The Google Glass target market has two types of people in it. People who saw the Terminator movies and thought, 'that looks really cool' and voyeurs. Sell these things at the right convention and you'll make a fortune.
The first hacks will be gaining root (already done) and when people start putting the Google Glass into glass frames that don't look like they'll get you kicked out of certain entertainment venues. I don't think these have a big future with the public at large since they will freak out most people, which is too bad as I can think of any number of legitimate uses for them.
Having lived through that I can assure you that the changes do not affect the women alone. The man will hear about them, lose sleep with them, accommodate them, be stressed by them and even on average gain weight with them. Eight weeks is nice, but I simply can't get over the inequality of the thing and there simply isn't anyway to whitewash away the double standard.
Not only is the policy blatantly sexist (coming from a female CEO makes this even worse) but it actively discourages Dad's from participating in their kids lives. This perpetuates the myth that only women can be active parents and has no business in the 21st century. There is absolutely no reason that a father can't provide just as good of care and be just as involved with raising their child as the mother.
Sexist attitudes like this are why men get taken to the cleaners in family courts all over the world. This same woman probably bitches about men not helping with diaper changes and parenting duties. If you have a kid, never ever let someone do this to you, get involved and refuse to let sexist twats keep you from being part of your kids life. Take the opportunity and raise your kid right, teach them the things you wished you learned and have fun with the.
Fathers are supposed to be more involved in their kids lives than providing a paycheck. Take responsibility, stand up to sexism, raise your kids as they deserve better. If doing the right thing doesn't inspire you just remember that if you don't you'll be taken to the cleaners if you ever go to Family Court.
I read the article several days back and if you read carefully you will see that their conclusions betray their politics. Amongst other things the article literally doesn't even acknowledge nuclear energy when discussing all of the assorted form of low carbon energy. Considering that nuclear power is the cleanest form of main load power that we have this can hardly be an oversight.
To environmentalists, natural gas is a bridge fuel, a substitute for coal and oil that will serve untilâ"but only untilâ"the world can move to zero-carbon energy sources: sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat.
The author is well aware of the human toll being extracted by the use of coal:
In March, for instance, a research team led by a Mumbai environmental group estimated that black carbon and other particulate matter from Indiaâ(TM)s coal-fired power plants cause about 100,000 deaths a year.
Natural gas would significantly reduce the source causes of these deaths and the author is aware:
Natural gas produces next to no soot and half the carbon dioxide coal does. In coal-heavy places like China, India, the former Soviet Union, and eastern Europe, heating homes and offices with natural gas instead of coal would be a huge step.
However instead of supporting a transition to cleaner burning natural gas the author shows what they would rather have happen:
For years, environmentalists have hoped that the imminent exhaustion of oil will, in effect, force us to undergo this virtuous transition; given a choice between no power and solar power, even the most shortsighted person would choose the latter. That hope seems likely to be denied.
The authors radical viewpoint is exposed here with the following view which they know has never happened in human history. The fact that this could result in the economic collapse of society is sort of acknowledged by the author:
Smil is correct - the sort of rapid energy transition we need has never occurred before. At the same time, one should note that no physical law says these transitions must be slow. Societies have changed rapidly, even when it cost a lot of money.
This doesn't even pass the sniff test with regards to conflict of interest. Obama is as much of a tool of industry as W ever was, his entire populist election campaign of 2008 was one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public. Seriously, look at industry after industry and you will see Obama acting fundamentally the same. How many bankers are in jail for the collapse of the economy, etc, etc?
You can profit from bitcoin in four different ways:
1. Have a special asic rig that is custom made for mining bitcoins. 2. Have a botnet that you put to work mining bitcoins using other peoples electricity. 3. Speculate in bitcoins and bet that they will go up or down in value. 4. Hack someone else that has bitcoins.
Two out of the four ways to make profits with bitcoins are illegal and one of the others is often accompanied by illegal activity (DOS) to manipulate the exchanges to try to force the value up or down. It's been a while since you could mine them on your own and come out ahead on electricity versus bitcoin value. Perhaps there are some good reasons bitcoins have a shady reputation?
