What I still don't understand is why people insist on personal identifying technology. Is the world really more dangerous now than in the past? Or is it merely perceived that way?
And why am I asking a question that there's already an obvious answer to?
But then the problem arises (and please correct me if I'm wrong) of users not having the correct hardware to connect to the better WiFi standards.
My university has done a fairly good job maintaining a 802.11g network that services thousands of us at a time with little trouble, and plenty of people connect with plain-ol' wireless B. I know the university paid a lot for that, though, which is probably more than most municipalities are willing to pay per block.
Nearly four out of 10 online shoppers falsely believed that a company's privacy policy prohibits it from using information to analyze an individuals' activities online.
This isn't particularly surprising. How many people actually read the privacy policies?
I think the reason no one discusses Opera is because it is still viewed as an alternative and not a major player. Mozilla and IE have been going at it for years and Opera has managed to stay out of it at the cost of not being viewed as a major contender. The moment Opera gets involved in a major "future of the web" dispute, it will be seen as a major browser. Where I work there is a general feel that if something works in IE and Firefox, test it in Opera. If it doesn't work in Opera, publish it anyway.
My thoughts exactly. Unless M$ goes patent crazy and disallows anyone from adding compatibility for their new language, the browsers could just support two new languages. And to be fair, neither should call it "JavaScript". Of course most developers would only use one, but that's fine.
"you've got absolutely no clue about the free market".
I think you missed my point. I understand the economic term "free market", but I'm one of those idealists who think that corporations with seemingly unlimited money and power which can buy out the little guy to dominate the market don't fall under "free". It's interesting how so many people think this particular ideal is on par with communism. But I'm sorry: I'm an engineer. I think of more than money. In retrospect, I should've read you sig....
Apple would have still produced the iPhone without the AT&T contract, but really: do you think people would pay $831 for a phone. Especially since the iPhone is directed towards a younger demographic? I think not. They simply wouldn't be making as much of a profit.
"Free market" is a nice way of saying "corporate-controlled consumerism". It's gotten to the point that not only are big companies now more powerful than the government (not that I want the government to have much power, but that's besides the point) but they're also more powerful than the people, which is a frightening thing.
I think it's not so much that humongous storage will be available, but that such storage will be so small. With this kind of technology more reasonable data storage sizes will be available at much smaller physical sizes, clearing the way for all sorts of new technology.
And all that will happen is that instead of people buying a bunch of iPhones, hacking them all and selling them, people would instead provide a send-away service. Or someone will develop an even easier method that the average user or their tech-inclined friend could do. Either way, limiting to 2 phones just forces a different avenue for hackers, not an end to the hacking.
The greatest piece of legislation that could be passed would be one requiring that software and hardware manufacturer's could not impose restrictions on how it is used. Not only would the iPhone situation be a non-issue, but the way would be clear for Linux developers to provide drivers without fear of prosecution by hardware manufacturer's. Of course, given greed, this is nothing more than a pipe dream...
Yeah, but a lot of consumers don't really think about that kind of thing, so it sounds better to them to hear "32,000 mp3s" with a footnote that suggests 4 minute songs than to say "2133 hours and 20 minutes of music". So in this case what would make sense takes a back seat to what sells.
I really don't understand why that's not illegal...isn't this why there are so many restrictions on where certain programs can be legally downloaded?
The only way I can see it as legal is if it was obtained before the sanctions, and then shame on the authors for not providing an adequate license, something I have no problem with except in cases such as this where it involves censorware or other "mass restriction" software.
I'll have to check to see if this is available for me, and if it is that would save some headaches. Currently I use XP and Ubuntu (on the same machine, fortunately) and I'm sharing Thunderbird's profile folder, but that causes lots of little issues. Add this to the list of reasons I've been using my Gmail account for longer than any other account.
I still don't quite feel the draw to integrate games on a personal page. To me, it's just as easy to open up a new tab (or window, for those who dislike tabbed browsing) and start playing. Same thing happened to Facebook. I don't know...I'm just not feeling it.
But thinking about it from the perspective of the days of Geocities when I was just beginning to really use the web, I can understand why those less involved with the internet would like this.
I assume other teams are working on that other question. Given how much jet fuel is used daily, this small step towards reducing greenhouse gases is certainly welcome.
Interesting...this is the first "synfuel" I've seen that claims a near-zero greenhouse gas emission (although the CO2 is still extracted and sequestered, making me wonder exactly what the heck they're planning on doing with it); even the ethanol based fuels still emit some in proportion to the gasoline content. Still, it would be nice if they could eliminate coal usage altogether. I suppose that's the next step.
For everything that benefits society, along comes those who seek to use said benefits for personal, illicit gain. I don't think it's so much that "Technology Breeds Crime" as "Crime Feeds On Technology".
And I live in Florida. Central.
Which brings up another point. Why is Florida the shape that it is? Because hurricanes tend to run on either side of it, but rarely up the middle (sometimes across it, but these tend to be weak ones). Is it any coincidence that the first few miles near the shore are nothing but palm trees and other hardy plants, while the center of Florida is dense forest? No, it's just nature, and hurricanes maintaining ecosystems. This is not something that needs to be controlled.
The reason New Orleans had trouble is that the city is below sea level. By the ocean. In the Gulf. Blocked by man-made levees. Anyone else see the obvious problem?
This sounds familiar. I think some people tried this about a decade ago with jet turbines...I'll have to research this...
Even back then I wondered what the consequences of doing this would be. Directing that much energy is not without thermodynamic consequence, and all that energy has to go somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
TM: Hello. Is this Mr. Seinfeld? Jerry Seinfeld: Yes. *click* ...or something like that. I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote.
