"that wealthy people are going to pay for a [person] to clean their houses"
Allow me to correct one of your misperceptions of the rich. Note the (incorrect) emphisis above, then look below:
"that wealthy people are going to pay for a [person] to clean their houses"
The rich, in general, don't care that much about clean houses, compared to the 'status' of having someone clean for them. Not having a robot do it (except when houce cleaning robots are EXPENSIVE!), but having a real live human doing menial labor for them.
What precisely are you basing this on? How many rich people do you know personally? I very much disagree with this and I really DO have experience in this matter since I come from such a background. While there may be a small minority that get their rocks off by employing someone in this capacity, most rich people I know, my parents included, treat their housekeepers VERY well, do everything BUT parade their help, and very much care about how clean their houses are. You may not be aware of it, but there is a very strong Protestant ethic in this country to keep a clean and orderly house. Since most rich people these days are busy, not idle, it necessitates having to hire someone, especially if you have a larger house.
If they merely wanted to pay someone to do manual labor, then it would be very easy to pay a lot more (i.e., why pay an immigrant that barely speaks english?) and get a lot less results. They could pay someone to maintain their grounds and house, but leave their more private areas (e.g., bedrooms, bathrooms,e tc) in disarray. These are generally pretty spotless. Most rich and successful people make efforts to keep their other items in order. For instance, many will personally spend hours cleaning their boats and what not, since it's often not practical to hire someone to do it right, while many more blue collar people are happy to leave their boats and cars somewhat dirty. I'm not going to say one is wrong or right, but these are real differences.
If they ever simulate our fingers and our hip, wrist, ankle, knee joints only then will most people be in trouble. Yes robots are now "stronger" than humans, but they don't have our dexterity to match it. They simply aren't close. Once they reach that stage of critical mass, the ball game is over. Does anybody honestly think that wealthy people are going to pay for a strange woman from El Salvador to clean their houses, once a machine can do it to such an exacting standard, that there are actual microscoptic samples being done of dirt particles done on every floor and wall of the house? If your robotic "maid" can be programmed to clean every time you aren't around for example. Detecting the moment you go outside to take a 2 mile brisk run as a great time to clean maniacally for 15 minutes. When you head to the bathroom, it decides to do a 3 minute spot clean up in the kitchen or take out the trash. There is no way that once prices are right, that anybody is going to give this type of job to a human for any other reason than charity.
First, I must say that I think we are a long ways off from a robot ever reaching the versatility of a moderately intelligent human being. Even with such huge advances in movement as you describe, even greater strides in AI would have to be made before a robot could ever truly replace a human being in its entirity. Yes, you may well see an automatic vacuum cleaner and mopping system in the near future. However, will that robot be able to move furniture out of the way and put it back like it was before without breaking it? Will that robot tell you if your roof is leaking? Can that robot keep an eye out for your children? Unless huge advances in AI are made, I find it very difficult to believe that it would ever be cost effective to have a programmer custom code all of these sorts of actions in a sufficiently reliable way.
Second, when and if purchasing such a machine becomes cheap enough, to whatever extent they are capable, this will also inevitably lead to it becoming a common household item for everyone, not just the wealthy. This means that many women (and some men) would be freed from these chores in large extent for leisure or work. In short, you will see a corresponding decrease in the real costs of items across the board which means that people don't HAVE to work as much or as hard to lead the same (or better) life style. Put differently, most of the price you are paying for EVERYTHING, goes to human labor of some form or another. Food, machines, and other items that humans purchase are not naturally expensive, they are made that way because humans have to (ultimately) produce them. When they are "cheap", they become easier to afford for everyone and in larger quantities. Which means that people start to spend their money in more ways towards other pursuits that are inevitably human driven (e.g., more household electronics, cars, entertainment, etc).
Thirdly, these machines would certainly lead to a booming industry of selling, maintaing, servicing, upgrading, etc. Automation has only worked in pursuits that are very narrowly defined, very repetitive, and in LARGE quantity. Costs to develop machinery for narrower applications are prohibitively expensive.
If you read your history, you will know that before the age of modern farming (e.g., animal husbandry, machinery, fertilization, genetic engineering, etc) most people had to work from sun up to sun down just to put enough food on the table to feed their families. While these advances did cause some people to lose their jobs in the short run, history has proven time and time again that it improves the welfare of practically everyone in society. Because a fraction of the percentage of people were necessary to produce the same amounts of food, more people could be devoted and paid to produce the machinery that has changed our lives so much.
Frankly, I don't worry that people won't be able to feed their families or live a less comfortable
How do they collect the "have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks" data ?
They do it by sampling. In other words, randomly call 60k people in the country, ask them questions, and arrive at the percentage with a fairly high degree of accuracy. They also do it at the regional and sector level. The methods may vary slightly, but they're certainly accurate to at least half a percent. I don't know anyone who would seriously dispute those raw numbers. They may dispute what number is really "full" employment and what not, but that's an entirely different debate.
How do they collect the "they do not have a job" data?
Same. Although they also have jobless claim statistics, they are an entirely seperate measure.
No, only some NATs work in this way. Other NATs, on receiving a packet from outside, do examine the source (external) port and address and the destination source and port before deciding which internal host to route it to. While this could theoretically cause problems if ~2^16 people in China simulaneously attempt to access the same external IP/port, that is extremely unlikely. It is also theoretically possible for the NAT to monitor statefully monitor TCP connections and route accordingly (although I'm not aware of any such implementations--I'm not an expert though). Furthermore, do not forget that it is possible to put many NATs within NATs--so the effective number could be much larger than just the reserved space (yes, it can be a pain for UDP and other protocols, but this is China we are talking about here).
I'm not going to say this would be a practical solution, but it's not fundamentally impossible.
