Actually there's a video out there of the Segway and how it performs on ice and snow. Check the Segway website. I doubt that it would peform well in heavy snow for the reasons you mentioned but it appears to work fine in a lighter snowfall.
Hey there are all kinds of stupid people out there, doctors, lawyers, judges, people who pass patents through, some of those people even have doctorates in very technical fields. A PhD doesn't automatically give you great organization skills nor does it give you common sense. Take a look at most doctors offices and poor penmanship as examples.
My point was that HE DOESN'T KNOW JACK ABOUT COMPUTERS, BUT HE STILL UNDERSTANDS THAT COMPUTER SOFTWARE REQUIRES A LICENSE!!! SO WHY DIDN'T THE IT GUYS WHO SET EVERYTHING UP IN THE SCHOOL!!
Excuse me. One you don't know me at all so you don't have the right to call me "fucking greedy asshole". For the record I was bitching about the mismanagement of the dollar I pay, not the fact that I have to pay to fund education. If more funding is needed then by all means fund it through OUR tax dollar, otherwise reform the system. I keep hearing "underfunded" "underfunded" and yet keep seeing money going to waste or being improperly managed. So don't tell me I'm being an asshole because I expect better.
The key is "underpaid" and "underbudget". Why are they underpaid and underbudget when they are getting more and more funds every year from every angle and yet cutting programs and jobs every year claiming debt and "budget cuts". Has the government cut funding to public schools?
With my own school district I've seen things like this:
3 fundraisers this year that my child had to partake in 2 fundraisers thrown by local groups (i.e. PTA) more burden put on parents to purchase supplies more burden put on parents to get into "coupon" and boxtops for schools type programs local businesses having fundraisers where x% profit went to local schools city fair/carnivals where profits went to schools
In one school in City X I see a brand new multimillion dollar school facility being built and haggling being done over getting a pool. Across town we see another school that's fighting with a leaky roof, poor airconditioning/heating, and a problem "running out of" food and various other supplies. So either school A is very good at managing it's funds and school B is very bad or the people managing the funds for both schools are very bad.
Using the excuse that "it doesn't pay enough" is just a sad excuse anymore. There are plenty of people out there that would be willing to take pay cuts to get something done for the community. But since it's a promote from within situation, unions are often involved, and can easily turn into favortism the excuse is presented "it doesn't pay enough". I could almost garauntee that if even a few business majors got hired or just some people with a few years of management EXPERIENCE that we'd see enough marked improvement to justify the cost of pay raises and hiring more of the same.
We need to decide where our priorities are. Are our priorities focused on "just getting by" on keeping people in power because they "understand how the system works". Or should we be focused on changing how the system works so that it benefits more people with lower costs and higher effectiveness. Let me know.
Yes I read the article and the lack of paperwork because it was donated doesn't matter. If I get a car donated to me and I get pulled over without the title I should be ready for the repercusions, especially should that car happen to be stolen. The powers that be took the donations knowing (or at least should have known) that they might someday be required to show proof of the licensed software. Instead of taking the time to get things done right they rushed ahead and now they're in the crapper with MS.
I work with a small clinic located in a methodist church, even our not so technically literate spanish/broken english speaking doctor who runs the clinic knows that he has to have licenses for all of the software that get's donated to him by way of the hardware that's brought in. If he, with his admittedly low understanding of all things computer, understands that simple premise and understands the necessity to get things right from the beginning then I can't hold the schools free from guilt.
It's real simple if the computer comes in "donated" and it doesn't have licenses for the products on it either the products get uninstalled or if it's the OS we wipe it clean and install a licensed copy of Windows or Linux Mandrake/QNX depending on funds and it's use in the system. At one time we could get licenses through the church resources for about $35 per seat, which is alot to a small church/clinic. The doctor has a drawer that he keeps all the licenses in all nice neat and organized and much easier to do if you start that way instead of trying to play catch up.
Okay there are two problems I see. ONE per the law MS has the right to seek compensation for people using their product. While people might not agree with that law it's still the law (change it if you want). TWO because the schools in question didn't keep track of their paperwork on these machines licensing they are crying foul saying somehow that it's MS's fault and that they don't have the time/resources to track everything down or do the research to avoid an audit. How many times did I hear "no excuses" from my teachers when I misplaced my paperwork for an assignment or didn't get into the class I wanted because my paperwork wasn't "filled out properly". Now the roll is reversed.
Personally I think that schools are miserably mismanaged. Quite a few of the people managing the school systems are teachers with no real experience in management or business. A teacher becomes a good teacher and therefore the next step must be Principal and after principal it must be Superindendant, despite the fact that the teacher might not have any management or supervisory skills whatsoever. I see the same thing in most businesses, they take the best customer service rep and make him/her the supervisor or manager even though that person doesn't know anything about management or how to properly train and motivate their staff.
