likely won't work (since reducing the voltage is likely to make the whole system less stable, not just the CPU). Either way, not something that's trivial to do without physical access to the machine while it's off or a root level exploit to the machine, which would make this attack pointless... Sure, they COULD tamper with the voltage regulator, but you DO have alarms on your cases, right (ESP in situations where the box is held off site)?
Well, maybe not. First off, they do get press coverage from the deal. Second, does it make Microsoft junkies and fanbois more willing to use their product (Yeah, it runs linux, but it's "Microsoft Licensed Linux"(TM))? Third and finally are they getting anything directly from MS because of it (I know TFS said that IOData was "compensating" MS, but surely MS wants them to license (so it has more power in court later to say "look, these other companies saw what we were doing is right. You were just trying to 'put it to us' by not respecting our patents") and is giving them something either on the side or under the table)...
No, this is not a ping technology. The hub actually sends the new data to the recipient. So basically you publish a feed. The hub subscribes to that feed. When you post new content, you ping the hub. The hub then fetches the new data. It then turns around and sends the new data to anyone who's subscribed to the hub. So it saves on two fronts. First, there's no polling of anything anymore (since you tell the hub when it's updated, and the hub sends out the new data when it has it). Second, the load of sending the content to all the subscribers falls to the hub instead of the main server.
Bluetooth doesn't need to maintain a constant connection for one-way communication... Since it's only one way, you can "sleep" the transmitter on the remote, and only wake it up and pair it when a button is pressed (and for say 30 seconds afterward). It would add a slight lag to the initial key press, but my guess would be if designed right it would be quite quick (potentially 1/4 of a second or less)...
Draft up a cool, collected, reasonable and complete summary of what open source software that you would like to see implemented and WHY you think it should be implemented. You think firefox is a better solution? Then put it in and say why. Start with small, minor, easy and most importantly good solutions (When I say good, I mean one that has very little if any chance for difficulty...). Firefox is a good example, because it's typically a drop in replacement, will be fast, and has little if any downsides. Switching the email backbone from Exchange to an OS alternative is not a good first step. Write this document, including any projected cost savings, and send it to the manager/director. Include in the beginning of the email a blurb about basically "I know you said you don't want to here about open source. I am just writing this so that I can clear my conscience about making proper recomendations. This will be the last input from me unless I am specifically asked"... Send it in. If they do nothing, your conscience is clean since you did everything that was in your power to get the situation turned towards open source. If they do something, then you win... The bottom line is they get to make the decisions. DON'T go around their backs, or they will just get pissed off at you and fire you (or worse). DON'T try to belittle their experience (Don't go around screaming that "MS Sucks". Instead pick and choose your battles, and show that the MS product is good, but this one is better!). And most importantly don't overstep your own role... If you're a developer, start by asking for open source tools that will help make you personally more productive (and leave it there for a while). If you're a sys-admin, start with tools that'll make you more productive, and show tools that will make your life easier and better (Such as the switch from IE to FF saving on the security front). If you're a help desk worker, keep your ideas to your self...
Play the high road, and don't play the "But Microsoft sucks in comparison" card. It won't work. MS is big for a reason (And business guys tend to value company size over product quality anyway)... Make them make the decisions...
There's an old saying. You can never go wrong, as long as you went with IBM. Back in the 70's and 80's (when my Father was telling me stories about AT&T), if you had a project to do and used IBM, and if failed, well that's just tough luck (It was seen that if IBM couldn't do it, it couldn't be done). If you used an unknown, and it failed, the weight for the failure falls on you. That's likely the mentality here (Substitute MS for IBM). They know that there may be better alternatives, but they are just playing CYA... Sure it'll cost more money, but they can "justify" the extra money as reason enough...
Or even easier. Have a small circuit in the TV that listens to bluetooth frequencies without actually decrypting it. When it detects an active signal, then have it power the full bluetooth module on for a few seconds. It powers on and tries to pair with the device. If it can pair, then it goes into "control" mode (with something like a 30 second timeout). If it can't, it goes back to sleep. Then, on the remote, you only need to enable bluetooth once you press a button. So when you press the power button, the remote first wakes up its bluetooth module, then attempts to pair with the tv. If it can pair, it then sends the "power on" signal to the tv. If it can't pair, it flashes a light or displays a message that "can't communicate with TV"... The whole process should be fast enough for most consumers (and it would only affect the power on of the TV, so even a 1 second delay would likely be tolerable).