Faster than graffiti? How slow are these people? I can use Graffiti almost as fast as I type on a full size keyboard, and I am no expert. Sure you _can_ get fast with a Treo KB, but that takes practice that Graffiti/Jot doesn't. I don't see why Palm can't make a version of at least some of their devices with a Graffiti area in addition to/instead of the thumbboard.
When Hawkins et al designed the original Pilot, they did testing to see if users liked the keyboard or the Graffiti better, and _nobody_ voted for the keyboard. Graffiti also did a better job on the 'phone test' that is, keeping up with a phone conversation better than the keyboard.
I disagree. Most users can type very fast with these thumb keyboards (have you ever used the blackberry, Tungsten W, etc)? Very few people can write more than 30 words a minute with graffiti. I've been using graffiti for many years now (not to mention developing Palm software) and I still find it slow and awkward for anything more than entering in the occassional contact or note. I, on the other hand, have found the thumb-keyboards found on the blackberry, the tungsten W and C, and the sidekick to be very easy to use and not particularly tiring. What's more, I've found with myself and others that can touchtype well that it is easy to pickup the thumbkeyboards and start writing at about 30 words a minute within 5 minutes or so of picking it up. I'm doing about 50 with my Tungsten W after a couple weeks of use.
WHile I have the greatest of respect for the Palm designers, they were largely designing it for a different application. When a Palm is used as a simple PDA, where the need for data entry tended to be very limited, then it makes sense to save space and decrease the latency time for small data entry (i.e., entering in a phone # and someone's name--not having to fumble for a keyboard--interspersing data entry with button pressing). The need to enter in larger amounts of data with great frequency (and for longer durations) is relatively new, it came about with the existence of wireless email/SMS/IM handhelds. You might also note that Hawkins own company, Handspring, choose to pursue the thumbkeyboard path--I wouldn't say he's nuts.
Honestly, if you haven't tried a well designed thumb keyboard, then try the Blackberry (the smaller one). I was skeptical about it at first too, but it won me over very quickly after I started using it.
Nope on both. Cars can and ARE copied every day. Hmmm BMW,chrysler and ford copied the SUV after AMC/jeep came up with it.. I dont see Jeep going out of business because their SUV was copied.
Until people start pulling their heads out of the RIAA's Arses and realize that copying something does not hurt anyone and is the BASIS of american and world manufacturing.
Nonsense. The world of manufacturing enjoys strong intellectual property protections. Yes, reverse engineering is very common and evident, but even after all of that, a manufacturer still retains a signicant amount of effective intellectual property coverage for their efforts. Why else do you think it is that they spend billions of dollars a year doing research? Jeep may not have patented the SUV, but you can bet your sweet ass that they patented numerous aspects of its design since. Furthermore, unlike the world of manufacturing, in the digital world _exact_ copies can be made digitally the INSTANT a single work is released. Uncontrolled this would provide practically no incentive to buy the official work by the innovator when you can buy the exact same thing for 1/10th the price from a copier (see Asia). In the world of manufacturing, you lack the ability to instantly know the internal works of every element, you lack the machines to fabricate the parts, you lack the distribution, you can NEVER make an exact copy (hence customers are going to be skeptical of your alleged copy), and you need to produce it in very large quantities to match the price set by the original manufacturer even after they've tacked on their margins. There is VERY LITTLE room for comparison between the two.
the companies that put R&D into a new concept KNOW that within 18 months of it's public release it will be copied. It's common sense and only fools that have no real creative abilities scream and whine about someone copying them.
Yes and no. They KNOW people will generally come up with close equivalents, despite their intellectual property. But it is IP the prevents GM from approximately copying Ford in 6 months and IP that prevents GM from ever making an exact copy (thus they have to convince customers that theirs are truly as good or better). The same is generally true in tech industry, but it's generally far easier and quicker to make a copy in an IP free environment.
I bet you'll find at least one 'mission critical' Access database or (worse yet), applications written with a VB frontend and Access backend
Why is a VB frontend worse than Access's own frontend? Access frontend is painful for anything more than the most trivial of applications, but the backend is actually pretty damn slick. I've written some frontends to it (MDAC/Jet engine) in Delphi and C++ and it's a rather powerful combination. I'll admit that the error codes are pretty bad and I'd never try to run anything large scale off of it, but it's great for putting together a decent single-user database application of high to moderate complexity.
I don't see any reason why VB couldn't be employed with similar degrees of success (given a sufficiently capable programmer).
VB is a great beginners language, and as no self-respecting hacker would ever be seen using it, microsoft might as well give it away free.
I'm sorry, but you have a distorted view. As much as I personally dislike VB, it is one of the most popular languages (if not the most) and it is certainly the most popular compiler/IDE product. I'll confess that VB programmers (those that do most/all of their work in it) are generally not the most capable, but they still represent a very lucrative market for MS and there are literally hundreds of thousands of VB applications being used today in the corporate world. Microsoft would be insane to just give it away.
DeCSS Did nothing to prevent playback of anything, nor was it it's purpose.
The ONLY purpose of DeCSS was as a method for the DVd Consortium to reap license fees on the tech. DeCSS licensed *players*, not copyright holders. Piracy isn't the concern of the DVD Consortium with DeCSS - loss of revenue due to unlicensed *players* is.
And By the way, the Law doesn't say that reverse-engineering is legal only if the result isn't "too easy to circumvent the technology". The law shouldn't (and doesn't) care. Reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability, no clause about being too easy to "circumvent the technology".
It is you who have your facts wrong.
Firstly, CSS was the security mechanism that the DVD consortium owns; DeCSS was the tool to crack it.
Secondly, the DVD Consortium represents the interests of IP owners directly (*SONY*) and indirectly (the already existing IP out on DVD and the future interest of the MPAA and other parties in distributing digital materials with some level of copy protection). In other words, it is in the interest of the MPAA and other parties to prevent just anyone from copying and playing back their media however and wherever they want it and CSS was the mechanism to secure this.
