The point of getting a smartphone is having all the power of an internet connected computer plus the ability to make calls all in a single device that can be easily carried with you.
I for one say we need to amend the patent and copyright acts to make devices used to voting unpatentable, and exempt from copyright, or barring that, that the certification process requires all rights to be signed over to the government. These machines by their very nature should be open to the most detailed scrutiny imaginable by anyone who feels so inclined. If the companies want to make money on them sell maintenance and manufacturing contracts, but there should be no way to claim trade secrets on anything used for voting.
/signed
I wish I could use my last mod point to bump this past +5:)
Again, try poking around on the site... Try looking at the FAQ and things like that; they actually give some of their reasoning for their beliefs. The blog entry by John Coleman doesn't really give any facts or anything so you gotta look past that.
I think the biggest argument in their favor is the timeframe of people's observations. A shift in global climate over a period of only a couple hundred of years is really not long enough to draw any real conclusions from in my opinion. Anyway, it makes for some interesting debate.
Of course. I always value the scientific opinion of the founder of The Weather Channel over the consensus of hundreds of climate scientists.
Maybe you should actually read some of the articles from that site. They do attempt to back up their claims from what I could see. Personally, I haven't formed an opinion either way. I had just stumbled upon the article yesterday and thought it was interesting. Apparently the mods didn't agree with me.
Anyway, the point is that not all scientists agree on this issue so don't be so quick to discount alternative views.
The simplicity of their site and the fact that Google *hasn't* changed their front page to include the usual bloat is exactly what keeps some of us using it. I know that more users equals more money and maybe the masses want more crap on the main page (maybe they don't) but sometimes it may be better to worry about quality more than quantity. That's one of the things that has made Google so strong over the years. They haven't (yet) sacrificed their quality just to be mainstream and I think that has worked very well for them so far. The day that Google loses their simplicity on the main search page is the day I find an alternative.
The main benefit that I see is that all the motion comes from your upper arm and shoulder, not from your wrist.
Yeah, that definitely helps. I also found that a large part of it (for me) was just the position of my wrist. Even without movement I found that if I held my hand/wrist in the position you would use for a normal mouse then I would feel quite a bit of tension in my wrist. If I turned my wrist to the handshake position I found that the tension would go away. For most people this is probably not something that is easily noticeable but when my wrist pain was at its worst it was very obvious how much of a difference my hand position made.
Nowadays I can use any mouse for long periods of time just because I used this ergonomic mouse exclusively for several months until the pain was completely gone. I actually switched back to a normal mouse at work and I use the EM500 at home whenever I'm gaming. This seems to be enough of a break to keep my wrists in fairly good shape.
I recently discovered this other ergonomic mouse from 3M that has really saved my wrists. It's not the greatest mouse in the world (wish Logitech would buy the design) but the benefit to my health has been amazing. I was beginning to have lots of wrist pain when using a normal mouse and switching to one of these permanently alleviated any pain I was having. I highly recommend either this or the mouse featured in the posted article. This "handshake position" is really how we should have been using mice all along.
The fact of the matter is, that at least so far, Vista is proving to be the most secure OS on the market. (Aside from perhaps OpenBSD, of course.:) If you have data that suggests otherwise, then provide it.
That's quite a statement. I don't have evidence supporting anything either way but I still have a hard time swallowing that one given my past experiences. More secure than previous Windows systems, perhaps. Most secure OS on the market? That's probably a bit of a stretch. Personally, I would still be far more comfortable with the security of any of the BSDs, Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, or any other flavor of UNIX. Not to mention more obscure operating systems.
Furthermore, it's extremely difficult to prove such things. Simply looking at the number of vulnerabilities is nowhere near adequate and, given your statement, I think the burden of proof would be on you.
I wouldn't exactly say these types of bans or things like drug laws are pointless. They just don't have the effect that a lot of people think. Making something that is in high demand illegal doesn't actually eliminate it from the population. All it does is change the distributors. Just look at our current drug laws and prohibition. These things exist because a large percentage of the population wants them to. Laws won't change that.