Start hiring managers and supervisors, stop wasting money on people who don't do the job the right way or get them training to do it right. Do we need to outsource the management of schools to the private sector. Start state programs for the purchase of software and hardware and let the state pool resources to help administer and maintain the systems and keep track of the paperwork. In the end it would probably reduce costs IF DONE PROPERLY.
I live in a state with sales tax, personal property taxes, real estate tax, gambling, income tax and still for some reason my son has to get involved in 3 or 4 fundraisers a year in first grade. Why? I think someone needs to go down the big list of priorities and start rechecking things.
I think tolerance is a constant. I think the thing that changes is awareness. As we become more aware of other cultures we also become aware of the flaws in those cultures. Through seeing the flaws in other cultures one hopes that we see the same flaws within our own. Often that awareness causes loathing of the negative behavior and through transference we cast off our anger toward the other culture instead of rectifying the flaw in our own.
People do this all the time. Strong headed people dislike other strong headed people, models dislike other models, fat people dislike other fat people, selfish people see other selfish people as "MORE" selfish. It's a coping mechanism to avoid addressing the problems with oneself.
As we become more aware of what we are doing the "appearance of intolerance" will decrease.
A) Personal/Private: Name: Joe Black Address: 1154 Knights Rd. Okc, OK 73127 Phone: (405) 721-5262 Purchases: Prilosec 12/21/2001,1/22/2002,2/19/2002 BoobWatch 4 11/26/2000 Blue-Gray Polo Shirt 5/1/2001 CreditCards:Visa $400 limit, MC $1000 limit, Discover $0 limit DOB: 08/17/1954 Income: 52,697
B) Demographic Information: Region: Midwest Sex: Male ZIP: 73127 Purchasing habbits: Heartburn aids, adult entertainment videos, clothing Credit Cards: Yes Income: H (45,000-55,000) Age: D (45-54)
Record A is PRIVATE and PERSONAL information that noone really needs. Record B is demographic information that cannot specifically identify a single individual and may in fact match with several individuals in a database. Record A is the property of the PERSON in question noone should have the ability to do anything with that information unless is relates directly to the request of the person mentioned. Record B is generalized enough that it doesn't identify a single person accurately enough to expose that persons personal and private life.
Now someone with a supercomputer and a big database might be able to purchase all the little tidbits of information from every little company and assemble everything that matches and narrow down the field to identify someone specific, very small likelihood. Assuming that that is a concern we could simply request a law that states companies can only sell "blocks" of demographic data i.e. "45,000 people between the age of 27-50 like SmurFit WidgetX". While the original company that you did business with would retain some information about your purchasing habbits they would only be allowed to use them to help you with current or new purchases that you request. The rest of the information they sold would have to be in a much more generalized format.
books wear out, especially if they are good books. Hardbacks need the occassional repair. Of course it's cheaper to buy a new one then to get one repaired unless it's an out of print or collectors edition.
Freeing humanity to be human
on
Hospital Robots
·
· Score: 2
I've seen a lot of naysayers out there trying to stretch to find reasons why robots in the workplace are bad. In some instances it sounds almost like the fights against immigration "they'll take all our jobs". If you look at a good amount of the immigrants coming into the country (US) (especially illegal immigrants) you'll notice that they take the jobs that noone really wants, jobs (US) citizens often feel too good for. If anything bringing robots into the workplace might take jobs away from struggling immigrants.
Personally I think that robots in the work place will allow (or in some cases force) people to pursue carreers that are more challenging and rewarding. I think hospitals are a great place to start. By automating all the routine aspects of the job you allow the nurses and staff to spend more time focusing on the care and emotional connection with the patient. If the nurse is not rushing around trying to get things restocked they might actually be able to answer the call button a little quicker. Likewise in a nursing home (which are woefully understaffed almost always) automating certain repetative tasks, or in some cases giving a surrogate nursemade can greatly ease the burden on the worker and help the patient at the same time.
Many elderly patients simply want someone to sit and talk to or someone to help them down the hall to dinner (without a wheelchair). I think that most people would have no problem adjusting to a robot performing that task. I mean look we already name our cars, curse at our TV, and talk to the stop lights, so how hard would it be to similarly humanize a robotic system.
I think most of the people who are worried about their jobs (worried about immigrants or robots) are the people who are either low skilled or unskilled laborers. They feel that there's nowhere to go if they should lose their jobs. It's a desperate train of thought and people like that have a tendency to never look up out of the whole they're in.
