Right, it seems these services are not available in the US (why? no idea).
However, in many countries in Europe they are very common.
Rather than to introduce single-use phones it would take
make a lot more sense to introduce a reasonable pay-as-you-go program. I suspect phone companies
have no interest in it, since many peple will probably choose it over their overpriced monthly plans.
Human languages are for people to communicate.
If you cannot communicate, your ability to function is limited.
Computer languages are to give computer commands, which is a very special type of communication and is also possible at different levels.
There is no equivalence between illiteracy and computer illiteracy.
Yes, but as I said, you should look into no monthly fee services. You buy the phone (expensive, but you get to use it for a long time!) and then just buy your minutes. No montly fee, no nothing. Extremely convenient. Although, these plans are not available everywhere, perhaps.
No contract cell service has been available for a long time now, at least in some places. You just buy minutes as needed without any monthly payment.
The only investment you make is the phone itself.
The disposable phone seems expensive (per minute) and mostly useless. The only real application I see is when you go somewhere for a short period of time and need a phone for a few weeks.
Why would anyone (or you for that matter) care if you get karma or not? I really don't understand - it seems that once you get a bonus point it's not even measurable.
Microsoft would be insane to launch a takeover bid at that valuation ($20 bln).
In fact I don't see why Microsoft needs to take over Google at all. Developing their own technology would be far cheaper even including the promotion costs.
Using the notim, if you cannot tell the difference between two images than they are the same as far as the information is concerned, which seems reasonable.
Also surprize is a relative notion. Something might be surprising to me but not to you or the other way around.
Your judgement is completely immature. I know some extremely intelligent people who fell for things like that.
It is not about how smart you are, rather it is whether you choose to belive certain things or have the experience to tell the scam from the real thing.
in order for the free market to work properly, consumers have to have a choice of providers
Free market is not about consumer choice. It is about being able to enter the market and trade freely.
A monopoly can impede transparency by abusing their position to spread false information about any potential competitors, locking their customers into unfairly binding contracts.
Assuming the consumer are rational, they should
be able to disregard the
misleading information.
Surely a competitor who does not have a binding contract would appear very attractive.
Also, monopolies tend to arise
*because* of a lack of transparency in the market. appear very attractive.
Interesting thought but I would like to see some justification.
On the other hand, I find it hard to see how a true free market could ever work...
One advantage is to decrease the undesirability of going to the polls.
It is a valid reason to use technology but only if technology helps in that respect.
Another advantage of course, would be to minimize human error in the counting process. Obviously we see the problem with that goal if the mechanical counting process cannot be validated, independently validated, all the way to having the process of testing and validation completely open and subject to intense independent scrutiny.
It seems that the computer techology is inherently
not transparent as far as validation is concerned. For example, a small bug (perhaps maliciously implanted in the software) can completely change the results.
You might object that the software can be open and accessible for review by independent observers. However even in that case how do you validate the software running on a given voting machine?
Not to say it is completely impossible but
certainly not easy. All in all, it makes it harder to justify switching from paper ballots, which is an intrinsically open standard.
Why do we need software to vote? What exactly are the advantages? It is more expensive much less transparent and prone to potentially catastrophic failures and tampering.
We are limited much more by the need to preserve the environment and keep the planet suitable for living rather than by the resources themselves. In theorey nothing would prevent us from covering all the deserts by solar panel, building enormous farms of wind generators and growing enormous quantaties of green mater to be burned for energy.
Right, that is a much stronger point. However, even that is quite large. There is really no technological reason why a large portion of the of the sunlight and of the thermal energy cannot be utilized with modern or only slightly futuristic technology. On the other hand, the price for doing it, could be the completely ruined environment.
Well the surface of Earthe receives on the order of 2*10^17 Watts of sunlight.
The yearly world consumption of energy is around 4*10^19 Joules. Thus it takes about 3 minutes of sunlight to account for all energy used by our civilization. Seems pretty infinite to me.
In nature there are limits to everything, and when you get near them, things level off.
The question is not about the limits, the question is how far we are from the limits. And the answer is damn far!
Mathematically speaking, "practically infinite" is a contradiction in terms.
Philosophically speaking, this is empty sophistry.
For all practical purposes physical resources are infinite. Sun has an essentially infinite amount of energy, and the amount of minerals in the crust of Earth is almost infinite as well. Even the productivity of agriculture has been increasing exponentially over the history of civilization.
Slashdot Mirror
With a sweet-sounding name like that, no wonder it never
took off.
However, in many countries in Europe they are very common.