I'm not saying playing those types of games will make you violent. I'm saying that quite possibly, those who ALREADY have that predisposition to violence will find it just that much more easy to enact thier fantacies after they have seen it done numerous times before. Any mental safeguard there may have been before, has been eroded over time by violent images.
You have a valid point and I'm not trying to say that video games, movies, music and other media don't have any affect on us. They most certainly do. However, I think that how you act throughout your life is still far more largely influenced by the people you interact with. You said yourself that it is the people that already have a predisposition to violence that have a problem with this stuff... Well, why do they have a predisposition to violence? Some of it may be genetics and some of it is probably the people around them and what has been done to them. It may be a mental illness. Regardless of what the real causes may be, I think it is ridiculous to be blaming someone's behavior in life on any kind of video game, movie, music or art. These things certainly affect us as they are an expression something (anger, sadness, humor, etc.) by another human being (or beings) but how we interpret these things is what's important and where do we learn that? That is what we should be looking at.
Oh please... When it comes to video games and movies, I am one of the most violent, sick and twisted individuals you will ever meet. I love to torture, maim and kill. When it comes to real life, I am one of the most kind, caring people you will ever meet. It would be impossible for me to shoot or stab or bomb another human being and even attempting to do so would make me sick to my stomach. Violence in video games and movies does NOT desensitize you to violence in the real world.
In a world where people played fair it might work but in this world it's the same as bending over in a prison shower.
Ya know... I really don't see the connection between having the most possible people using code that I wrote, and benefitting from it without taking away from anyone else, and being assraped by a large man named Bubba. Call me crazy.
I just ordered one of these. I'm told they help immensely and I can see why. Try moving your wrist to the position it would be in while gripping one of these and then try the position you would have it in for a normal mouse. The difference in wrist strain is quickly noticeable.
I challenge you to design, from scratch, something as complex as Windows or the space shuttle by having 10,000 people with no deadlines, deliverables, or clear management hierarchy work on a mere volunteer basis if and when they feel like it. And no, FOSS UNIX clones/variants or reimplementations of BeOS don't count, because those are not from-scratch designs.
Why on earth would anyone want to do that? The complexity of Windows is one of the reasons it's such a god awful piece of crap and one of the reasons it will never be secure or stable in its current form. And why do you think it is so important to write something from scratch? Why reinvent the wheel? I'd say code re-use is one of the great strengths of open source software. Building upon the past ideas of others is what has allowed the human race to progress as far as we have.
Or, to summarize, it's a problem of "too many cooks in the kitchen". Only commercial models with top-down infrastructure have proven themselves capable of turning out final, coherent, complex feats of large-scale engineering.
I could easily read that as saying "Only commercial models with top-down infrastructure have proven themselves capable of turning out bloated, overly complex, unstable feats of large-scale engineering."
Personally, I'm much happier with all of my free, open source software than I am with all of the commercial software I own. The only exception to this is possibly Photoshop vs. The GIMP but I strongly suspect that is merely because I don't know how to use latter properly.
I mean honestly, the OSS community has not treated him with any respect, despite the fact that he's a good friend of Linus.
Ya know... he hasn't really said many things lately that deserve our respect. Does being a friend of Linus really demand all that much respect? This guy seems to have his head up his ass so why should I show him anything but contempt?
"One problem with the services model is that it is based on the idea that you are giving customers crap--because if you give them software that works, what is the point of service?" McVoy says.
To begin with, software these days is quite complex and it really is impossible to have a full-blown operating system with all the applications people expect and not have some sort of issues. Secondly, the vast majority of people out there are not computer savvy and are going to need help regardless of how well built their OS/applications are. Red Hat isn't dead yet so I wouldn't be so quick to proclaim them as such, although their demise wouldn't entirely surprise me.
"The other problem is that the services model doesn't generate enough revenue to support the creation of the next generation of innovative products.