Thirdly, the law does care about the ease of infringement insofar as it relates to the primary intent of the tools creation. If a device is primarily designed to circumvent or its use has little use other than circumvention, then it is clearly in violation of the DCMA. In other words, if the market for DVD playback software on Linux was so small that no software company could be bothered to port it, then that strongly suggests that the market is very small and thus so are the non-infringing uses and DeCSS clearly promoted the copying and ripping of DVDs on a very large scale.
you mean like DeCSS lets users decrypt and watch dvd's in the roughly the same manner the licensed technology does?
No, not quite. It did allow Linux users to view DVDs (arguable interoperability--though the necessity of that is questionable), but most importantly it also gave billions of users the ability to freely and easily make infinite copies of DVDs (circumvention). It did not have to make it so easy to circumvent the technology. It is also very important to note that to achieve both it first had to circumvent the intent of the technology, which was to limit playback to licensed holders (the intent of which was quite reasonable--to prevent that sort of piracy), by way of stealing the encryption key.
WinZip would be employing virtually the exact same algorithm as PKZip without stealing any keys or violating any recognized rights. The only possible way that WinZip could represent a threat is if PKzip were to employ a truly unnecessarily insecure algorithm (unnecessary because the users can easily share keys exclusively amongst themselves without having to trust other vendors or hardware devices)
You know it's ironic. When it comes to Napster and other technology tramping on commerce you scream it's "the user, not the tool". Yet those few times when the DCMA just might have been abused, you point to the tool, the DCMA, itself. If you read the actual wording of the DCMA it is quite worthwhile, reasonable, clear and precise. Just because someone might attempt to pervert it and just because it _might_ concievably cause some harm with it does not mean that it is not a very good thing. You can take just about any law, even good laws, and do much the same with them.
Actually the DMCA does NOT allow reverse engineering of security mechanisms... like oh... pkware Encryption algorithms...
Wrong again. The wording that you are referring to prevents them from developing circumvention techniques of security mechanisms (e.g., defeating DRM technology). WinZip would clearly not be circumventing anything (Unless they marketed a feature to crack PKzip archives-then they would run afoul) Clearly their intent is just to allow the user to decrypt the files in roughly the same manner with PKzip users would, i.e., with password or key.
The DCMA explicitly allows reverse engineering for interoperability and this is precisely what WinZip would be doing. http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf, Page 5, Exception #2. Please read it for yourseld and grab a clue. The tired assertion that the DCMA kills innovation is tired and largely false (at least insofar as it is popularly presented on slashdot)
Perhaps I am wrong, but embedded systems companies do this affordably every day. They typically do it with reduced kernels and light-weight GUIs and utility APIs. They can even start with a well-tested base, such as the Linux kernel or one of the other well-regarded embedded kernels, cut out the flab, and have a really small code base with much lower risk of software faults. Debugging is also much much easier due to the transparancy of the system at all levels. (BTW, debugging is the most expensive part of most software life cycles, in practice, and can make or break projects over the long-term).
The only real advantage to Windows is that hospitals and medical companies can hire cheap dime-a-dozen college grads and contractors with weak credentials to do general development work. This is a very large risk in itself due to the highly inconsistent quality of the work, liability clauses in software contracts, and high personnel turnover.
Also, Windows falls out of support after several years. Are hospitals really willing to turn over their systems so regularly? Using Open Source software, for example, would guarantee that the whole software stack can be maintained and extended until there is a pressing and necessary requirement to upgrade. A single company like Microsoft should not be in a position to have so much influence over important medical systems. If a closed system is necessary, at least choose IBM, who, for a healthy fee, will support something indefinitely.
Even further, choosing Windows and Pocket PCs is, by definition, expensive relative to simpler systems. The hardware requirements are tremendous. Pocket PCs are fragile and will get broken. Software crashes are expensive from a support perspective. In short, the staff will get entrenched in a daily routine of dealing with Windows and Pocket PCs--it can even distract them from their original duties.
Regardless, if the issue were simply legible prescriptions, my suggestion is to give the doctor a typewriter. $100 and brain-dead easy to maintain. If it breaks, get a new one at OfficeMax. Even the receptionist can do that.
My conclusion is that Pocket PCs and Windows in hospitals is probably the brain child of an excited buzz-word monkey who controls the budget. System complexity is ignored, and the resulting unreliability of the system becomes it's own burden to the hospital's budget and the morale of the staff.
You are wrong. My company develops embedded systems completely from scratch, but it's absolutely absurd to assert that practice management systems can be similarly developed in the same time that a similarly functional application can be developed in VB, Delphi, or even VC++. Embedded systems only make sense when you need a high degree of reliability (e.g., real time) or need reduce the marginal costs for mass production. They do not make sense for limited production or when the tasks are broad and/or complicated. Why should I spend 300 programmer hours, not to mention QA, to develop a simple field-like mechanism when I can just drop one in and get all the flexibility I need with adequate stability? Why should I attempt to hand code communications protols from scratch when I can get more robust implimentations for less? (Yes, I'm aware that some alleged embedded systems provide considerably more than that, but that is essentially what you are arguing for) It's poppycock. Embedded systems have their place, but so does Windows. You pay a huge premium to develop on top of an embedded systems. Yes, if you are manufacturing the devices in large volumes (as we do) you can drastically reduce the cost, but many of these practice management systems require a level of customization and are sufficiently small niches that they are utterly impractical to target using lower level tools. What's more, by going with the embedded systems route you lock yourself into particular manufacturers and it can be a real mistake if you don't have have the pull. It's much easier to change
I agree with you to a point, but Windows does change radically and often. It would be good to have a truely open system to build upon.