Well, what would be cool is if the spec allowed for dynamically powered devices. So the device would constantly modulate the power output to keep it just high enough to maintain connection. So if the default output is 2.5 mW (the actual output for a class 2 device), it could scale that back to save on power. So if the connected device is close enough, it could run at 0.25 mW as long as the connection is maintained. This would only work well if the modulation circuit was fast enough (otherwise if you increased the power needed faster than it could respond it would simply lose connection).
There are 2 main reasons (as far as I can see) that bluetooth will always use more power than IR. First, is that turning electrical impulses to IR is a lot more efficient (using a LED) than turning electrical impulses into a EMF via an antenna (2.4 ghz has a wavelength of 12.5 cm. So the antenna needs to be either a 1/4 wavelength or a folded design to fit in a portable device). Second, is that unlike IR, bluetooth has frequency hopping built right in. So bluetooth has to have an extra layer of active processing to watch for interference on a channel, and jump to another one (this happens at around 1.6khz)... IR takes no measures against interference. Get someone with a common TV remote (assuming same frequency band) and they can disrupt your IR communication. So the power usage is definitely a tradeoff...
That's only valid if they know (or are suspicious) that you used a regular file instead of a more secure key. It's one of those hidden in plain sight things. It's not secure in the traditional sense, but it's a fairly good method of providing a roadblock (After all, the true test of "security" is whether or not someone who's trying to break in can)...
I would gladly pay $300+ for an e-reader. However, it needs either a color display, or a secondary highres display (overlapped, see Pixel Qu http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/03/video-pixel-qis-e-ink-lcd-hybrid-screen-demoed-at-computex/)... I could even live without those features, but without them I'm going to wait to see if there's another revolution in book stores (Google Books, or something similar) that doesn't lock me into just one... I read enough that I can all but justify the cost (I spend around $500 to $1000 per year on books, so it'd be just about break even given the discount on ebooks). When I find the right one, I'll get it. But from what I've seen now, I'm holding off...
I always check before I swallow electronic evidence.
A man brings his pet monkey to a bar. The monkey runs around eating everything in sight. First the cherries used for garnish. Then all the peanuts. Then the deviled eggs. Finally, he stops after eating a cue ball off the pool table.
The next week, the man returns with his monkey. Once again, the monkey runs to devour the cherries. But this time, instead of just eating it, he shoves the cherry up his ass first, pulls it out and then eats it. The bartender, quite disturbed by this, asks the man why the hell he shoved it up his ass first. The man replies, "Well, after the cue ball incident, he checks the size first before eating anything"...
The excellent link in hardburn's post above has a great answer to this whole "correlation is not causation" response that people like you always trot out when confronted with a study with conclusions you don't like
It's not that I don't like the answer. It's that they claimed the answer is conclusive. They didn't say that there appears to be a connection. They said that one conclusively causes the other. Which based off their reasoning may or may not be the case. THAT's what I was referring to. I don't deny that there probably is a strong connection between the two, but I think that there are stronger variables in play that are simply not accounted for in such a study (Namely parenting). That's why I jump on the correlation is not causation defense. Not because I don't agree with the outcome. I don't agree with the reasoning (I think it's incomplete)...
The rule of thumb is 1 bottle of beer per hour. So if the effect of the addition to alcohol is linear (with respect to number of beers drank), then you'd recover from each beer after 30 to 40 minutes. So if you drank 6 beers, instead of taking 6 hours to get back to BAC of 0.000, it'd only take between 3 and 4 hours... I guess it would also depend on the rate you drank at how much of an effect this has. Drinking 6 beers in 1 hour is a whole lot different than drinking 6 in 6 hours...
Reducing hangover is all fine and good, but if it sobers you up faster couldn't you just get a beer with less alcohol? The effect is basically the same.
Unless it has a retroactive effect... What I mean is that you can drink regular beer all night, and then the last beer or two are these oxy-enriched beers. That way the added oxygen helps speed up recovery, but doesn't have a detrimental effect during drinking (At least as far as the buzz factor goes)...