Same as TV, you need content to sell ads therefore you either A) create content B) buy content C) trade for content. Since it's unlikely that they will create their own content then they either have to purchase it or trade for it. Since they don't really have much to trade then it's purchase only.
The problem I see is that the RIAA is wanting to rake in even more cash to the detriment of their customers and the end consumer. Music should be a subsidized product. The music industry should give deep discounts on product because in the end that product being broadcast is as much an advertisement as it is anything else. Therefore if X is cost of play-time for music and Y is the cost of ad time on the caster then X-Y = $amount caster pays for content.
The problem I see is that the terms of service could be considered vague since the original documentation and purpose of the software is by nature distributed, in that it's a distributed file system. The user assumes by downloading and setting up the program that resources are being used in the furthering of file sharing and this helps him and the other users he's sharing with. It could be seen as misleading and misrepresentation - the classic bait and switch. The users get what they want but when they're not looking - bang! Someone takes their clock cycles.
The argument that they "agreed" to this before hand is bunk. I think it goes hand in hand with shrink wrap licensing. You can't agree to something when you don't know what that something is or it's too loosely defined and allows so many interpretations.
I'd like to see how enforceable a click through license is on a virus or trojan "I agree to allow (unknown entity) to install software on my machine that may or may not compromise the security therein. Additionally I grant (unknow entity) the right to use information provided by me for commercial gain and/or entertainment purposes. This information may be obtained from files or programs installed on my system. I hereby relinquish (unknown entity) from all legal responsibilities and refuse any further legal recourse should running this program cause damage to either the computer running it or to myself... > >" Then just write a harmless "flaw" in the program that makes ">" not work and VOILA! all nice and legal!
It should also be noted that although insects are the primary facilitator of an arbovirus it is blood born. It's thought that misquitos initially receive the virus from already infected carriers such as birds and then transmit the virus up and down the food chain. Human encroachment into previously unsettled areas is putting arbovirus group into an increasing area of risk.
Yep, have to have your own space sometimes and it's nice to be able to have some place to retreet to if need be. While it sounds horribly old fashioned it actually is very practical and works to our advantage.
I'd have to disagree that you can't have it all. I think the problem with mixing ideas and genres of film is that the majority of times the execution is just horrible. I have seen a few multi-genre films that pull this off quite well, the most recent was 'Brotherhood of the Wolf' which I heard referred to as the 'best kung fu, horror, fantasy, western, mystery, romance, period peice out of France' ever. (believe it or not that wasn't someone being an ass, the rest of the review was gushing about the movie). Point is I think you can cross multiple genres of film if the underlying premise of the film will hold together throughout. If the writing, or characters are weak then it will show through somewhere in the genre hopping. On the other hand if the characters are strong and well written then as the movie transitions then the characters will also and you'll end up having a good fluid experience.
I think the shift you're seeing now is due to the fact that we originally went away from mainframes because individuals wanted to be able to use computers. i.e. 1 person 1 computer. Now the paradigm has shifted slightly in the fact that many individuals are now owning multiple computers. We have five in my household, one in my office, one in my wifes bedroom, one hooked to the TV in the living room, one for the kitchen and my ce tablet I use for portability.
I think you'll also see that the run away from client/server computing was based on the cost of owning/maintaining such a system. With todays servers costing little more than a midrange PC it's much more feasible for a home user to be able to purchase a server for use.
I find it odd that this announcement comes so soon after Alias/Wavefront began to offer Maya personal edition for free. I wonder how much of the other companies offering "free" or discounted packages hurt NaN in the end. Of course $5695 for a 3d modeller might not be seen as discount prices to most of us compared to $500 but I wonder.
Actually if you look at the build, language, art, and customs of the "Native Americans" you will notice many similarities to the northern chinese nomadic populace. This is probably because that is the exact area that the native american ancestors came from, whether crossing a land bridge or by more direct ocean crossing. I think we're finding more and more that our ancestors (all of them white/red/whatever) were wildly nomadic and roamed to a lot more areas than we would have thought possible.
The even funnier part of this is that MS did exactly the same thing that Netscape planned to do but never implemented. They bundled their product with the os and with the machine. I saw an interview with Marc Andreesen way back when where he talked about not wanting to have Netscape shrink wrapped on the shelf but to be bundled with other products, the os, or the machine going out itself. Then later they turn around and argue that MS is wrong for doing that very thing.