The problem with that is that they are almost all variants of the same set of core viruses. Remember that it is in Symantec's interest to make it sound like the situation is dire as possible. I would imagine that if you got rid of the minor variants you would probably have under 100 viruses for Windows as well. Actual new viruses that are not simply variants of a existing virus are fairly rare.
Most windows viruses are created by taking an existing virus and editing it just slightly to avoid one of the existing signatures matching to it. Every time that happens your virus companies claim that their is a new virus, it really all boils down to marketing hype.
Admin time always exceeds the cost of the computer, your a fool if you think the cost of the computer is the main cost of owning it. Your also forgetting the costs of training your users, decreased productivity during the learning curve, the costs of transitioning legacy system (unless your really lucky and they only used Office) as well as the impact to business from interoperability issues with partners. You also have licensing costs for new systems (just because it's Linux doesn't mean it's free - especially for business software) as well as the time to set up everything up. All of this assumes that you have don't have any requirements for Windows for a special application and/can/ do your transition.
Factor all of your costs together and you quickly exceed the costs of the licenses for Microsoft and similar vendors. If it was cost effective for businesses to transition from the Microsoft platform to Linux for desktops businesses would do it in a heartbeat. With very rare exception business has no loyalty to Microsoft, they are loyal only to the most cost effective way to do something. There are very good reasons why businesses that happily run Linux on as many servers as possible still run Microsoft for their desktop fleets. It is painfully obvious you have never actually had to work with something like this and are speaking out of your ass.
I once had to have an electrician, welder, technician, security guard and maintenance worker all lined up to some diagnostics work. This was at a federal prison and they had bolted the computers to the desks and welded the bolts sealed to keep them from being used as weapons. This was back in the day of token ring and thin net and we had to swap out cards to find out which one was fried by a lightning strike.
Welder - Remove and restore the welds for the bolts. Electrician - Unplug and plug in the thin net (it was a wire and thus required an electrician). Maintenance Worker - Remove and restore the bolts to allow access inside the computers. Technician - Work inside the computer. Security Guard - It's a prison, the security guard was there to keep an eye on the tools more than the people.
Sadly, this isn't a joke and I really did need 5 people to perform the diagnosis. On the plus side since it was a prison I knew/exactly/ when the lightning bolt hit nearby and there was no guessing about how close it hit. I have absolutely no doubt that the cost of the workers and parts easily exceeded the cost of the computer.
I'm certainly of the opinion that intellectual property is broadly abused and not a fan of patenting life forms or the like. That being said I have learned elsewhere that patents are very much applied to breeds that have been developed the old fashioned way in large parts of the world. I don't know about Europe, but in general anything that isn't a 'heritage' breed is something that was developed for the purposes of having enough distinction to be able to patent it. In other words, the patent issue applies just as much to food that isn't GMO as food that is.
This is bad, who wants gorilla arm from using their monitor? Monitors weren't designed to be touch interfaces for very good reasons. Unless your at a kiosk or a tablet, it's just not practical to use your arms that way. Leave gorilla arm to the 800 pound gorilla that is Steve Ballmer and Microsoft.
I see a lot of derp in this thread from Luddites that have an argument that they don't like GMO foods. What I haven't see is anyone give any science based logic case against GMO. Mindless political views being pushed without any backing is pretty much the very definition of derp, so can anyone give a science based reason?
Google Fiber is working and doing what it is mean to do, get the US out of the Internet stone age by forcing other companies to get real about Internet service. Bandwidth is insanely cheap anywhere except residential or small business because they artificially limit their own capacity. Google has years of experience managing fiber (they bought a/lot/ of the dark fiber back after.com crash) and knows there isn't any legitimate reason to keep things as they are.
Cable companies have been pushing back at Google (youtube etc) claiming that they use too much of their available bandwidth and trying to justify charging Google extortion money for extra bandwidth. Google has a choice, they can pay the extortion money to companies that refuse to honor network neutrality or they can spend the money on rolling out their own fiber. Google is demonstrating to the cable companies that their position is not insurmountable and that if they have to they will simply go around them.