Now, that I think about it, I wonder if these effects are limited to oxygen enriched beer, or if it's just the oxygen itself. If it's just O2, you could have a portable O2 enricher that lets you breath pure O2 for a little while... Or O2 enriched water (oh yay, another way for them to charge more for H20)...
When I was looking for a new job a few years ago, I applied to the hospital I worked at for a help desk position. In that company, the help desk was more like a lower level sys admin (You were admin over all non-server computers on site). I was offered the position, but turned it down when I learned the pay. $8 per hour. Considering I was making $19 an hour at the time (at the very same company) doing security, I laughed. From the people I talked to who worked that job, they said it was actually a very good job. The turnover rate was about 9 months, but instead of people quitting, they were usually promoted rather quickly (to full blown sys-admin or other IT positions) with an accompanying salary boost. All IT employees regardless of credentials (except upper management) started in this "help desk" position. While it was an insult to some (or most) of whom applied, there was a big upside. Everyone in IT knew the base system very well, and knew not only the hospital layout, but where all the systems were and how the systems interacted. Is it worth the $8 per hour? Not to me it wasn't...
This is not an area of "mixed results" any more than any other group of studies--there are always outliers.
Yes, and the true power of statistics are in determining why outliers exist. Are the outliers the result of random influence (as in those that didn't commit violent acts just weren't caught), or are they the result of a stronger underlying factor (such as proper parenting)? To say that "Our statistics are valid. We have outliers, but no more than any other study" is to mis-understand statistics and completely invalidate your point (at least IMHO)... Take a look at celestial mechanics. Based on Newtonian mechanics, we can predict the orbits of celestial bodies very well. But there are outliers that refuse to be predicted accurately. Initially, this was thought as "well, there must be some random error in our measurements, we can just ignore it"... But with the advent of Relativity and it's application to mechanics, we now understand that the original model was flawed precisely because of those outliers. Until you can step outside of the system (something most humans are not very good at), you can never tell if it's your model that's flawed or your data that's flawed. And to expect (and pronounce) otherwise is simply proving your foolishness...
Well, what I don't see is the direct relation to causality. They show there's a strong connection between violent video games and violence. But a connection doesn't imply causation. Is there an underlying factor in there (Say, oh I don't know, poor parenting perhaps?) that actually causes the connection? Statistics are funny in that given enough data, you can usually find what you're looking for, even if it's not really there. Good science starts with a clean slate (Ok, we know violence is an affect, let's study violent and non-violent groups and try to see the common factors and differences) and look for an outcome. Bad science starts with an outcome and looks to justify it based off of observation (That's not applicable to instances of verifying predicted outcomes based on an otherwise complete model)...
Well, I disagree as well. Monopolies in and of themselves are not bad. They open the door for corruption, but they aren't in themselves corrupt. The very same thing can be said about the internet. The internet can be abused as bad as a monopoly can be abused (actually, I'd argue far worse), so does that mean we need to break up the internet now as well? People always cite the Walmart effect when talking about Monopolies. How they are able to cut deals with producers to be able to sell at lower prices than smaller companies. That is abuse. Price fixing is illegal and immoral. But just because a company is more successful than its competitors doesn't mean that it did anything wrong. I'm not saying that the Government shouldn't look into potential (and actual) monopolies to see if there is abuse. I'm saying that they shouldn't split up monopolies for the sole reason that they are the biggest player... There will always be barriers to entry for any particular market. Abuse happens when those barriers are artificially raised by monopolies (by price fixing, back room negotiations, etc). Heck, even based on US law, Monopolies aren't illegal. Only monopolies that are acquired or maintained through prohibited conduct are...
Holding a monopoly position isn't bad at all. USING that monopoly position to impact the market is what's bad. That's why anti-monopoly cases are called Anti-Trust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law... You can be a Monopoly and still play fairly....
If Google holds a monopoly position that creates a barrier to entry for competitors-- including those who might do it better than Google, then, according to capitalist economics, there no longer exists a reason to keep their product good, or continue to introduce more good products.