When you are going head to head with a 1000lb bear it's probably best to lay down cover your head and get trampled. At least then you live. Problem is that most companies when failing attempt to pour more money into a losing strategy instead of finding a new strategy. This was Netscapes downfall. They continued to pour money into a failing, non-compliant, buggy product (4.x). Once they began to make the turn around with NS6/Mozilla it was pretty much too late and they needed someone with deep pockets to bail them out (AOL). So now it's a battle between the evil empires. One controls software on 90% of machines, the other controls almost every other form of media and the largest group of internet/im users. Which 1000lb bear will be the one to trample us to death and bury us in a shallow grave for later consumption?
For the religious slashdotters: God dislikes sin - He creates consequences for sin - He does not create man without the ability to sin. (see the scenario allows for personal growth, personal correction, etc.)
Personal choice and accountability is a bitch huh?.
Lets just throw some situations out there and see how they equate
People don't like their home being intruded upon by strangers - congress passes a law against breaking and entering - congress does not pass a law dictating more secure locks on ALL houses.
Store owners don't like people walking out without paying for goods - congress passes a law against shop lifting - congress does not pass a law dictating all merchandise must be tagged and a detector/alarm system must be installed.
People feel that pedeophelia is wrong - congress passes a law that defines the issue and defines a course of action/punishment - congress does not pass a law making it illegal to trade images/pictures/movies
Speeders are causing accidents - congress passes a law that defines a safe speed limit and guidelines for punishment of people who go over - congress does pass a law that builds speed control systems or GPS controlled reporting systems into cars
Business owners don't want their digital media "stolen" - congress passes a law requiring strict controls on copy protection, making it illegal to bypass ANY copy protection, building in the controls into every piece of hardware capable of displaying said media - congress does not pass a law that defines the issue and a course of action against those who tread the issue.
Which one of the scenarios above doesn't seem to belong. "Which one of these things is not like the others, not like the others, not like the others. Which one of these things is not like the others, which one of these things doesn't belong"
How are we supposed to grow as individuals and as a society if everything is strictly controlled by the government or corporations? I'll give you one more analogy.
New parents have a child. In order to protect that child they cover every plug in the house, lock every cabinet, lock every door, put all of the nick nacks away, keep the animals outside, they avoid toys that could be thrown or fallen off of, they bar the use of toy guns/swords/etc, violent cartoons, and anything but G rated movies. What kind of life will the child have? How will that child become an adult? What kind of adult will that child become? My personal experience with children raised like this is that they end up one of two ways: 1) anal retentive, afraid of the world, afraid to try new things 2) completely unaware and ignorant of boundaries both social and moral. While visiting another persons house they go through every room touching and getting into anything that they can, taking things that they don't have at home, etc. As an young adult outside of their parents watchful gaze they try everything that their parents have said is bad and engage in every activity that's not allowed in the home.
It's like holding water in your hand - gently cup your hand giving some boundary for the water to rest naturally within and you retain control. On the flip side though the tighter you close that fist around the water the more control you lose and the faster it all runs out of your hand.
The US was founded on principals based on it's fleeing oppressive and rigid governmental control. 225 years later we are seeing the same form of control taking shape again. Our government was founded to protect our individual essential liberties and to provide a framework of protection not a cage. We should be demanding that they repeal and stop requesting new laws that do nothing to fulfill their governmental duties.
No taxation without representation refers to the right of the individual to not be taxed based on their lack of representation in the government. Again this speaks about individual personal liberties and not the liberties of corporate giants. It also goes hand in hand with the ability for the people to redress the government with their greivances, which was a problem at the time this statement was first addressed (Stamp Act, Quartering Act, eventually leading to the Townshend Act). Individuals then got together and decided that it was unfair to have taxation without the proper reprensentation that was needed and while these individuals may have been business owners they were acting as individuals with other similarly interested individuals and not acting under the umbrella of a corporate name.
This is the "smaller government" argument, that while I don't disagree with, doesn't address the issue of business influence in areas that they should not hold influence. Yes I agree that business should compete in a free market and that the government should not limit/protect them in that sense (up until such point that the business treads upon the rights of the public), but limiting their access to the government does not/should not impede their ability to do business. Most of the reason that we have certain restrictions on businesses, businesses that are being protected, and businesses that are receiving ample federal subsidies is because businesses have had such a huge amount of access and influence to governmental policies and have lobbied to get those policies into place.
Part of the original framing of our constitution states that governments need to be created to protect the inalienable rights of man. Corporation != Man. More and more government is sending a clear signal that they are not in the business of protecting our rights but of protecting the rights and interests of corporations in direct conflict with our rights.