That's one of the great things about open source software; it doesn't have to. Companies like Red Hat are packagers, not necessarily creators. What they provide is a nice, neat package of what others are already creating.
But if the world goes to 100% open source, innovation goes to zero. The open source guys hate it when I say this, but it's true."
Honestly, what is this guy smoking? We are creative beings... It really doesn't matter what people decide to do with their source code, there will always be innovation because it is human nature to think of new ways to do things.
But McVoy says open source advocates fail to recognize that building new software requires lots of trial and error, which means investing lots of money....or time. Keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there that have the free time on their hands to tinker with things that they find interesting. This is really how open source got to be big in the first place. McVoy seems to ignore the fact that, in general, open source software is really only gaining momentum and that it has its roots in hobbyist tinkerers; people who do it because they find it fulfilling for their own personal reasons.
But none of them can show me how to build a software-development house and fund it off open source revenue. My claim is it can't be done."
This statement really says everything about why McVoy feels the way he does; he's only thinking about money. He has completely forgotten that open source software doesn't require a profit to exist or be innovative. People write free/open source software because they enjoy it not because it is going to make them rich.
"Nobody wants to admit that most of the money funding open source development, maybe 80% to 90%, is coming from companies that are not open source companies themselves. What happens when these sponsors go away and there is not enough money floating around?
Nothing. I will continue to use Firefox, OpenOffice, X Windows, and all the other software I have come to rely on. This is another great aspect of open source software; it isn't going away because someone else can always pick up a dead project and run with it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Pelvic thrust is the way to go.
Good luck fitting that iPad in your pocket.
The point of getting a smartphone is having all the power of an internet connected computer plus the ability to make calls all in a single device that can be easily carried with you.
Yeah, but with ATI you have to deal with their driver bugs.
You say that as if nvidia hasn't had their fair share of driver problems.
I for one say we need to amend the patent and copyright acts to make devices used to voting unpatentable, and exempt from copyright, or barring that, that the certification process requires all rights to be signed over to the government. These machines by their very nature should be open to the most detailed scrutiny imaginable by anyone who feels so inclined. If the companies want to make money on them sell maintenance and manufacturing contracts, but there should be no way to claim trade secrets on anything used for voting.
/signed
:)
I wish I could use my last mod point to bump this past +5
Again, try poking around on the site... Try looking at the FAQ and things like that; they actually give some of their reasoning for their beliefs. The blog entry by John Coleman doesn't really give any facts or anything so you gotta look past that.
I think the biggest argument in their favor is the timeframe of people's observations. A shift in global climate over a period of only a couple hundred of years is really not long enough to draw any real conclusions from in my opinion. Anyway, it makes for some interesting debate.
Of course. I always value the scientific opinion of the founder of The Weather Channel over the consensus of hundreds of climate scientists.
Maybe you should actually read some of the articles from that site. They do attempt to back up their claims from what I could see. Personally, I haven't formed an opinion either way. I had just stumbled upon the article yesterday and thought it was interesting. Apparently the mods didn't agree with me.
Anyway, the point is that not all scientists agree on this issue so don't be so quick to discount alternative views.
Isn't global warming just a scam? :)
Modded troll? Morons.
Dude, Java sucks complete ass on every system. It has nothing to do with MacOS X or Apple.
The simplicity of their site and the fact that Google *hasn't* changed their front page to include the usual bloat is exactly what keeps some of us using it. I know that more users equals more money and maybe the masses want more crap on the main page (maybe they don't) but sometimes it may be better to worry about quality more than quantity. That's one of the things that has made Google so strong over the years. They haven't (yet) sacrificed their quality just to be mainstream and I think that has worked very well for them so far. The day that Google loses their simplicity on the main search page is the day I find an alternative.
No kidding. I kept searching the page for the "Next" link to move to the next page of the article but there wasn't one.
The main benefit that I see is that all the motion comes from your upper arm and shoulder, not from your wrist.