You're mixing terms. Being a monopoly doesn't in itself create any such barrier to entry... The major experience that most US citizens have with regards to Anti-Trust is AT&T. The reason they were split up (well, one of anyway) is that they held the entire telecommunications infrastructure. From the connection to your home, to the international cross-connects. THAT creates a barrier to entry (because you'd need to run wire to any company, and/or lease capacity from AT&T). But in Google's case, it's quite a bit different. There's nothing (other than popular culture) that keeps Google where it is. If BING (or any newcomer) is truly better, it'll win in the end. Google's monopoly position doesn't impact that. Now, if Google used their position to play unfairly (artificially inflating their ad bidding process, cutting their ad fees to so low that other companies simply can't compete, slandering the other companies, actively preventing interaction, etc), then it would be an issue. But there's no inherent problem to having a top dog (It's demonized by the government and media because it does open the opportunity for such abuse, but it is not inherently bad)... And there is incentive to keep there product good and to continue to introduce more good products. The incentive is staying in business. Look at MS. They didn't "innovate" for many years (look at the UI changes from windows 95 through XP... Very minor given the nearly 10 years between them) which opened the door for Apple to regain market share...
It's still a good analogy. The reason she got there in the first place would be because of the Oligopoly... Once she's there, it's a recursive phenomenon. Most radio stations play songs because they are popular. Songs become popular (at least on the (inter)national level) because radio stations play them... You can't --for all practical purposes-- have one without the other... That's why the analogy works. Not because there is or isn't a level of influence on the radio stations, but because ultimately people make the final determination (People will stop listening to a radio station that routinely plays bad music, so there is a counter-force against the corruption)...
True, but that ignores the economies of production. Right now, most CPUs are available in three flavors (Budget, Mid level, and High End). So if you look at the permutations of adding these specialized modules (100% CPU; 50% CPU 50% GPU; 50% CPU 25% FPU 25% GPU; 50% CPU 50% FPU; etc), you'd have potentially 50 different CPU designs... So the design challenge becomes much more difficult (Both the core design, and the production run and testing design). If you specialized everything, the number of designs for each part drops drastically (So instead of needing 50 models of CPU, you'd only need 3 or 4. Plus 2 or 3 GPU modules. Plus 2 or 3 FPU modules, etc)... The performance (and energy consumption) benefit of pushing everything onto one die would be offset by the reduced difficulty (and hence) of production for each... Again, I'm not saying it's the only way (or even the best), but it's one way that I wouldn't be surprised if we see in the not so distant future...
"A cost of producing which must be borne by a firm which seeks to enter an industry but is not borne by firms already in the industry"
Therefore the cost of hardware is not a barrier. Neither is the cost of advertising. Neither is the data itself (since the firms already in place still need to mine it). So the only barrier to entry is the willingness of someone to do it. Is it easy? No way, but there are few (if any) barriers to entry...
The reason Google is in top spot today, is that in the past decade it was the best (or at worst #2) search engine around. If you can figure out a way to return better search results, you could absolutely overthrow them. The issue you're alluding to is that the if in that sentence is a lot harder to achieve today than it was in 1998. But should Google be blamed for finding a better way? I thought that was the spirit of a free market...
Google is leveraging their marketshare to gain even more of it for their search, docs, youtube and other services, just like Microsoft used to leverage Windows marketshare to gain marketshare for IE.
No, it's quite different actually. You have a choice to use Google. There are competitors for every single one of their apps, and you are free to pick and chose which ones you want to use and which not to (you don't have to use any). So they are not "capitalizing" on their dominance in one area to push another unrelated one on you. They are capitalizing on their dominance in one area to advertise the other products. When MS pushed IE, you had little choice (since there was --for all practical purposes-- no valid competitor to the OS) about using IE. They forced it down your throats (Considering you can't uninstall it)... And that's what was considered by many to be wrong. Google simply links to their other services... The analogy to IE, would be if MS included a shortcut to "Install IE" on every version of Windows they sold. Then, it would require a users action (and explicit opt-in) rather than being forced...
And the huge amount of servers and data centers is an expansion problem, not a start up problem. You could launch a search engine on a single machine (IIRC, when google first went live, it was off a single box)... This kind of relation doesn't hold for nearly any other business (To build a car, you need a factory... Even if that factory is in a garage, there's still a significant capital investment before you're able to produce vehicles)...
Well, that's the same as saying that Lady GaGa is more successful than your local garage band (because she gets played on (inter)national radio and more people are exposed since she is popular)... Is that in itself a problem? Nope. It only becomes a problem if Google is using unfair business practices to maintain that level of success...