I have to believe that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" was speaking about the PEOPLE or groups of individuals and not about amorphous corporate entities. Unfortunately corporations are now attempting to take these rights for themselves. Statements like "WE should be able to write a check for our favorite candidate, it's our right to free speech" and "finance reform shouldn't limit the rights of free speech", giving cash is not speech it's expression. Speech is the only form of expression that I understand to be protected under the constitution. Corporations will twist this and say that since press is basically written speech and it's protected that writing a check is written speech and therefore also protected except that a check is not "published" and the public (the intended target of the press and free speech) rarely if ever hear about that particular "written speech".
My basic point is that limiting the corporations access to government should in no way impede their ability to compete in a free market. By limiting their access to government we increase our own personal access to government by limiting the "noise" factor so that government officials hear the will of the people. This should also have the added bonus of creating a smaller government in that officials and workers are focused on public concerns and not meetings with corporations and phony multimilliondollar studies to ensure some corporation gets a contract/lighter restrictions/heavier restrictions etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there's a video out there of the Segway and how it performs on ice and snow. Check the Segway website. I doubt that it would peform well in heavy snow for the reasons you mentioned but it appears to work fine in a lighter snowfall.
Hey there are all kinds of stupid people out there, doctors, lawyers, judges, people who pass patents through, some of those people even have doctorates in very technical fields. A PhD doesn't automatically give you great organization skills nor does it give you common sense. Take a look at most doctors offices and poor penmanship as examples.
My point was that HE DOESN'T KNOW JACK ABOUT COMPUTERS, BUT HE STILL UNDERSTANDS THAT COMPUTER SOFTWARE REQUIRES A LICENSE!!! SO WHY DIDN'T THE IT GUYS WHO SET EVERYTHING UP IN THE SCHOOL!!
1. Tenure and only one promotion channel.
2. Too many cooks in the kitchen.
3. Protecting their own || "Doing what's best for all involved"
Excuse me. One you don't know me at all so you don't have the right to call me "fucking greedy asshole". For the record I was bitching about the mismanagement of the dollar I pay, not the fact that I have to pay to fund education. If more funding is needed then by all means fund it through OUR tax dollar, otherwise reform the system. I keep hearing "underfunded" "underfunded" and yet keep seeing money going to waste or being improperly managed. So don't tell me I'm being an asshole because I expect better.
The key is "underpaid" and "underbudget". Why are they underpaid and underbudget when they are getting more and more funds every year from every angle and yet cutting programs and jobs every year claiming debt and "budget cuts". Has the government cut funding to public schools?
With my own school district I've seen things like this:
3 fundraisers this year that my child had to partake in
2 fundraisers thrown by local groups (i.e. PTA)
more burden put on parents to purchase supplies
more burden put on parents to get into "coupon" and boxtops for schools type programs
local businesses having fundraisers where x% profit went to local schools
city fair/carnivals where profits went to schools
In one school in City X I see a brand new multimillion dollar school facility being built and haggling being done over getting a pool. Across town we see another school that's fighting with a leaky roof, poor airconditioning/heating, and a problem "running out of" food and various other supplies. So either school A is very good at managing it's funds and school B is very bad or the people managing the funds for both schools are very bad.
Using the excuse that "it doesn't pay enough" is just a sad excuse anymore. There are plenty of people out there that would be willing to take pay cuts to get something done for the community. But since it's a promote from within situation, unions are often involved, and can easily turn into favortism the excuse is presented "it doesn't pay enough". I could almost garauntee that if even a few business majors got hired or just some people with a few years of management EXPERIENCE that we'd see enough marked improvement to justify the cost of pay raises and hiring more of the same.
We need to decide where our priorities are. Are our priorities focused on "just getting by" on keeping people in power because they "understand how the system works". Or should we be focused on changing how the system works so that it benefits more people with lower costs and higher effectiveness. Let me know.
Yes I read the article and the lack of paperwork because it was donated doesn't matter. If I get a car donated to me and I get pulled over without the title I should be ready for the repercusions, especially should that car happen to be stolen. The powers that be took the donations knowing (or at least should have known) that they might someday be required to show proof of the licensed software. Instead of taking the time to get things done right they rushed ahead and now they're in the crapper with MS.
I work with a small clinic located in a methodist church, even our not so technically literate spanish/broken english speaking doctor who runs the clinic knows that he has to have licenses for all of the software that get's donated to him by way of the hardware that's brought in. If he, with his admittedly low understanding of all things computer, understands that simple premise and understands the necessity to get things right from the beginning then I can't hold the schools free from guilt.
It's real simple if the computer comes in "donated" and it doesn't have licenses for the products on it either the products get uninstalled or if it's the OS we wipe it clean and install a licensed copy of Windows or Linux Mandrake/QNX depending on funds and it's use in the system. At one time we could get licenses through the church resources for about $35 per seat, which is alot to a small church/clinic. The doctor has a drawer that he keeps all the licenses in all nice neat and organized and much easier to do if you start that way instead of trying to play catch up.