They are more efficient, have better health benefits and better yields as well being more resistant to pesticides. Hey, don't let reality foil your righteous indignation, forget the facts and fight the man!
Perhaps Slashdot should follow Fark's lead and put a "sponsored" flag on stories like these and disable commenting? That way it would be clear that the story was an advertisement and they could avoid alienating their user base. Slashvertisements are usually fairly obvious and when they do appear the comments tend to all be very negative against whatever was being advertised. This way Slashdot could get their ad money for the promotion without pissing of the readers and filling the comments with vitriol.
So before your smug comments you might actually want to TALK to a gamer and find out their _reasons_ instead of just dissing everything as some epeen -- those losers are the posers / fanbois.
Who's being smug about anything? I never criticized gamers or spending money on it as a hobby. I've certainly spent a decent chunk over the years for my own gaming. I have no issue with that and your effectively putting words in my mouth. As for talking to gamers, I think it's a safe bet that Slashdot has many gamers who will and have more than happily share their opinion.
My issue is with the price, it isn't a CAD card you can easily spend several times that cost for work. My point is that unless your in a very rare configuration (such configurations were suggested by other gamers that responded to me) you simply wont benefit from this card at that price. My issue is with with wasting money for no return (this is well beyond the point of diminishing returns for double the cost), not with gaming.
That card has quite impressive specs and frankly has as much horsepower as a fair number of computers that were being produced as recently as - yesterday. Trickle down tech works wonders and we will see something like this that is affordable for the masses within a few years. For that reason alone I can't knock the card and it's feature set.
The price on this is through the roof and it makes me think that this is a waste of money for 99.9999% of gamers. If you were put in a blind test with this card and a 'mere' $500 card how many people would even be able to notice the difference? This isn't a CAD card meant for workstations and it makes me wonder what the real world benefits of the card are other than bragging rights?
Security was done by the private sector, it was shoddy as hell and 9/11 was a direct result. As bad as the TSA is they are much better than what was there before. I was actively involved with the process for hiring new TSA agents and a large number of the old agents failed the TSA's very basic tests. If you don't like the TSA's policies than you need to complain to your congress critter as they are the ones that set most of the TSA's policy. It's akin to people thinking they can get rid of the IRS and no longer have to pay taxes. Any private replacement to the TSA would just end up having to follow the same damn rules anyways. It would improve nothing for the public and put a critical security function into private hands.
Our military bases operate world wide because we'd rather conflict stay over there (wherever that is) than come over here. Every time the US has practiced isolationism it has been a disaster (WW1 & WW2). The bases and military budgets also keep things from blowing completely out of control as they would without our keeping things in check. The costs to our economy if we withdrew and let bases go would be far higher than (again WW1&2 etc). Why do you think fiscal conservatives won't touch military spending when they attack everything else? Without markets and international stability you tend to get international economic crisis on a worldwide scale (Great Depression was worldwide).
Look, it's really easy to remember how things work, and it really doesn't matter what the market is. All you have to is remember one very simple thing and you will have a clue.
If your not paying for the product, you are the product.
Sit back and watch! Who are you kidding, we don't sit back and watch we provide significant tax incentives dammit! Move it, move it, get those jobs out of here!
It's always apocalyptic for the animals when this kind of thing happens. This is Eco-terrorism and it's the local wildlife that suffers with the large influx of new animals that they suddenly have to compete with or risk catching whatever it was that required laboratory conditions to begin with.
The lab raised animals have no natural ability to forage, hunt, seek shelter, hide from predators or anything else. They are proverbial sitting ducks and when released into the wild are usually located by the large numbers of dead (whatever) bodies all in a given area. In the event of predatory animals they can go on a rampage against farm animals or pets and the net result is a lot of other dead animals as well.
The impact to the environment is bad as there is no balance and concerns like population disbursement across suitable environments are never taken into consideration. These are not the actions of anyone that gives a damn about the environment because if they did and had a clue they would never do something like this.