Slashdot Mirror
What have you been using? Even windows is smart enough to batch the updates through. And in the rare case that an update depends on another that requires a restart, it'll apply the new update after the restart. So just hit "update" and either walk away or continue working until it prompts for a restart. The only time I've run into an issue is the RARE update that requires a license agreement. Same goes for linux (minus the license part). If you're that concerned about it, install WSUS and let that manage your updates for you (and then you can set an update schedule, predownload the updates, etc)...
Not quite. The voltage that was varied was the 1.5v CPU voltage. This is regulated on the motherboard (The PSU on the computer supplies +3.3v, +5v, -12v and +12v). So to execute this attack, you'd either need access through the bios to the CPU voltage control, or to physically tamper with the voltage regulator module present on server motherboards (Destop motherboards typically have this integrated instead of socket fit making it a lot harder to tamper with). Since both contain voltage regulators, simply under-voltaging the PSU likely won't work (since reducing the voltage is likely to make the whole system less stable, not just the CPU). Either way, not something that's trivial to do without physical access to the machine while it's off or a root level exploit to the machine, which would make this attack pointless... Sure, they COULD tamper with the voltage regulator, but you DO have alarms on your cases, right (ESP in situations where the box is held off site)?
Well, maybe not. First off, they do get press coverage from the deal. Second, does it make Microsoft junkies and fanbois more willing to use their product (Yeah, it runs linux, but it's "Microsoft Licensed Linux"(TM))? Third and finally are they getting anything directly from MS because of it (I know TFS said that IOData was "compensating" MS, but surely MS wants them to license (so it has more power in court later to say "look, these other companies saw what we were doing is right. You were just trying to 'put it to us' by not respecting our patents") and is giving them something either on the side or under the table)...
No, this is not a ping technology. The hub actually sends the new data to the recipient. So basically you publish a feed. The hub subscribes to that feed. When you post new content, you ping the hub. The hub then fetches the new data. It then turns around and sends the new data to anyone who's subscribed to the hub. So it saves on two fronts. First, there's no polling of anything anymore (since you tell the hub when it's updated, and the hub sends out the new data when it has it). Second, the load of sending the content to all the subscribers falls to the hub instead of the main server.
Or, in this case, a web page with instructions to press F1...
Bluetooth doesn't need to maintain a constant connection for one-way communication... Since it's only one way, you can "sleep" the transmitter on the remote, and only wake it up and pair it when a button is pressed (and for say 30 seconds afterward). It would add a slight lag to the initial key press, but my guess would be if designed right it would be quite quick (potentially 1/4 of a second or less)...
Draft up a cool, collected, reasonable and complete summary of what open source software that you would like to see implemented and WHY you think it should be implemented. You think firefox is a better solution? Then put it in and say why. Start with small, minor, easy and most importantly good solutions (When I say good, I mean one that has very little if any chance for difficulty...). Firefox is a good example, because it's typically a drop in replacement, will be fast, and has little if any downsides. Switching the email backbone from Exchange to an OS alternative is not a good first step. Write this document, including any projected cost savings, and send it to the manager/director. Include in the beginning of the email a blurb about basically "I know you said you don't want to here about open source. I am just writing this so that I can clear my conscience about making proper recomendations. This will be the last input from me unless I am specifically asked"... Send it in. If they do nothing, your conscience is clean since you did everything that was in your power to get the situation turned towards open source. If they do something, then you win... The bottom line is they get to make the decisions. DON'T go around their backs, or they will just get pissed off at you and fire you (or worse). DON'T try to belittle their experience (Don't go around screaming that "MS Sucks". Instead pick and choose your battles, and show that the MS product is good, but this one is better!). And most importantly don't overstep your own role... If you're a developer, start by asking for open source tools that will help make you personally more productive (and leave it there for a while). If you're a sys-admin, start with tools that'll make you more productive, and show tools that will make your life easier and better (Such as the switch from IE to FF saving on the security front). If you're a help desk worker, keep your ideas to your self...
Play the high road, and don't play the "But Microsoft sucks in comparison" card. It won't work. MS is big for a reason (And business guys tend to value company size over product quality anyway)... Make them make the decisions...