Okay there are two problems I see. ONE per the law MS has the right to seek compensation for people using their product. While people might not agree with that law it's still the law (change it if you want). TWO because the schools in question didn't keep track of their paperwork on these machines licensing they are crying foul saying somehow that it's MS's fault and that they don't have the time/resources to track everything down or do the research to avoid an audit. How many times did I hear "no excuses" from my teachers when I misplaced my paperwork for an assignment or didn't get into the class I wanted because my paperwork wasn't "filled out properly". Now the roll is reversed.
Personally I think that schools are miserably mismanaged. Quite a few of the people managing the school systems are teachers with no real experience in management or business. A teacher becomes a good teacher and therefore the next step must be Principal and after principal it must be Superindendant, despite the fact that the teacher might not have any management or supervisory skills whatsoever. I see the same thing in most businesses, they take the best customer service rep and make him/her the supervisor or manager even though that person doesn't know anything about management or how to properly train and motivate their staff.
Start hiring managers and supervisors, stop wasting money on people who don't do the job the right way or get them training to do it right. Do we need to outsource the management of schools to the private sector. Start state programs for the purchase of software and hardware and let the state pool resources to help administer and maintain the systems and keep track of the paperwork. In the end it would probably reduce costs IF DONE PROPERLY.
I live in a state with sales tax, personal property taxes, real estate tax, gambling, income tax and still for some reason my son has to get involved in 3 or 4 fundraisers a year in first grade. Why? I think someone needs to go down the big list of priorities and start rechecking things.
I think tolerance is a constant. I think the thing that changes is awareness. As we become more aware of other cultures we also become aware of the flaws in those cultures. Through seeing the flaws in other cultures one hopes that we see the same flaws within our own. Often that awareness causes loathing of the negative behavior and through transference we cast off our anger toward the other culture instead of rectifying the flaw in our own.
People do this all the time. Strong headed people dislike other strong headed people, models dislike other models, fat people dislike other fat people, selfish people see other selfish people as "MORE" selfish. It's a coping mechanism to avoid addressing the problems with oneself.
As we become more aware of what we are doing the "appearance of intolerance" will decrease.
I think the definitions should be more like this.
A) Personal/Private:
Name: Joe Black
Address: 1154 Knights Rd. Okc, OK 73127
Phone: (405) 721-5262
Purchases: Prilosec 12/21/2001,1/22/2002,2/19/2002
BoobWatch 4 11/26/2000
Blue-Gray Polo Shirt 5/1/2001
CreditCards:Visa $400 limit, MC $1000 limit, Discover $0 limit
DOB: 08/17/1954
Income: 52,697
B) Demographic Information:
Region: Midwest
Sex: Male
ZIP: 73127
Purchasing habbits: Heartburn aids, adult entertainment videos, clothing
Credit Cards: Yes
Income: H (45,000-55,000)
Age: D (45-54)
Record A is PRIVATE and PERSONAL information that noone really needs. Record B is demographic information that cannot specifically identify a single individual and may in fact match with several individuals in a database. Record A is the property of the PERSON in question noone should have the ability to do anything with that information unless is relates directly to the request of the person mentioned. Record B is generalized enough that it doesn't identify a single person accurately enough to expose that persons personal and private life.
Now someone with a supercomputer and a big database might be able to purchase all the little tidbits of information from every little company and assemble everything that matches and narrow down the field to identify someone specific, very small likelihood. Assuming that that is a concern we could simply request a law that states companies can only sell "blocks" of demographic data i.e. "45,000 people between the age of 27-50 like SmurFit WidgetX". While the original company that you did business with would retain some information about your purchasing habbits they would only be allowed to use them to help you with current or new purchases that you request. The rest of the information they sold would have to be in a much more generalized format.
books wear out, especially if they are good books. Hardbacks need the occassional repair. Of course it's cheaper to buy a new one then to get one repaired unless it's an out of print or collectors edition.
I've seen a lot of naysayers out there trying to stretch to find reasons why robots in the workplace are bad. In some instances it sounds almost like the fights against immigration "they'll take all our jobs". If you look at a good amount of the immigrants coming into the country (US) (especially illegal immigrants) you'll notice that they take the jobs that noone really wants, jobs (US) citizens often feel too good for. If anything bringing robots into the workplace might take jobs away from struggling immigrants.