When the animals are found they have to be put down (killed) in order to avoid further contaminating the environment with what was otherwise a controlled test requiring laboratory conditions. The net result is that critical research in things like medicine or other science sometimes gets set back by years as they have to start the entire research experiment over. This of course results in far more animals going through than otherwise would have and can significantly hamper life saving research.
I won't argue that Europe is much worse about big brother than the US, I think that's pretty well established. My point is that they take privacy much more seriously than we do and that is what we should emulate.
Slashdot Mirror
I can and will abuse apostrophes, dammit.
The Google Glass target market has two types of people in it. People who saw the Terminator movies and thought, 'that looks really cool' and voyeurs. Sell these things at the right convention and you'll make a fortune.
The first hacks will be gaining root (already done) and when people start putting the Google Glass into glass frames that don't look like they'll get you kicked out of certain entertainment venues. I don't think these have a big future with the public at large since they will freak out most people, which is too bad as I can think of any number of legitimate uses for them.
Having lived through that I can assure you that the changes do not affect the women alone. The man will hear about them, lose sleep with them, accommodate them, be stressed by them and even on average gain weight with them. Eight weeks is nice, but I simply can't get over the inequality of the thing and there simply isn't anyway to whitewash away the double standard.
Not only is the policy blatantly sexist (coming from a female CEO makes this even worse) but it actively discourages Dad's from participating in their kids lives. This perpetuates the myth that only women can be active parents and has no business in the 21st century. There is absolutely no reason that a father can't provide just as good of care and be just as involved with raising their child as the mother.
Sexist attitudes like this are why men get taken to the cleaners in family courts all over the world. This same woman probably bitches about men not helping with diaper changes and parenting duties. If you have a kid, never ever let someone do this to you, get involved and refuse to let sexist twats keep you from being part of your kids life. Take the opportunity and raise your kid right, teach them the things you wished you learned and have fun with the.
Fathers are supposed to be more involved in their kids lives than providing a paycheck. Take responsibility, stand up to sexism, raise your kids as they deserve better. If doing the right thing doesn't inspire you just remember that if you don't you'll be taken to the cleaners if you ever go to Family Court.
/Rant off
I read the article several days back and if you read carefully you will see that their conclusions betray their politics. Amongst other things the article literally doesn't even acknowledge nuclear energy when discussing all of the assorted form of low carbon energy. Considering that nuclear power is the cleanest form of main load power that we have this can hardly be an oversight.
The author is well aware of the human toll being extracted by the use of coal:
Natural gas would significantly reduce the source causes of these deaths and the author is aware:
However instead of supporting a transition to cleaner burning natural gas the author shows what they would rather have happen:
The authors radical viewpoint is exposed here with the following view which they know has never happened in human history. The fact that this could result in the economic collapse of society is sort of acknowledged by the author:
This doesn't even pass the sniff test with regards to conflict of interest. Obama is as much of a tool of industry as W ever was, his entire populist election campaign of 2008 was one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public. Seriously, look at industry after industry and you will see Obama acting fundamentally the same. How many bankers are in jail for the collapse of the economy, etc, etc?
You can profit from bitcoin in four different ways:
1. Have a special asic rig that is custom made for mining bitcoins.
2. Have a botnet that you put to work mining bitcoins using other peoples electricity.
3. Speculate in bitcoins and bet that they will go up or down in value.
4. Hack someone else that has bitcoins.
Two out of the four ways to make profits with bitcoins are illegal and one of the others is often accompanied by illegal activity (DOS) to manipulate the exchanges to try to force the value up or down. It's been a while since you could mine them on your own and come out ahead on electricity versus bitcoin value. Perhaps there are some good reasons bitcoins have a shady reputation?
The problem with that is that they are almost all variants of the same set of core viruses. Remember that it is in Symantec's interest to make it sound like the situation is dire as possible. I would imagine that if you got rid of the minor variants you would probably have under 100 viruses for Windows as well. Actual new viruses that are not simply variants of a existing virus are fairly rare.