There's an old saying. You can never go wrong, as long as you went with IBM. Back in the 70's and 80's (when my Father was telling me stories about AT&T), if you had a project to do and used IBM, and if failed, well that's just tough luck (It was seen that if IBM couldn't do it, it couldn't be done). If you used an unknown, and it failed, the weight for the failure falls on you. That's likely the mentality here (Substitute MS for IBM). They know that there may be better alternatives, but they are just playing CYA... Sure it'll cost more money, but they can "justify" the extra money as reason enough...
Just my $0.02
Or even easier. Have a small circuit in the TV that listens to bluetooth frequencies without actually decrypting it. When it detects an active signal, then have it power the full bluetooth module on for a few seconds. It powers on and tries to pair with the device. If it can pair, then it goes into "control" mode (with something like a 30 second timeout). If it can't, it goes back to sleep. Then, on the remote, you only need to enable bluetooth once you press a button. So when you press the power button, the remote first wakes up its bluetooth module, then attempts to pair with the tv. If it can pair, it then sends the "power on" signal to the tv. If it can't pair, it flashes a light or displays a message that "can't communicate with TV"... The whole process should be fast enough for most consumers (and it would only affect the power on of the TV, so even a 1 second delay would likely be tolerable).
Well, what would be cool is if the spec allowed for dynamically powered devices. So the device would constantly modulate the power output to keep it just high enough to maintain connection. So if the default output is 2.5 mW (the actual output for a class 2 device), it could scale that back to save on power. So if the connected device is close enough, it could run at 0.25 mW as long as the connection is maintained. This would only work well if the modulation circuit was fast enough (otherwise if you increased the power needed faster than it could respond it would simply lose connection).
There are 2 main reasons (as far as I can see) that bluetooth will always use more power than IR. First, is that turning electrical impulses to IR is a lot more efficient (using a LED) than turning electrical impulses into a EMF via an antenna (2.4 ghz has a wavelength of 12.5 cm. So the antenna needs to be either a 1/4 wavelength or a folded design to fit in a portable device). Second, is that unlike IR, bluetooth has frequency hopping built right in. So bluetooth has to have an extra layer of active processing to watch for interference on a channel, and jump to another one (this happens at around 1.6khz)... IR takes no measures against interference. Get someone with a common TV remote (assuming same frequency band) and they can disrupt your IR communication. So the power usage is definitely a tradeoff...
That's only valid if they know (or are suspicious) that you used a regular file instead of a more secure key. It's one of those hidden in plain sight things. It's not secure in the traditional sense, but it's a fairly good method of providing a roadblock (After all, the true test of "security" is whether or not someone who's trying to break in can)...
I would gladly pay $300+ for an e-reader. However, it needs either a color display, or a secondary highres display (overlapped, see Pixel Qu http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/03/video-pixel-qis-e-ink-lcd-hybrid-screen-demoed-at-computex/)... I could even live without those features, but without them I'm going to wait to see if there's another revolution in book stores (Google Books, or something similar) that doesn't lock me into just one... I read enough that I can all but justify the cost (I spend around $500 to $1000 per year on books, so it'd be just about break even given the discount on ebooks). When I find the right one, I'll get it. But from what I've seen now, I'm holding off...
A man brings his pet monkey to a bar. The monkey runs around eating everything in sight. First the cherries used for garnish. Then all the peanuts. Then the deviled eggs. Finally, he stops after eating a cue ball off the pool table.
The next week, the man returns with his monkey. Once again, the monkey runs to devour the cherries. But this time, instead of just eating it, he shoves the cherry up his ass first, pulls it out and then eats it. The bartender, quite disturbed by this, asks the man why the hell he shoved it up his ass first. The man replies, "Well, after the cue ball incident, he checks the size first before eating anything"...
It's not that I don't like the answer. It's that they claimed the answer is conclusive. They didn't say that there appears to be a connection. They said that one conclusively causes the other. Which based off their reasoning may or may not be the case. THAT's what I was referring to. I don't deny that there probably is a strong connection between the two, but I think that there are stronger variables in play that are simply not accounted for in such a study (Namely parenting). That's why I jump on the correlation is not causation defense. Not because I don't agree with the outcome. I don't agree with the reasoning (I think it's incomplete)...