Personally I think that robots in the work place will allow (or in some cases force) people to pursue carreers that are more challenging and rewarding. I think hospitals are a great place to start. By automating all the routine aspects of the job you allow the nurses and staff to spend more time focusing on the care and emotional connection with the patient. If the nurse is not rushing around trying to get things restocked they might actually be able to answer the call button a little quicker. Likewise in a nursing home (which are woefully understaffed almost always) automating certain repetative tasks, or in some cases giving a surrogate nursemade can greatly ease the burden on the worker and help the patient at the same time.
Many elderly patients simply want someone to sit and talk to or someone to help them down the hall to dinner (without a wheelchair). I think that most people would have no problem adjusting to a robot performing that task. I mean look we already name our cars, curse at our TV, and talk to the stop lights, so how hard would it be to similarly humanize a robotic system.
I think most of the people who are worried about their jobs (worried about immigrants or robots) are the people who are either low skilled or unskilled laborers. They feel that there's nowhere to go if they should lose their jobs. It's a desperate train of thought and people like that have a tendency to never look up out of the whole they're in.
Same as TV, you need content to sell ads therefore you either A) create content B) buy content C) trade for content. Since it's unlikely that they will create their own content then they either have to purchase it or trade for it. Since they don't really have much to trade then it's purchase only.
The problem I see is that the RIAA is wanting to rake in even more cash to the detriment of their customers and the end consumer. Music should be a subsidized product. The music industry should give deep discounts on product because in the end that product being broadcast is as much an advertisement as it is anything else. Therefore if X is cost of play-time for music and Y is the cost of ad time on the caster then X-Y = $amount caster pays for content.
april fools joke from '99 or something.
The argument that they "agreed" to this before hand is bunk. I think it goes hand in hand with shrink wrap licensing. You can't agree to something when you don't know what that something is or it's too loosely defined and allows so many interpretations.
I'd like to see how enforceable a click through license is on a virus or trojan "I agree to allow (unknown entity) to install software on my machine that may or may not compromise the security therein. Additionally I grant (unknow entity) the right to use information provided by me for commercial gain and/or entertainment purposes. This information may be obtained from files or programs installed on my system. I hereby relinquish (unknown entity) from all legal responsibilities and refuse any further legal recourse should running this program cause damage to either the computer running it or to myself... > >" Then just write a harmless "flaw" in the program that makes ">" not work and VOILA! all nice and legal!
It should also be noted that although insects are the primary facilitator of an arbovirus it is blood born. It's thought that misquitos initially receive the virus from already infected carriers such as birds and then transmit the virus up and down the food chain. Human encroachment into previously unsettled areas is putting arbovirus group into an increasing area of risk.
Yep, have to have your own space sometimes and it's nice to be able to have some place to retreet to if need be. While it sounds horribly old fashioned it actually is very practical and works to our advantage.
I'd have to disagree that you can't have it all. I think the problem with mixing ideas and genres of film is that the majority of times the execution is just horrible. I have seen a few multi-genre films that pull this off quite well, the most recent was 'Brotherhood of the Wolf' which I heard referred to as the 'best kung fu, horror, fantasy, western, mystery, romance, period peice out of France' ever. (believe it or not that wasn't someone being an ass, the rest of the review was gushing about the movie). Point is I think you can cross multiple genres of film if the underlying premise of the film will hold together throughout. If the writing, or characters are weak then it will show through somewhere in the genre hopping. On the other hand if the characters are strong and well written then as the movie transitions then the characters will also and you'll end up having a good fluid experience.
I think the shift you're seeing now is due to the fact that we originally went away from mainframes because individuals wanted to be able to use computers. i.e. 1 person 1 computer. Now the paradigm has shifted slightly in the fact that many individuals are now owning multiple computers. We have five in my household, one in my office, one in my wifes bedroom, one hooked to the TV in the living room, one for the kitchen and my ce tablet I use for portability.
I think you'll also see that the run away from client/server computing was based on the cost of owning/maintaining such a system. With todays servers costing little more than a midrange PC it's much more feasible for a home user to be able to purchase a server for use.
I find it odd that this announcement comes so soon after Alias/Wavefront began to offer Maya personal edition for free. I wonder how much of the other companies offering "free" or discounted packages hurt NaN in the end. Of course $5695 for a 3d modeller might not be seen as discount prices to most of us compared to $500 but I wonder.
Actually if you look at the build, language, art, and customs of the "Native Americans" you will notice many similarities to the northern chinese nomadic populace. This is probably because that is the exact area that the native american ancestors came from, whether crossing a land bridge or by more direct ocean crossing. I think we're finding more and more that our ancestors (all of them white/red/whatever) were wildly nomadic and roamed to a lot more areas than we would have thought possible.