That's fine and good to say, but it's not a reality yet. Linux is simply not an option for this sort of system. There really isn't much else and no software developer can afford to develop this sort of system just to implement something of this nature. I fault MS for many of these changes and quirkiness, but at a sufficiently high level they are really not that big of a deal and they can be effectively handled by the software developer, albeit with significant maintenance and additional support costs. Unfortunately for all Window's flaws, the alternatives are still inferior right now. I really wish there were a better option and I wouldn't like to hand over more money to MS, but if I were implimenting that sort of solution that is probably exactly what I'd do.
I don't think there is anything magical about tablet PC's. The VA hospital where I've worked has computers in carts in the hallway. These carts could easily be much smaller with LCD displays or even mounted in the walls. There's really no need for each patient to have a Tablet or for each doctor to lug a Tablet around. The Tablets are really just crutches for technophobes who are used to thick paper files that weigh approximately the same.
I don't think there is anything magical about Tablet PCs either; in fact I'd probably toss out most of what makes it unique, i.e., handwriting recognition. However, what it offers is a relatively cheap platform with a touch screen, respectable battery life, and portability and one that most developers can target without having to work with less developed tools and without having to learn a whole new API. I can see many applications where a fixed desktop scenario makes sense, however I don't think it's realistic given the workflow in many of the practices that I know. There is extra work and time involved in having to sit down, log in, navigate the UI in the application(s), and so on. With a tablet you can reduce all of that because the doctor is quite literally in front of it and they can habituate themselves to its interface more effectively. The tablet could also allow the doctor to take it home or step out the office and review charts and such (useful in certain applications).
How long until something deep within the hastily-written and poorly-tested tens of millions of lines of code in Windows burbs, and a patient gets injured or dies.
When will people realize that Windows is the least appropriate operating system for medical and military applications, where lives are literally on the line.
Seeing Microsoft products in these applications makes me sick.
Just because it contains the word "patient" or "health" does not mean that it poses a significant risk to patients. I happen to work in the medical devices industry and having dealt with the FDA, I can tell you that one of the most frustrating things is having to deal with irrational individuals that refuse to compare the often very minimal risks in these medical devices with the risks involved with the current standard of care, i.e., trying to use pencil, paper, calculators, etc to do the work instead. I'm not going to name the one ridiculous example that I'm dealing with right now, because I don't want to piss the wrong person off. However, you can take this sort of system as an example. The doctor may write a prescription using a menu driven UI. This allows the doctor to produce an extremely legible and printed prescription. When they're done on paper as they normally are, they are often very illegible and create opportunity for error of all sorts. Yes, it is possible that the computer may crash, but if it does, nothing much happens. The risks can be mitigated effectively with checksums, the prescriptions can be reviewed on paper by the doctor, and common sense can also mitigate much of the risk. All in all, even the most rudimentary system is bound to reduce the risks and improve the quality of care dramatically. Now you may argue that you might be able to even further reduce the risks by using a hardened OS and special hardware, but at what cost? The trouble is that by adopting the paranoid attitude you can actually increase overall risk for the population at large by preventing these life saving measures from being adopted in the first place by making them too costly and time consuming to implement.
A very strong argument can be made for using tablet PC over the alternatives, because of their relative degree of commoditization, the tools and the APIs available to developers, the popularity of the Windows OS and the level of understanding of it, and so on. To develop an alternative with Linux (which I don't believe is truly that much more stable once you X11 and such enters into the picture) or some other OS can easily end up costing 2 to 3 times as much on a marginal basis and 5 times more to develop.
This article [news.com.au] states that PC sales exceeded 10.1 million units in 2002 alone. Assuming that people keep their PCs for 3 years (which is not unreasonable for a poorer country where a PC is a major investment), we should be talking about a population of over 20 million PCs. Even that conservative estimate is already twice your guess. In fact, if you believe this article [bbc.co.uk], China overtook Japan as the second biggest PC market in the world last year.
That stat came from China's state-run news agency which has been documented to inflate figures hundreds of times and even out right lie. Please get another source. Furthermore, do not confuse current market share of NEW computers with the installed base of PCs as a whole. It is quite possible for China to have much millions more NEW sales than Japan because of their economic growth and still have fewer installed computers at the end of the year or even 5 years. Japan is a highly developed country, but they're economically stagnating. What's more, my "guess" is hardly a guess, it's a pretty reliable approximation given more reliable statistics. When, at last count, less than 1% of households have PCs and few people are likely to be able to afford or use multiple computers; it's basic math and a tiny amount of extropolation.
The trouble with Slashdot, and in particular with folks of "inescapable logic", is that you don't actually read. Where did I ever say there was a problem? I was answering somebody's question as to how many people in China can read or write, or have ever seen a computer, relative to the US. Later, I was correcting your apparent mental block with the low percentages of users from China.
If you wish to be technical, then I didn't say you had a problem either. However, your meaning came across quite clearly on my end because of your insistance that the apparent disparity needs to be justified somehow. You were clearly suggesting China One was being set back somehow. If there is no problem, then there is no need to justify it, period, especially when the many entities in the US are known to be running low on free IP blocks in practice.
Nonsense. The logic of my argument is obvious and inescapable. Regardless of the number of people in China or the number of people who can claim to have used the internet one time or more, very few in China can use the internet concurrently because of the lack of PCs, phones, and so on. In other words, when there are only 10m PCs in the entire country, no matter how many people are assigned to each computer, that does not mean that each computer needs more than 1 IP. Given standard PC technology, it is very reasonable to assume a 1 to 1 relationship with PCs and is probably even generous (many are likely not networked). China simply does not have nearly as many PCs. Given that there are probably no more than, say, 10m PCs in all of China, please tell me why they need more than 2x as many IPs. In fact, please go further and show me actual proof that China, not the rest of Asia, is actually having a problem--that it's not just a combination of journalistic laziness and bad extropolation. Even if you allow a little wiggleroom for wireless in China and some growth, they clearly are not nearly as wired as the United States is. They have clearly have not be using the internet as long. They clearly do not have the demand. There is no conspiracy here; move on.