The rule of thumb is 1 bottle of beer per hour. So if the effect of the addition to alcohol is linear (with respect to number of beers drank), then you'd recover from each beer after 30 to 40 minutes. So if you drank 6 beers, instead of taking 6 hours to get back to BAC of 0.000, it'd only take between 3 and 4 hours... I guess it would also depend on the rate you drank at how much of an effect this has. Drinking 6 beers in 1 hour is a whole lot different than drinking 6 in 6 hours...
Unless it has a retroactive effect... What I mean is that you can drink regular beer all night, and then the last beer or two are these oxy-enriched beers. That way the added oxygen helps speed up recovery, but doesn't have a detrimental effect during drinking (At least as far as the buzz factor goes)...
Now, that I think about it, I wonder if these effects are limited to oxygen enriched beer, or if it's just the oxygen itself. If it's just O2, you could have a portable O2 enricher that lets you breath pure O2 for a little while... Or O2 enriched water (oh yay, another way for them to charge more for H20)...
When I was looking for a new job a few years ago, I applied to the hospital I worked at for a help desk position. In that company, the help desk was more like a lower level sys admin (You were admin over all non-server computers on site). I was offered the position, but turned it down when I learned the pay. $8 per hour. Considering I was making $19 an hour at the time (at the very same company) doing security, I laughed. From the people I talked to who worked that job, they said it was actually a very good job. The turnover rate was about 9 months, but instead of people quitting, they were usually promoted rather quickly (to full blown sys-admin or other IT positions) with an accompanying salary boost. All IT employees regardless of credentials (except upper management) started in this "help desk" position. While it was an insult to some (or most) of whom applied, there was a big upside. Everyone in IT knew the base system very well, and knew not only the hospital layout, but where all the systems were and how the systems interacted. Is it worth the $8 per hour? Not to me it wasn't...
Yes, and the true power of statistics are in determining why outliers exist. Are the outliers the result of random influence (as in those that didn't commit violent acts just weren't caught), or are they the result of a stronger underlying factor (such as proper parenting)? To say that "Our statistics are valid. We have outliers, but no more than any other study" is to mis-understand statistics and completely invalidate your point (at least IMHO)... Take a look at celestial mechanics. Based on Newtonian mechanics, we can predict the orbits of celestial bodies very well. But there are outliers that refuse to be predicted accurately. Initially, this was thought as "well, there must be some random error in our measurements, we can just ignore it"... But with the advent of Relativity and it's application to mechanics, we now understand that the original model was flawed precisely because of those outliers. Until you can step outside of the system (something most humans are not very good at), you can never tell if it's your model that's flawed or your data that's flawed. And to expect (and pronounce) otherwise is simply proving your foolishness...
Well, what I don't see is the direct relation to causality. They show there's a strong connection between violent video games and violence. But a connection doesn't imply causation. Is there an underlying factor in there (Say, oh I don't know, poor parenting perhaps?) that actually causes the connection? Statistics are funny in that given enough data, you can usually find what you're looking for, even if it's not really there. Good science starts with a clean slate (Ok, we know violence is an affect, let's study violent and non-violent groups and try to see the common factors and differences) and look for an outcome. Bad science starts with an outcome and looks to justify it based off of observation (That's not applicable to instances of verifying predicted outcomes based on an otherwise complete model)...
Well, I disagree as well. Monopolies in and of themselves are not bad. They open the door for corruption, but they aren't in themselves corrupt. The very same thing can be said about the internet. The internet can be abused as bad as a monopoly can be abused (actually, I'd argue far worse), so does that mean we need to break up the internet now as well? People always cite the Walmart effect when talking about Monopolies. How they are able to cut deals with producers to be able to sell at lower prices than smaller companies. That is abuse. Price fixing is illegal and immoral. But just because a company is more successful than its competitors doesn't mean that it did anything wrong. I'm not saying that the Government shouldn't look into potential (and actual) monopolies to see if there is abuse. I'm saying that they shouldn't split up monopolies for the sole reason that they are the biggest player... There will always be barriers to entry for any particular market. Abuse happens when those barriers are artificially raised by monopolies (by price fixing, back room negotiations, etc). Heck, even based on US law, Monopolies aren't illegal. Only monopolies that are acquired or maintained through prohibited conduct are...