When you are going head to head with a 1000lb bear it's probably best to lay down cover your head and get trampled. At least then you live. Problem is that most companies when failing attempt to pour more money into a losing strategy instead of finding a new strategy. This was Netscapes downfall. They continued to pour money into a failing, non-compliant, buggy product (4.x). Once they began to make the turn around with NS6/Mozilla it was pretty much too late and they needed someone with deep pockets to bail them out (AOL). So now it's a battle between the evil empires. One controls software on 90% of machines, the other controls almost every other form of media and the largest group of internet/im users. Which 1000lb bear will be the one to trample us to death and bury us in a shallow grave for later consumption?
God dislikes sin - He creates consequences for sin - He does not create man without the ability to sin. (see the scenario allows for personal growth, personal correction, etc.)
Personal choice and accountability is a bitch huh?.
Lets just throw some situations out there and see how they equate
Which one of the scenarios above doesn't seem to belong. "Which one of these things is not like the others, not like the others, not like the others. Which one of these things is not like the others, which one of these things doesn't belong"
How are we supposed to grow as individuals and as a society if everything is strictly controlled by the government or corporations? I'll give you one more analogy.
New parents have a child. In order to protect that child they cover every plug in the house, lock every cabinet, lock every door, put all of the nick nacks away, keep the animals outside, they avoid toys that could be thrown or fallen off of, they bar the use of toy guns/swords/etc, violent cartoons, and anything but G rated movies. What kind of life will the child have? How will that child become an adult? What kind of adult will that child become? My personal experience with children raised like this is that they end up one of two ways:1) anal retentive, afraid of the world, afraid to try new things
2) completely unaware and ignorant of boundaries both social and moral. While visiting another persons house they go through every room touching and getting into anything that they can, taking things that they don't have at home, etc. As an young adult outside of their parents watchful gaze they try everything that their parents have said is bad and engage in every activity that's not allowed in the home.
It's like holding water in your hand - gently cup your hand giving some boundary for the water to rest naturally within and you retain control. On the flip side though the tighter you close that fist around the water the more control you lose and the faster it all runs out of your hand.
The US was founded on principals based on it's fleeing oppressive and rigid governmental control. 225 years later we are seeing the same form of control taking shape again. Our government was founded to protect our individual essential liberties and to provide a framework of protection not a cage. We should be demanding that they repeal and stop requesting new laws that do nothing to fulfill their governmental duties.
No taxation without representation refers to the right of the individual to not be taxed based on their lack of representation in the government. Again this speaks about individual personal liberties and not the liberties of corporate giants. It also goes hand in hand with the ability for the people to redress the government with their greivances, which was a problem at the time this statement was first addressed (Stamp Act, Quartering Act, eventually leading to the Townshend Act). Individuals then got together and decided that it was unfair to have taxation without the proper reprensentation that was needed and while these individuals may have been business owners they were acting as individuals with other similarly interested individuals and not acting under the umbrella of a corporate name.
This is the "smaller government" argument, that while I don't disagree with, doesn't address the issue of business influence in areas that they should not hold influence. Yes I agree that business should compete in a free market and that the government should not limit/protect them in that sense (up until such point that the business treads upon the rights of the public), but limiting their access to the government does not/should not impede their ability to do business. Most of the reason that we have certain restrictions on businesses, businesses that are being protected, and businesses that are receiving ample federal subsidies is because businesses have had such a huge amount of access and influence to governmental policies and have lobbied to get those policies into place.
Part of the original framing of our constitution states that governments need to be created to protect the inalienable rights of man. Corporation != Man. More and more government is sending a clear signal that they are not in the business of protecting our rights but of protecting the rights and interests of corporations in direct conflict with our rights.
I have to believe that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" was speaking about the PEOPLE or groups of individuals and not about amorphous corporate entities. Unfortunately corporations are now attempting to take these rights for themselves. Statements like "WE should be able to write a check for our favorite candidate, it's our right to free speech" and "finance reform shouldn't limit the rights of free speech", giving cash is not speech it's expression. Speech is the only form of expression that I understand to be protected under the constitution. Corporations will twist this and say that since press is basically written speech and it's protected that writing a check is written speech and therefore also protected except that a check is not "published" and the public (the intended target of the press and free speech) rarely if ever hear about that particular "written speech".
My basic point is that limiting the corporations access to government should in no way impede their ability to compete in a free market. By limiting their access to government we increase our own personal access to government by limiting the "noise" factor so that government officials hear the will of the people. This should also have the added bonus of creating a smaller government in that officials and workers are focused on public concerns and not meetings with corporations and phony multimilliondollar studies to ensure some corporation gets a contract/lighter restrictions/heavier restrictions etc.