Most windows viruses are created by taking an existing virus and editing it just slightly to avoid one of the existing signatures matching to it. Every time that happens your virus companies claim that their is a new virus, it really all boils down to marketing hype.
How long until ignorant journalists start claiming the Internet is 20 years old today?
Admin time always exceeds the cost of the computer, your a fool if you think the cost of the computer is the main cost of owning it. Your also forgetting the costs of training your users, decreased productivity during the learning curve, the costs of transitioning legacy system (unless your really lucky and they only used Office) as well as the impact to business from interoperability issues with partners. You also have licensing costs for new systems (just because it's Linux doesn't mean it's free - especially for business software) as well as the time to set up everything up. All of this assumes that you have don't have any requirements for Windows for a special application and /can/ do your transition.
Factor all of your costs together and you quickly exceed the costs of the licenses for Microsoft and similar vendors. If it was cost effective for businesses to transition from the Microsoft platform to Linux for desktops businesses would do it in a heartbeat. With very rare exception business has no loyalty to Microsoft, they are loyal only to the most cost effective way to do something. There are very good reasons why businesses that happily run Linux on as many servers as possible still run Microsoft for their desktop fleets. It is painfully obvious you have never actually had to work with something like this and are speaking out of your ass.
I once had to have an electrician, welder, technician, security guard and maintenance worker all lined up to some diagnostics work. This was at a federal prison and they had bolted the computers to the desks and welded the bolts sealed to keep them from being used as weapons. This was back in the day of token ring and thin net and we had to swap out cards to find out which one was fried by a lightning strike.
Welder - Remove and restore the welds for the bolts.
Electrician - Unplug and plug in the thin net (it was a wire and thus required an electrician).
Maintenance Worker - Remove and restore the bolts to allow access inside the computers.
Technician - Work inside the computer.
Security Guard - It's a prison, the security guard was there to keep an eye on the tools more than the people.
Sadly, this isn't a joke and I really did need 5 people to perform the diagnosis. On the plus side since it was a prison I knew /exactly/ when the lightning bolt hit nearby and there was no guessing about how close it hit. I have absolutely no doubt that the cost of the workers and parts easily exceeded the cost of the computer.
That's probably the best written description I have seen yet for 3D printing of guns.
I'm certainly of the opinion that intellectual property is broadly abused and not a fan of patenting life forms or the like. That being said I have learned elsewhere that patents are very much applied to breeds that have been developed the old fashioned way in large parts of the world. I don't know about Europe, but in general anything that isn't a 'heritage' breed is something that was developed for the purposes of having enough distinction to be able to patent it. In other words, the patent issue applies just as much to food that isn't GMO as food that is.
This is bad, who wants gorilla arm from using their monitor? Monitors weren't designed to be touch interfaces for very good reasons. Unless your at a kiosk or a tablet, it's just not practical to use your arms that way. Leave gorilla arm to the 800 pound gorilla that is Steve Ballmer and Microsoft.
I see a lot of derp in this thread from Luddites that have an argument that they don't like GMO foods. What I haven't see is anyone give any science based logic case against GMO. Mindless political views being pushed without any backing is pretty much the very definition of derp, so can anyone give a science based reason?
Google Fiber is working and doing what it is mean to do, get the US out of the Internet stone age by forcing other companies to get real about Internet service. Bandwidth is insanely cheap anywhere except residential or small business because they artificially limit their own capacity. Google has years of experience managing fiber (they bought a /lot/ of the dark fiber back after .com crash) and knows there isn't any legitimate reason to keep things as they are.
Cable companies have been pushing back at Google (youtube etc) claiming that they use too much of their available bandwidth and trying to justify charging Google extortion money for extra bandwidth. Google has a choice, they can pay the extortion money to companies that refuse to honor network neutrality or they can spend the money on rolling out their own fiber. Google is demonstrating to the cable companies that their position is not insurmountable and that if they have to they will simply go around them.
They are more efficient, have better health benefits and better yields as well being more resistant to pesticides. Hey, don't let reality foil your righteous indignation, forget the facts and fight the man!