Just my $0.02
You're mixing terms. Being a monopoly doesn't in itself create any such barrier to entry... The major experience that most US citizens have with regards to Anti-Trust is AT&T. The reason they were split up (well, one of anyway) is that they held the entire telecommunications infrastructure. From the connection to your home, to the international cross-connects. THAT creates a barrier to entry (because you'd need to run wire to any company, and/or lease capacity from AT&T). But in Google's case, it's quite a bit different. There's nothing (other than popular culture) that keeps Google where it is. If BING (or any newcomer) is truly better, it'll win in the end. Google's monopoly position doesn't impact that. Now, if Google used their position to play unfairly (artificially inflating their ad bidding process, cutting their ad fees to so low that other companies simply can't compete, slandering the other companies, actively preventing interaction, etc), then it would be an issue. But there's no inherent problem to having a top dog (It's demonized by the government and media because it does open the opportunity for such abuse, but it is not inherently bad)... And there is incentive to keep there product good and to continue to introduce more good products. The incentive is staying in business. Look at MS. They didn't "innovate" for many years (look at the UI changes from windows 95 through XP... Very minor given the nearly 10 years between them) which opened the door for Apple to regain market share...
It's still a good analogy. The reason she got there in the first place would be because of the Oligopoly... Once she's there, it's a recursive phenomenon. Most radio stations play songs because they are popular. Songs become popular (at least on the (inter)national level) because radio stations play them... You can't --for all practical purposes-- have one without the other... That's why the analogy works. Not because there is or isn't a level of influence on the radio stations, but because ultimately people make the final determination (People will stop listening to a radio station that routinely plays bad music, so there is a counter-force against the corruption)...
True, but that ignores the economies of production. Right now, most CPUs are available in three flavors (Budget, Mid level, and High End). So if you look at the permutations of adding these specialized modules (100% CPU; 50% CPU 50% GPU; 50% CPU 25% FPU 25% GPU; 50% CPU 50% FPU; etc), you'd have potentially 50 different CPU designs... So the design challenge becomes much more difficult (Both the core design, and the production run and testing design). If you specialized everything, the number of designs for each part drops drastically (So instead of needing 50 models of CPU, you'd only need 3 or 4. Plus 2 or 3 GPU modules. Plus 2 or 3 FPU modules, etc)... The performance (and energy consumption) benefit of pushing everything onto one die would be offset by the reduced difficulty (and hence) of production for each... Again, I'm not saying it's the only way (or even the best), but it's one way that I wouldn't be surprised if we see in the not so distant future...
Therefore the cost of hardware is not a barrier. Neither is the cost of advertising. Neither is the data itself (since the firms already in place still need to mine it). So the only barrier to entry is the willingness of someone to do it. Is it easy? No way, but there are few (if any) barriers to entry...
The reason Google is in top spot today, is that in the past decade it was the best (or at worst #2) search engine around. If you can figure out a way to return better search results, you could absolutely overthrow them. The issue you're alluding to is that the if in that sentence is a lot harder to achieve today than it was in 1998. But should Google be blamed for finding a better way? I thought that was the spirit of a free market...
No, it's quite different actually. You have a choice to use Google. There are competitors for every single one of their apps, and you are free to pick and chose which ones you want to use and which not to (you don't have to use any). So they are not "capitalizing" on their dominance in one area to push another unrelated one on you. They are capitalizing on their dominance in one area to advertise the other products. When MS pushed IE, you had little choice (since there was --for all practical purposes-- no valid competitor to the OS) about using IE. They forced it down your throats (Considering you can't uninstall it)... And that's what was considered by many to be wrong. Google simply links to their other services... The analogy to IE, would be if MS included a shortcut to "Install IE" on every version of Windows they sold. Then, it would require a users action (and explicit opt-in) rather than being forced...
And the huge amount of servers and data centers is an expansion problem, not a start up problem. You could launch a search engine on a single machine (IIRC, when google first went live, it was off a single box)... This kind of relation doesn't hold for nearly any other business (To build a car, you need a factory... Even if that factory is in a garage, there's still a significant capital investment before you're able to produce vehicles)...
Well, that's the same as saying that Lady GaGa is more successful than your local garage band (because she gets played on (inter)national radio and more people are exposed since she is popular)... Is that in itself a problem? Nope. It only becomes a problem if Google is using unfair business practices to maintain that level of success...