CIA World Factbook. It's probably your responsibility if they're lying again.:)
Prove it. I think you mis-googled. If you read your probable reference page carefully (http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geogra phics/article/0,1323,5911_151151,00.html) you will note that they are referring to a Neilsen's telephone survey not the CIA. I cannot attest to the specifics of the survey, but from my reading of it it sounds like they surveyed a mere 1000 Chinese telephone answers and based on that number they extropolated something. This is hardly going to be an accurate methodology regardless of their particular methods and particularly if they assumed that telephone usage was even 1/5 of what it is in the US, i.e., they largely surveyed China One, but stretched it across the entire population. In any event though, even if they have 50m internet users, it doesn't mean there is a problem.
At some point, I think it is quite likely that China will have far greater concurrent access; but the combination of NAT and IPv6 can adequately handle it before it becomes a problem. The US is far more likely to see short-term growth in the consumption of IPs than China is with the growth of broadband, wireless devices (i.e., PDAs), networked appliances, and so on. We also have a much more distributed system of ISPs and such (e.g., thousands of ISPs all who want room to grow), which makes it much more difficult to allocate IPs efficiently in comparison to the monothilic entities that you're going to see in a more nationalized China.
The fact is that the market penetration of PCs is China is less than 1%. That means that, in all likelyhood, less than 1M people even have the ability to use an IP concurrently (presuming 100% connectivity). The United States, for comparison's sake, has at least 50% market penetration in PCs and as many internet users (roughly 150m US citizens). Not to mention the HUGE disparities in even the most fundamental utilities like fixed-phone lines and power. Did you know that less than 12% of China has a fixed phoneline in the house? Contrast this with the United States that has roughly 99% of houses wired. China simply has VASTLY less ability to consume IP addresses. In fact, I would be SHOCKED if they're even using 1/2 of their current allocation. This isn't even mentioning US industry, academia, households with more than 1 computer, wireless data, and so on that is very substantial in the US. China may have a much bigger raw population count, but their wired population is certainly much smaller (especially if you look at real regularity as opposed to China's official stats) because most of them are poor, lack basic power, sanation, phone, etc. Please think before you speak. Thank you.
Oh btw, a couple links:
http://www.eb-asia.com/EBA/issues/0009/0009trend s. htm
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/docu me nts/apcity/unpan001523.pdf
I'd love to some facts to backup your claim of 45.8m internet users in China (besides the usually inflated official stats that come out of their government)
Fine, sure. The USSR didn't fare well in Afganastan. However, I'd like to point out that, unless I'm mistaken, they weren't losing the war all at once. They set up a pro-Soviet government. They lasted ten years in there, even with the CIA giving Afgan fighters the latest in millitary hardware.
Nonsense. The Soviets were about as successful in Afghanistan as the United States was in Vietnam--it was an abysmal failure by any count. They controlled some points, like we did,. They established a government, like we did. But the point is that they never accomplished a lasting anything and they lost thousands of their own lives and killed thousands more. So yes, they failed to accomplish their objectives--they lost. We have accomplished our stated objective, namely, to destroy one hell of a strong hold for Al Queda. Many people predicted that we couldn't even do that. Afghanistan's ultimate success as a Western-like democracy is a secondary objective, a nice and worthy one, but hardly necessary to justify the former.
The tax cut? How much political muscle does it take for a popular president to force his will? And on the other hand, how is a hundred billion dollars a year supposed to jump start a five trillion dollar economy.
You do know the tax cut was passed BEFORE 9/11 right? Whatever popularity he had there cannot even be argued to have fallen into his lap. He certainly did not get the automatic support of TWELVE Democratic Senators. Many people in the media were predicting that it'd never come to pass or that it was a long shot. Jumpstarting a falling economy is not the ONLY objective of a tax cut. One huge reason is just plain old justice--many people just have pay too much taxes. Another reason is LONG term economic support; history has taught us that unspent money WILL be spent to create even more NEW programs. The trouble is that once a program is created it is very hard to get rid of. They're much easier to create than they are to destroy. Lastly, large tax cuts can provide significant stimulus in the short term provided that they are properly targeted. Remember that the benefit to the economy is not just the sum of the tax cut, it's the size of the multiplier effect. A properly targeted tax cut to, say, wealthier people or busineses, who are, in turn, more inclined to invest, cause the effect to be multiplied many times over. For instance, if I invest 1m dollars into a company, that company is apt to buy more equipment and hire more people. Those employees will in turn increase their spending. The suppliers of my company will too and so on. Every step is multiplied--1 trillion USD over 10 years can easily equal 20 to 30 trillion in actual wealth creation.
Sure, not every firm is going to invest, many might just use the resources to bolster their reserve, but those that recieve investment are those that are most apt to expand. There are still a good number of employers who do not lack a market, they just lack access to cheap capital. This sort of money can have a very real effect.
On Iraq: how are the WMD a "known quantity"? And I don't mean a container that held anthrax in 1995. Until I see ton upon ton of VX and Sarin, I'm not buying it.
The WMD aren't a known quantity, but the COST of the war is. As I said, even on purely humanitarian grounds, even completely ignoring the millions of lives that might have been saved from WMD by our actions, it was worth it. A couple dozen Allied troops and a couple hundred Iraqi and innocent lives is a PITTANCE in comparison to the amount of lives that were lost as a direct result of Saddam's rule.