Rather than to introduce single-use phones it would take make a lot more sense to introduce a reasonable pay-as-you-go program. I suspect phone companies have no interest in it, since many peple will probably choose it over their overpriced monthly plans.
Slashdot editors? Journalists? I have no idea what you are taling about.
Human languages are for people to communicate. If you cannot communicate, your ability to function is limited. Computer languages are to give computer commands, which is a very special type of communication and is also possible at different levels.
There is no equivalence between illiteracy and computer illiteracy.
Yes, but as I said, you should look into no monthly fee services. You buy the phone (expensive, but you get to use it for a long time!) and then just buy your minutes. No montly fee, no nothing. Extremely convenient. Although, these plans are not available everywhere, perhaps.
The disposable phone seems expensive (per minute) and mostly useless. The only real application I see is when you go somewhere for a short period of time and need a phone for a few weeks.
After the millions of years it takes to explore the galaxy, who will be "we"?
Strangled by the entrails, I would think.
Why would anyone (or you for that matter) care if you get karma or not? I really don't understand - it seems that once you get a bonus point it's not even measurable.
Yes, I noticed software that. Software on my computer self-repairs every couple of days.
In fact I don't see why Microsoft needs to take over Google at all. Developing their own technology would be far cheaper even including the promotion costs.
Seems perfectly grammatical to me.
Also surprize is a relative notion. Something might be surprising to me but not to you or the other way around.
If you store the same image in two different resolutions, does the high-res version contain more information?
Even if you cannot see the difference?
I know some extremely intelligent people who fell for things like that.
It is not about how smart you are, rather it is
whether you choose to belive certain things or have the experience to tell the scam from the real thing.
Economics of scale for Google? You mean when there are more searches they are cheaper?
Google is the same way and they are expanding the breadth of their content like Amazon.
They are expanding the Web? Or do you mean the river?
You must be smoking some good stuff, man.
Free market is not about consumer choice. It is about being able to enter the market and trade freely.
A monopoly can impede transparency by abusing their position to spread false information about any potential competitors, locking their customers into unfairly binding contracts.
Assuming the consumer are rational, they should be able to disregard the misleading information. Surely a competitor who does not have a binding contract would appear very attractive.
Also, monopolies tend to arise *because* of a lack of transparency in the market. appear very attractive.
Interesting thought but I would like to see some justification.
On the other hand, I find it hard to see how a true free market could ever work...
Agreed.
How do monopolies reduce market transparency?
What are the rules of a free market?
It is a valid reason to use technology but only if technology helps in that respect.
Another advantage of course, would be to minimize human error in the counting process. Obviously we see the problem with that goal if the mechanical counting process cannot be validated, independently validated, all the way to having the process of testing and validation completely open and subject to intense independent scrutiny.
It seems that the computer techology is inherently not transparent as far as validation is concerned. For example, a small bug (perhaps maliciously implanted in the software) can completely change the results.
You might object that the software can be open and accessible for review by independent observers. However even in that case how do you validate the software running on a given voting machine?
Not to say it is completely impossible but certainly not easy. All in all, it makes it harder to justify switching from paper ballots, which is an intrinsically open standard.
Why do we need software to vote? What exactly are the advantages? It is more expensive much less transparent and prone to potentially catastrophic failures and tampering.
We are limited much more by the need to preserve the environment and keep the planet suitable for living rather than by the resources themselves. In theorey nothing would prevent us from covering all the deserts by solar panel, building enormous farms of wind generators and growing enormous quantaties of green mater to be burned for energy.
Right, that is a much stronger point. However, even that is quite large. There is really no technological reason why a large portion of the of the sunlight and of the thermal energy cannot be utilized with modern or only slightly futuristic technology. On the other hand, the price for doing it, could be the completely ruined environment.
Which is coming our way at a set, finite rate.
Well the surface of Earthe receives on the order of 2*10^17 Watts of sunlight.
The yearly world consumption of energy is around 4*10^19 Joules. Thus it takes about 3 minutes of sunlight to account for all energy used by our civilization. Seems pretty infinite to me.
In nature there are limits to everything, and when you get near them, things level off.
The question is not about the limits, the question is how far we are from the limits. And the answer is damn far!
Mathematically speaking, "practically infinite" is a contradiction in terms.
Philosophically speaking, this is empty sophistry.
For all practical purposes physical resources are infinite. Sun has an essentially infinite amount of energy, and the amount of minerals in the crust of Earth is almost infinite as well. Even the productivity of agriculture has been increasing exponentially over the history of civilization.