Yeah, that definitely helps. I also found that a large part of it (for me) was just the position of my wrist. Even without movement I found that if I held my hand/wrist in the position you would use for a normal mouse then I would feel quite a bit of tension in my wrist. If I turned my wrist to the handshake position I found that the tension would go away. For most people this is probably not something that is easily noticeable but when my wrist pain was at its worst it was very obvious how much of a difference my hand position made.
Nowadays I can use any mouse for long periods of time just because I used this ergonomic mouse exclusively for several months until the pain was completely gone. I actually switched back to a normal mouse at work and I use the EM500 at home whenever I'm gaming. This seems to be enough of a break to keep my wrists in fairly good shape.
I recently discovered this other ergonomic mouse from 3M that has really saved my wrists. It's not the greatest mouse in the world (wish Logitech would buy the design) but the benefit to my health has been amazing. I was beginning to have lots of wrist pain when using a normal mouse and switching to one of these permanently alleviated any pain I was having. I highly recommend either this or the mouse featured in the posted article. This "handshake position" is really how we should have been using mice all along.
http://www.airtech.net/3mermousnewv.html
The fact of the matter is, that at least so far, Vista is proving to be the most secure OS on the market. (Aside from perhaps OpenBSD, of course. :) If you have data that suggests otherwise, then provide it.
That's quite a statement. I don't have evidence supporting anything either way but I still have a hard time swallowing that one given my past experiences. More secure than previous Windows systems, perhaps. Most secure OS on the market? That's probably a bit of a stretch. Personally, I would still be far more comfortable with the security of any of the BSDs, Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, or any other flavor of UNIX. Not to mention more obscure operating systems.
Furthermore, it's extremely difficult to prove such things. Simply looking at the number of vulnerabilities is nowhere near adequate and, given your statement, I think the burden of proof would be on you.
I wouldn't exactly say these types of bans or things like drug laws are pointless. They just don't have the effect that a lot of people think. Making something that is in high demand illegal doesn't actually eliminate it from the population. All it does is change the distributors. Just look at our current drug laws and prohibition. These things exist because a large percentage of the population wants them to. Laws won't change that.
It lets me know which ones to buy.
You're missing my point...
I'm not saying playing those types of games will make you violent. I'm saying that quite possibly, those who ALREADY have that predisposition to violence will find it just that much more easy to enact thier fantacies after they have seen it done numerous times before. Any mental safeguard there may have been before, has been eroded over time by violent images.
You have a valid point and I'm not trying to say that video games, movies, music and other media don't have any affect on us. They most certainly do. However, I think that how you act throughout your life is still far more largely influenced by the people you interact with. You said yourself that it is the people that already have a predisposition to violence that have a problem with this stuff... Well, why do they have a predisposition to violence? Some of it may be genetics and some of it is probably the people around them and what has been done to them. It may be a mental illness. Regardless of what the real causes may be, I think it is ridiculous to be blaming someone's behavior in life on any kind of video game, movie, music or art. These things certainly affect us as they are an expression something (anger, sadness, humor, etc.) by another human being (or beings) but how we interpret these things is what's important and where do we learn that? That is what we should be looking at.
Oh please... When it comes to video games and movies, I am one of the most violent, sick and twisted individuals you will ever meet. I love to torture, maim and kill. When it comes to real life, I am one of the most kind, caring people you will ever meet. It would be impossible for me to shoot or stab or bomb another human being and even attempting to do so would make me sick to my stomach. Violence in video games and movies does NOT desensitize you to violence in the real world.
"They've got a good deal of 360 exclusive content including the next Splinter Cell and GTA IV Episodes, and (initially) Bioshock."
Ooh this makes me so mad. Curse you, Microsoft! CURSE YOOOUUU!!!! *shakes fist*
In a world where people played fair it might work but in this world it's the same as bending over in a prison shower.
Ya know... I really don't see the connection between having the most possible people using code that I wrote, and benefitting from it without taking away from anyone else, and being assraped by a large man named Bubba. Call me crazy.