As for the whole case of WMD--How many tons of nukes does it take? How easy do you think these are to find in a country the size of California? What makes you think we would magically know AND be able to produce the kinds of evidence that you and others demanded before it was too late to stop him
He won a war in Afganastan? (Is there any nation that couldn't beat the Afgan army?)
LOL, please read up on your history. You mean like the USSR at its peak with over a half million troops? They lost at least 15,000 soviet soldiers (their own stats, not including their Afghan soldiers fighting on their behalf) and toiled for roughly 10 years before they decided to call it quits. So, to answer your question, yes, many people in the media actually were questioning our ability to wage war and shut down al queda in Afghanistian without ultimately loosing--whether we could beat them no holds barred is an academic question. They were predicting another Vietnam, especially because we relied heavily on special ops instead of brute force. How many did we lose in reality? A couple dozen. Did we achieve our goals? Yes. Was victory attained short order? Yes. Did we have to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops? No.
He passed a tax cut?
Yes. I support the tax cut, but, besides that, it took a certain amount of political muscle to enough the Dems and many more centrist individuals in the GOP.
He defeated Iraq with merely the use of the world's most powerful army?
Yes, Iraq is part of it. He invaded Iraq because it was the right thing to do, despite naysayers of all stripes, despite UN finger wagging, and so on. I give him tremendous credit for being independent, having the confidence to act with conviction, and for taking that sort of political risk. We fought the war in a way that was not entirely traditional either and was wildely critized in the media (until just before we walked into the center of baghdad). We won the war in far less time, with far fewer friendly casualities, and relatively few civilian casualties than was generally predicted. Even on purely humanitaries grounds it was a success and it was worth the price. Eliminating Saddam and his WMD program WAS the right thing to do, especially given the fact that the cost is now essentially a known quantity. I think Clinton would have been tempted to continue with sanctions
he didn't rise to the ocasion, it fell to him. And if the rest of the nation realises that, then he can go back to Texas.
Sure. Whatever you say-it just fell in his lap and everything would have been the same if it were another President? If that is the case, then do you want to tell me that Clinton or Gore would have gone to war with Afghanistan--especially in the same way? How about Iraq? With respect to Iraq, at least, both Clinton and Gore publically critized any war on Iraq without UN approval. Either they were being less than forthright or that IS a difference right there. You may disagree with that action, but that is a very important difference and it is a difference that I come out in support of (Bush).
Slashdot Mirror
If they merely wanted to pay someone to do manual labor, then it would be very easy to pay a lot more (i.e., why pay an immigrant that barely speaks english?) and get a lot less results. They could pay someone to maintain their grounds and house, but leave their more private areas (e.g., bedrooms, bathrooms,e tc) in disarray. These are generally pretty spotless. Most rich and successful people make efforts to keep their other items in order. For instance, many will personally spend hours cleaning their boats and what not, since it's often not practical to hire someone to do it right, while many more blue collar people are happy to leave their boats and cars somewhat dirty. I'm not going to say one is wrong or right, but these are real differences.
First, I must say that I think we are a long ways off from a robot ever reaching the versatility of a moderately intelligent human being. Even with such huge advances in movement as you describe, even greater strides in AI would have to be made before a robot could ever truly replace a human being in its entirity. Yes, you may well see an automatic vacuum cleaner and mopping system in the near future. However, will that robot be able to move furniture out of the way and put it back like it was before without breaking it? Will that robot tell you if your roof is leaking? Can that robot keep an eye out for your children? Unless huge advances in AI are made, I find it very difficult to believe that it would ever be cost effective to have a programmer custom code all of these sorts of actions in a sufficiently reliable way.
Second, when and if purchasing such a machine becomes cheap enough, to whatever extent they are capable, this will also inevitably lead to it becoming a common household item for everyone, not just the wealthy. This means that many women (and some men) would be freed from these chores in large extent for leisure or work. In short, you will see a corresponding decrease in the real costs of items across the board which means that people don't HAVE to work as much or as hard to lead the same (or better) life style. Put differently, most of the price you are paying for EVERYTHING, goes to human labor of some form or another. Food, machines, and other items that humans purchase are not naturally expensive, they are made that way because humans have to (ultimately) produce them. When they are "cheap", they become easier to afford for everyone and in larger quantities. Which means that people start to spend their money in more ways towards other pursuits that are inevitably human driven (e.g., more household electronics, cars, entertainment, etc).
Thirdly, these machines would certainly lead to a booming industry of selling, maintaing, servicing, upgrading, etc. Automation has only worked in pursuits that are very narrowly defined, very repetitive, and in LARGE quantity. Costs to develop machinery for narrower applications are prohibitively expensive.
If you read your history, you will know that before the age of modern farming (e.g., animal husbandry, machinery, fertilization, genetic engineering, etc) most people had to work from sun up to sun down just to put enough food on the table to feed their families. While these advances did cause some people to lose their jobs in the short run, history has proven time and time again that it improves the welfare of practically everyone in society. Because a fraction of the percentage of people were necessary to produce the same amounts of food, more people could be devoted and paid to produce the machinery that has changed our lives so much.
Frankly, I don't worry that people won't be able to feed their families or live a less comfortable
Same. Although they also have jobless claim statistics, they are an entirely seperate measure.
No, only some NATs work in this way. Other NATs, on receiving a packet from outside, do examine the source (external) port and address and the destination source and port before deciding which internal host to route it to. While this could theoretically cause problems if ~2^16 people in China simulaneously attempt to access the same external IP/port, that is extremely unlikely. It is also theoretically possible for the NAT to monitor statefully monitor TCP connections and route accordingly (although I'm not aware of any such implementations--I'm not an expert though). Furthermore, do not forget that it is possible to put many NATs within NATs--so the effective number could be much larger than just the reserved space (yes, it can be a pain for UDP and other protocols, but this is China we are talking about here).
I'm not going to say this would be a practical solution, but it's not fundamentally impossible.