What I still don't understand is why people insist on personal identifying technology. Is the world really more dangerous now than in the past? Or is it merely perceived that way? And why am I asking a question that there's already an obvious answer to?
But then the problem arises (and please correct me if I'm wrong) of users not having the correct hardware to connect to the better WiFi standards. My university has done a fairly good job maintaining a 802.11g network that services thousands of us at a time with little trouble, and plenty of people connect with plain-ol' wireless B. I know the university paid a lot for that, though, which is probably more than most municipalities are willing to pay per block.
I think the reason no one discusses Opera is because it is still viewed as an alternative and not a major player. Mozilla and IE have been going at it for years and Opera has managed to stay out of it at the cost of not being viewed as a major contender. The moment Opera gets involved in a major "future of the web" dispute, it will be seen as a major browser.
Where I work there is a general feel that if something works in IE and Firefox, test it in Opera. If it doesn't work in Opera, publish it anyway.
My thoughts exactly. Unless M$ goes patent crazy and disallows anyone from adding compatibility for their new language, the browsers could just support two new languages. And to be fair, neither should call it "JavaScript".
Of course most developers would only use one, but that's fine.
Good point. While brains may be wired for numbers, I highly doubt that any brain is hardwired for differential equations.
We cannot stand for this! Google, not in domination worldwide? Quick, Google: buy them out!
I think you missed my point. I understand the economic term "free market", but I'm one of those idealists who think that corporations with seemingly unlimited money and power which can buy out the little guy to dominate the market don't fall under "free". It's interesting how so many people think this particular ideal is on par with communism. But I'm sorry: I'm an engineer. I think of more than money.
In retrospect, I should've read you sig....
Apple would have still produced the iPhone without the AT&T contract, but really: do you think people would pay $831 for a phone. Especially since the iPhone is directed towards a younger demographic? I think not. They simply wouldn't be making as much of a profit. "Free market" is a nice way of saying "corporate-controlled consumerism". It's gotten to the point that not only are big companies now more powerful than the government (not that I want the government to have much power, but that's besides the point) but they're also more powerful than the people, which is a frightening thing.
I think it's not so much that humongous storage will be available, but that such storage will be so small. With this kind of technology more reasonable data storage sizes will be available at much smaller physical sizes, clearing the way for all sorts of new technology.
And all that will happen is that instead of people buying a bunch of iPhones, hacking them all and selling them, people would instead provide a send-away service. Or someone will develop an even easier method that the average user or their tech-inclined friend could do. Either way, limiting to 2 phones just forces a different avenue for hackers, not an end to the hacking.
The greatest piece of legislation that could be passed would be one requiring that software and hardware manufacturer's could not impose restrictions on how it is used. Not only would the iPhone situation be a non-issue, but the way would be clear for Linux developers to provide drivers without fear of prosecution by hardware manufacturer's. Of course, given greed, this is nothing more than a pipe dream...
Yeah, but a lot of consumers don't really think about that kind of thing, so it sounds better to them to hear "32,000 mp3s" with a footnote that suggests 4 minute songs than to say "2133 hours and 20 minutes of music". So in this case what would make sense takes a back seat to what sells.
True for personal machines but, of course, if you do use it, it slows XP machines down to a speed slower than Vista. Wait....I get it now....
I really don't understand why that's not illegal...isn't this why there are so many restrictions on where certain programs can be legally downloaded?
The only way I can see it as legal is if it was obtained before the sanctions, and then shame on the authors for not providing an adequate license, something I have no problem with except in cases such as this where it involves censorware or other "mass restriction" software.
I'll have to check to see if this is available for me, and if it is that would save some headaches. Currently I use XP and Ubuntu (on the same machine, fortunately) and I'm sharing Thunderbird's profile folder, but that causes lots of little issues. Add this to the list of reasons I've been using my Gmail account for longer than any other account.
That is a good point: how exactly did they alert the Secret Service? Or did they?
Well at least now absolutely everyone can get "what you need, when you need it."
I still don't quite feel the draw to integrate games on a personal page. To me, it's just as easy to open up a new tab (or window, for those who dislike tabbed browsing) and start playing. Same thing happened to Facebook. I don't know...I'm just not feeling it.
But thinking about it from the perspective of the days of Geocities when I was just beginning to really use the web, I can understand why those less involved with the internet would like this.
I assume other teams are working on that other question. Given how much jet fuel is used daily, this small step towards reducing greenhouse gases is certainly welcome.
Interesting...this is the first "synfuel" I've seen that claims a near-zero greenhouse gas emission (although the CO2 is still extracted and sequestered, making me wonder exactly what the heck they're planning on doing with it); even the ethanol based fuels still emit some in proportion to the gasoline content.
Still, it would be nice if they could eliminate coal usage altogether. I suppose that's the next step.
For everything that benefits society, along comes those who seek to use said benefits for personal, illicit gain. I don't think it's so much that "Technology Breeds Crime" as "Crime Feeds On Technology".
And I live in Florida. Central. Which brings up another point. Why is Florida the shape that it is? Because hurricanes tend to run on either side of it, but rarely up the middle (sometimes across it, but these tend to be weak ones). Is it any coincidence that the first few miles near the shore are nothing but palm trees and other hardy plants, while the center of Florida is dense forest? No, it's just nature, and hurricanes maintaining ecosystems. This is not something that needs to be controlled. The reason New Orleans had trouble is that the city is below sea level. By the ocean. In the Gulf. Blocked by man-made levees. Anyone else see the obvious problem?
This sounds familiar. I think some people tried this about a decade ago with jet turbines...I'll have to research this... Even back then I wondered what the consequences of doing this would be. Directing that much energy is not without thermodynamic consequence, and all that energy has to go somewhere.