Were you sure to call him a nerdboy in your post? I find that generally gets a more helpful response.
I just ordered one of these. I'm told they help immensely and I can see why. Try moving your wrist to the position it would be in while gripping one of these and then try the position you would have it in for a normal mouse. The difference in wrist strain is quickly noticeable.
I challenge you to design, from scratch, something as complex as Windows or the space shuttle by having 10,000 people with no deadlines, deliverables, or clear management hierarchy work on a mere volunteer basis if and when they feel like it. And no, FOSS UNIX clones/variants or reimplementations of BeOS don't count, because those are not from-scratch designs.
Why on earth would anyone want to do that? The complexity of Windows is one of the reasons it's such a god awful piece of crap and one of the reasons it will never be secure or stable in its current form. And why do you think it is so important to write something from scratch? Why reinvent the wheel? I'd say code re-use is one of the great strengths of open source software. Building upon the past ideas of others is what has allowed the human race to progress as far as we have.
Or, to summarize, it's a problem of "too many cooks in the kitchen". Only commercial models with top-down infrastructure have proven themselves capable of turning out final, coherent, complex feats of large-scale engineering.
I could easily read that as saying "Only commercial models with top-down infrastructure have proven themselves capable of turning out bloated, overly complex, unstable feats of large-scale engineering."
Personally, I'm much happier with all of my free, open source software than I am with all of the commercial software I own. The only exception to this is possibly Photoshop vs. The GIMP but I strongly suspect that is merely because I don't know how to use latter properly.
I mean honestly, the OSS community has not treated him with any respect, despite the fact that he's a good friend of Linus.
Ya know... he hasn't really said many things lately that deserve our respect. Does being a friend of Linus really demand all that much respect? This guy seems to have his head up his ass so why should I show him anything but contempt?
"One problem with the services model is that it is based on the idea that you are giving customers crap--because if you give them software that works, what is the point of service?" McVoy says.
...or time. Keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there that have the free time on their hands to tinker with things that they find interesting. This is really how open source got to be big in the first place. McVoy seems to ignore the fact that, in general, open source software is really only gaining momentum and that it has its roots in hobbyist tinkerers; people who do it because they find it fulfilling for their own personal reasons.
To begin with, software these days is quite complex and it really is impossible to have a full-blown operating system with all the applications people expect and not have some sort of issues. Secondly, the vast majority of people out there are not computer savvy and are going to need help regardless of how well built their OS/applications are. Red Hat isn't dead yet so I wouldn't be so quick to proclaim them as such, although their demise wouldn't entirely surprise me.
"The other problem is that the services model doesn't generate enough revenue to support the creation of the next generation of innovative products.
That's one of the great things about open source software; it doesn't have to. Companies like Red Hat are packagers, not necessarily creators. What they provide is a nice, neat package of what others are already creating.
But if the world goes to 100% open source, innovation goes to zero. The open source guys hate it when I say this, but it's true."
Honestly, what is this guy smoking? We are creative beings... It really doesn't matter what people decide to do with their source code, there will always be innovation because it is human nature to think of new ways to do things.
But McVoy says open source advocates fail to recognize that building new software requires lots of trial and error, which means investing lots of money.
But none of them can show me how to build a software-development house and fund it off open source revenue. My claim is it can't be done."
This statement really says everything about why McVoy feels the way he does; he's only thinking about money. He has completely forgotten that open source software doesn't require a profit to exist or be innovative. People write free/open source software because they enjoy it not because it is going to make them rich.
"Nobody wants to admit that most of the money funding open source development, maybe 80% to 90%, is coming from companies that are not open source companies themselves. What happens when these sponsors go away and there is not enough money floating around?
Nothing. I will continue to use Firefox, OpenOffice, X Windows, and all the other software I have come to rely on. This is another great aspect of open source software; it isn't going away because someone else can always pick up a dead project and run with it themselves.