WHile I have the greatest of respect for the Palm designers, they were largely designing it for a different application. When a Palm is used as a simple PDA, where the need for data entry tended to be very limited, then it makes sense to save space and decrease the latency time for small data entry (i.e., entering in a phone # and someone's name--not having to fumble for a keyboard--interspersing data entry with button pressing). The need to enter in larger amounts of data with great frequency (and for longer durations) is relatively new, it came about with the existence of wireless email/SMS/IM handhelds. You might also note that Hawkins own company, Handspring, choose to pursue the thumbkeyboard path--I wouldn't say he's nuts.
Honestly, if you haven't tried a well designed thumb keyboard, then try the Blackberry (the smaller one). I was skeptical about it at first too, but it won me over very quickly after I started using it.
Yes and no. They KNOW people will generally come up with close equivalents, despite their intellectual property. But it is IP the prevents GM from approximately copying Ford in 6 months and IP that prevents GM from ever making an exact copy (thus they have to convince customers that theirs are truly as good or better). The same is generally true in tech industry, but it's generally far easier and quicker to make a copy in an IP free environment.
I don't see any reason why VB couldn't be employed with similar degrees of success (given a sufficiently capable programmer).
Firstly, CSS was the security mechanism that the DVD consortium owns; DeCSS was the tool to crack it.
Secondly, the DVD Consortium represents the interests of IP owners directly (*SONY*) and indirectly (the already existing IP out on DVD and the future interest of the MPAA and other parties in distributing digital materials with some level of copy protection). In other words, it is in the interest of the MPAA and other parties to prevent just anyone from copying and playing back their media however and wherever they want it and CSS was the mechanism to secure this.
Thirdly, the law does care about the ease of infringement insofar as it relates to the primary intent of the tools creation. If a device is primarily designed to circumvent or its use has little use other than circumvention, then it is clearly in violation of the DCMA. In other words, if the market for DVD playback software on Linux was so small that no software company could be bothered to port it, then that strongly suggests that the market is very small and thus so are the non-infringing uses and DeCSS clearly promoted the copying and ripping of DVDs on a very large scale.
WinZip would be employing virtually the exact same algorithm as PKZip without stealing any keys or violating any recognized rights. The only possible way that WinZip could represent a threat is if PKzip were to employ a truly unnecessarily insecure algorithm (unnecessary because the users can easily share keys exclusively amongst themselves without having to trust other vendors or hardware devices)
You know it's ironic. When it comes to Napster and other technology tramping on commerce you scream it's "the user, not the tool". Yet those few times when the DCMA just might have been abused, you point to the tool, the DCMA, itself. If you read the actual wording of the DCMA it is quite worthwhile, reasonable, clear and precise. Just because someone might attempt to pervert it and just because it _might_ concievably cause some harm with it does not mean that it is not a very good thing. You can take just about any law, even good laws, and do much the same with them.
The DCMA explicitly allows reverse engineering for interoperability and this is precisely what WinZip would be doing. http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf, Page 5, Exception #2. Please read it for yourseld and grab a clue. The tired assertion that the DCMA kills innovation is tired and largely false (at least insofar as it is popularly presented on slashdot)
s/your/you're/. Learn it, Love it. Acquire a basic grasp of grammar, then consider critiquing our legal system.
You are wrong. My company develops embedded systems completely from scratch, but it's absolutely absurd to assert that practice management systems can be similarly developed in the same time that a similarly functional application can be developed in VB, Delphi, or even VC++. Embedded systems only make sense when you need a high degree of reliability (e.g., real time) or need reduce the marginal costs for mass production. They do not make sense for limited production or when the tasks are broad and/or complicated. Why should I spend 300 programmer hours, not to mention QA, to develop a simple field-like mechanism when I can just drop one in and get all the flexibility I need with adequate stability? Why should I attempt to hand code communications protols from scratch when I can get more robust implimentations for less? (Yes, I'm aware that some alleged embedded systems provide considerably more than that, but that is essentially what you are arguing for) It's poppycock. Embedded systems have their place, but so does Windows. You pay a huge premium to develop on top of an embedded systems. Yes, if you are manufacturing the devices in large volumes (as we do) you can drastically reduce the cost, but many of these practice management systems require a level of customization and are sufficiently small niches that they are utterly impractical to target using lower level tools. What's more, by going with the embedded systems route you lock yourself into particular manufacturers and it can be a real mistake if you don't have have the pull. It's much easier to change
I don't think there is anything magical about Tablet PCs either; in fact I'd probably toss out most of what makes it unique, i.e., handwriting recognition. However, what it offers is a relatively cheap platform with a touch screen, respectable battery life, and portability and one that most developers can target without having to work with less developed tools and without having to learn a whole new API. I can see many applications where a fixed desktop scenario makes sense, however I don't think it's realistic given the workflow in many of the practices that I know. There is extra work and time involved in having to sit down, log in, navigate the UI in the application(s), and so on. With a tablet you can reduce all of that because the doctor is quite literally in front of it and they can habituate themselves to its interface more effectively. The tablet could also allow the doctor to take it home or step out the office and review charts and such (useful in certain applications).
A very strong argument can be made for using tablet PC over the alternatives, because of their relative degree of commoditization, the tools and the APIs available to developers, the popularity of the Windows OS and the level of understanding of it, and so on. To develop an alternative with Linux (which I don't believe is truly that much more stable once you X11 and such enters into the picture) or some other OS can easily end up costing 2 to 3 times as much on a marginal basis and 5 times more to develop.
If you wish to be technical, then I didn't say you had a problem either. However, your meaning came across quite clearly on my end because of your insistance that the apparent disparity needs to be justified somehow. You were clearly suggesting China One was being set back somehow. If there is no problem, then there is no need to justify it, period, especially when the many entities in the US are known to be running low on free IP blocks in practice.