Perhaps Slashdot should follow Fark's lead and put a "sponsored" flag on stories like these and disable commenting? That way it would be clear that the story was an advertisement and they could avoid alienating their user base. Slashvertisements are usually fairly obvious and when they do appear the comments tend to all be very negative against whatever was being advertised. This way Slashdot could get their ad money for the promotion without pissing of the readers and filling the comments with vitriol.
Who's being smug about anything? I never criticized gamers or spending money on it as a hobby. I've certainly spent a decent chunk over the years for my own gaming. I have no issue with that and your effectively putting words in my mouth. As for talking to gamers, I think it's a safe bet that Slashdot has many gamers who will and have more than happily share their opinion.
My issue is with the price, it isn't a CAD card you can easily spend several times that cost for work. My point is that unless your in a very rare configuration (such configurations were suggested by other gamers that responded to me) you simply wont benefit from this card at that price. My issue is with with wasting money for no return (this is well beyond the point of diminishing returns for double the cost), not with gaming.
That card has quite impressive specs and frankly has as much horsepower as a fair number of computers that were being produced as recently as - yesterday. Trickle down tech works wonders and we will see something like this that is affordable for the masses within a few years. For that reason alone I can't knock the card and it's feature set.
The price on this is through the roof and it makes me think that this is a waste of money for 99.9999% of gamers. If you were put in a blind test with this card and a 'mere' $500 card how many people would even be able to notice the difference? This isn't a CAD card meant for workstations and it makes me wonder what the real world benefits of the card are other than bragging rights?
Security was done by the private sector, it was shoddy as hell and 9/11 was a direct result. As bad as the TSA is they are much better than what was there before. I was actively involved with the process for hiring new TSA agents and a large number of the old agents failed the TSA's very basic tests. If you don't like the TSA's policies than you need to complain to your congress critter as they are the ones that set most of the TSA's policy. It's akin to people thinking they can get rid of the IRS and no longer have to pay taxes. Any private replacement to the TSA would just end up having to follow the same damn rules anyways. It would improve nothing for the public and put a critical security function into private hands.
Our military bases operate world wide because we'd rather conflict stay over there (wherever that is) than come over here. Every time the US has practiced isolationism it has been a disaster (WW1 & WW2). The bases and military budgets also keep things from blowing completely out of control as they would without our keeping things in check. The costs to our economy if we withdrew and let bases go would be far higher than (again WW1&2 etc). Why do you think fiscal conservatives won't touch military spending when they attack everything else? Without markets and international stability you tend to get international economic crisis on a worldwide scale (Great Depression was worldwide).
Look, it's really easy to remember how things work, and it really doesn't matter what the market is. All you have to is remember one very simple thing and you will have a clue.
If your not paying for the product, you are the product.
Sit back and watch! Who are you kidding, we don't sit back and watch we provide significant tax incentives dammit! Move it, move it, get those jobs out of here!
It's always apocalyptic for the animals when this kind of thing happens. This is Eco-terrorism and it's the local wildlife that suffers with the large influx of new animals that they suddenly have to compete with or risk catching whatever it was that required laboratory conditions to begin with.
The lab raised animals have no natural ability to forage, hunt, seek shelter, hide from predators or anything else. They are proverbial sitting ducks and when released into the wild are usually located by the large numbers of dead (whatever) bodies all in a given area. In the event of predatory animals they can go on a rampage against farm animals or pets and the net result is a lot of other dead animals as well.
The impact to the environment is bad as there is no balance and concerns like population disbursement across suitable environments are never taken into consideration. These are not the actions of anyone that gives a damn about the environment because if they did and had a clue they would never do something like this.
When the animals are found they have to be put down (killed) in order to avoid further contaminating the environment with what was otherwise a controlled test requiring laboratory conditions. The net result is that critical research in things like medicine or other science sometimes gets set back by years as they have to start the entire research experiment over. This of course results in far more animals going through than otherwise would have and can significantly hamper life saving research.
I won't argue that Europe is much worse about big brother than the US, I think that's pretty well established. My point is that they take privacy much more seriously than we do and that is what we should emulate.