Prove it. I think you mis-googled. If you read your probable reference page carefully (http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geogr
At some point, I think it is quite likely that China will have far greater concurrent access; but the combination of NAT and IPv6 can adequately handle it before it becomes a problem. The US is far more likely to see short-term growth in the consumption of IPs than China is with the growth of broadband, wireless devices (i.e., PDAs), networked appliances, and so on. We also have a much more distributed system of ISPs and such (e.g., thousands of ISPs all who want room to grow), which makes it much more difficult to allocate IPs efficiently in comparison to the monothilic entities that you're going to see in a more nationalized China.
The fact is that the market penetration of PCs is China is less than 1%. That means that, in all likelyhood, less than 1M people even have the ability to use an IP concurrently (presuming 100% connectivity). The United States, for comparison's sake, has at least 50% market penetration in PCs and as many internet users (roughly 150m US citizens). Not to mention the HUGE disparities in even the most fundamental utilities like fixed-phone lines and power. Did you know that less than 12% of China has a fixed phoneline in the house? Contrast this with the United States that has roughly 99% of houses wired. China simply has VASTLY less ability to consume IP addresses. In fact, I would be SHOCKED if they're even using 1/2 of their current allocation. This isn't even mentioning US industry, academia, households with more than 1 computer, wireless data, and so on that is very substantial in the US. China may have a much bigger raw population count, but their wired population is certainly much smaller (especially if you look at real regularity as opposed to China's official stats) because most of them are poor, lack basic power, sanation, phone, etc. Please think before you speak. Thank you.
d s. htm
u me nts/apcity/unpan001523.pdf
Oh btw, a couple links:
http://www.eb-asia.com/EBA/issues/0009/0009tren
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/doc
I'd love to some facts to backup your claim of 45.8m internet users in China (besides the usually inflated official stats that come out of their government)
Well "they" may not get anything done, but that is still more than what a typical committee numbering more than one tends to accomplish :)
Nonsense. The Soviets were about as successful in Afghanistan as the United States was in Vietnam--it was an abysmal failure by any count. They controlled some points, like we did,. They established a government, like we did. But the point is that they never accomplished a lasting anything and they lost thousands of their own lives and killed thousands more. So yes, they failed to accomplish their objectives--they lost. We have accomplished our stated objective, namely, to destroy one hell of a strong hold for Al Queda. Many people predicted that we couldn't even do that. Afghanistan's ultimate success as a Western-like democracy is a secondary objective, a nice and worthy one, but hardly necessary to justify the former.
You do know the tax cut was passed BEFORE 9/11 right? Whatever popularity he had there cannot even be argued to have fallen into his lap. He certainly did not get the automatic support of TWELVE Democratic Senators. Many people in the media were predicting that it'd never come to pass or that it was a long shot. Jumpstarting a falling economy is not the ONLY objective of a tax cut. One huge reason is just plain old justice--many people just have pay too much taxes. Another reason is LONG term economic support; history has taught us that unspent money WILL be spent to create even more NEW programs. The trouble is that once a program is created it is very hard to get rid of. They're much easier to create than they are to destroy. Lastly, large tax cuts can provide significant stimulus in the short term provided that they are properly targeted. Remember that the benefit to the economy is not just the sum of the tax cut, it's the size of the multiplier effect. A properly targeted tax cut to, say, wealthier people or busineses, who are, in turn, more inclined to invest, cause the effect to be multiplied many times over. For instance, if I invest 1m dollars into a company, that company is apt to buy more equipment and hire more people. Those employees will in turn increase their spending. The suppliers of my company will too and so on. Every step is multiplied--1 trillion USD over 10 years can easily equal 20 to 30 trillion in actual wealth creation.
Sure, not every firm is going to invest, many might just use the resources to bolster their reserve, but those that recieve investment are those that are most apt to expand. There are still a good number of employers who do not lack a market, they just lack access to cheap capital. This sort of money can have a very real effect.
The WMD aren't a known quantity, but the COST of the war is. As I said, even on purely humanitarian grounds, even completely ignoring the millions of lives that might have been saved from WMD by our actions, it was worth it. A couple dozen Allied troops and a couple hundred Iraqi and innocent lives is a PITTANCE in comparison to the amount of lives that were lost as a direct result of Saddam's rule.
As for the whole case of WMD--How many tons of nukes does it take? How easy do you think these are to find in a country the size of California? What makes you think we would magically know AND be able to produce the kinds of evidence that you and others demanded before it was too late to stop him
Yes. I support the tax cut, but, besides that, it took a certain amount of political muscle to enough the Dems and many more centrist individuals in the GOP.
Yes, Iraq is part of it. He invaded Iraq because it was the right thing to do, despite naysayers of all stripes, despite UN finger wagging, and so on. I give him tremendous credit for being independent, having the confidence to act with conviction, and for taking that sort of political risk. We fought the war in a way that was not entirely traditional either and was wildely critized in the media (until just before we walked into the center of baghdad). We won the war in far less time, with far fewer friendly casualities, and relatively few civilian casualties than was generally predicted. Even on purely humanitaries grounds it was a success and it was worth the price. Eliminating Saddam and his WMD program WAS the right thing to do, especially given the fact that the cost is now essentially a known quantity. I think Clinton would have been tempted to continue with sanctions
Sure. Whatever you say-it just fell in his lap and everything would have been the same if it were another President? If that is the case, then do you want to tell me that Clinton or Gore would have gone to war with Afghanistan--especially in the same way? How about Iraq? With respect to Iraq, at least, both Clinton and Gore publically critized any war on Iraq without UN approval. Either they were being less than forthright or that IS a difference right there. You may disagree with that action, but that is a very important difference and it is a difference that I come out in support of (Bush).