Last I heard it would start at about $150,000/trip, still well beyond the means of us proles.
Furthermore, I just want to say, private enterprise has NOT taken the lead in spaceflight, SSO doesn't reach the neccicary altitude for low earth orbit, much less the distance that NASA has brought us to with the Apollo missions to the moon. Private enterprise still has a LOT of catching up to do. Oh, and one would EXPECT it to be a lot cheeper to get a suborbital space flight today than it was when doing such had never been done before, we have better materials and better understanding of what we're doing.
c) Make Linux Boxen illegal (they are trying anyway)
d) Require a liscensed "Microsoft Install Technician" to do all "after-market" installs, and don't give anyone else the disks.
e) Custom-make each Windows CD to only work with one CPU serial/ID number, pass extra costs on to the customer and blame the pirates.
True, but until a court rules such, a lawsuit claiming the contrary might not be considered frivolous.
Either way, it would not be possible for the EFF to sully its image by defending against such a lawsuit. The only way to sully one's image through frivilous lawsuits is to bring them, not defend against them.
WTF? EFF, instead of finishing the case and having the song DECLARED public domain, settled allowing the issue to be unsettled. If they had remained, and, somehow, the case WAS considered frivolous, it would have been a frivolous case brought by those who claimed copyright, not a frivolous case brought by JibJab or EFF.
The legal outcome of this case does not (in spite of/. headline) make the song public domain! The girl scouts still can't sing it around campfires, other suits against other "infringers" can still be brought. EFF/JibJab (not sure who made the decision) took the easy way out at the expence of seting legal precident and lost a chance of opening a song up to public use. EFF tarnished its image by REFUSING to fight this one for the all people and settling with a paltry victory that simply allows one person (JibJab) to continue using the song in a parody of our political canditates for president.
Have you seen "Plan Nine From Outer Space"? If not, see it and see if you still think Eraserhead is worst. (Allocate several days to P9FOS and it is actually enjoyable, but it's to bad to watch all at once)
Do you know how long it takes to get the *good* pr0n? I mean, that's worth RAID 1 plus automated backup systems! (I mean since/. is completly made of 15 year old boys who only use a computer in their parents' basement this has to be what they use RAID for. Its not like some of the crowd here actualy administers servers in production enviroments or anything. No, definantly nobody actualy in the IT buisness would ever read or post to/.)
OK, I logged into slashdot, see something about a government branch trying to restrict what a company can do with people's personal data. More specificly trying to restrict how adds can be displayed.
And the/. crowd is up in arms AGAINST the legislation? Somebody tell me what they put in my water supply.
Hopefully AFTER we get interplanatary colonies, otherwise that's a really, really STUPID weapon to use... (Of course, I'm still waiting on a color bomb or space rotation bomb)
The poster never says anything of the sort. All he says is that the computer will not be used for military projects. The "not bombs" bit does not appear to be all-inclusive. Considering the computer is being developed in a city which traces its origions back to "the bomb" it is a rational consideration that it might be used in bomb/missle research, so it is appropriate to point out that it will not be.
In responce to your PS, there is one factor that could cause a legitimate driver to get much worse gas mpg than you do. The land. If you are driving on flat land you will get better mialage than if you live in hill-covered countryside or mountainous regions. If you live in the mountains, and regularly have to climb mountain grade roads, you will kill the efficiencey on any fuel efficient car. I'm not sure what area you live in, nor what areas someone reporting 30mpg would live in, but factors that arn't the driver's fault should be taken into consideration before calling someone a spaz.
Not that you don't generaly have a point or anything. I've driven a minivan and gotten 27MPG while when my brother borrowed it he got 19. (mostly Highway on both)
Sadly, most layoffs seem to happen not because the companies can no longer afford to pay them, but because the companies can now afford NOT to pay them. Employess are seen as expence, something to eliminate whenever possible. There are those who care, and they probably do very well in the small to middle-sized buisnesses. But the multi-million dollar conglomerate CEO's are not that kind of person.
Most legal users don't bother to update Windows. Why should we expect the pirated versions to be updated?
Because the people most likly to pirate Windows, are those who are more likly to do their own installs. Therefore they are the people with a little more tech savy. Therefore they are the people MOST likly to update their systems. Not that they all do, probably, but there is a reason why they would, when people who would never try anything with a computer their dell tech support representitive didn't tell them to do, would not.
China is among the fastest growing economies in the world. Cuba, in spite of an embargo that limits them to a third world GNP, has a first world education standard (well, either that or the USA doesn't) and a medical system that is ALMOST first world standard. What's more, every Cuban has access to the Cuban medical system, whereas in the USA, the most needy are barred from all but emergency procedures.
The Solviet Union failed, not because of communist idiology, but because of inept implimentation thereof. What those loons were thinking is beyond me. I would say Lennin was the worst thing ever to happen to Communism, but that's really understating Stalin. The Russian Communist Revolution was a travesty, and the actions of their government were atrotious. I do not argue these points. China and Cuba have some human rights violations to speak for (as does the US, especialy overseas). I don't support pure communist theory, however I think the view selfsishness as a virtue is perhaps the most evil thing to come out of the modern era.
As for your statement and if consumers demand a product, a corporation will supply it to get the buck. You obviously miss the major developments in the modern economy over earlt industrial culture. In the modern economy, the coorperations, through advertising, tie-ins and product placement thoughout the ubiquitious media drive the desire for goods. The public doesn't demand and the companies supply. The companies supply, then create the demand. I agree that capatilism is the fastest way to grow a manufacturing infrastructure (as would Marx) but we have gotten to the point where the greeds of the few outweigh the needs of the many. This is wrong.
I do not, at this time, support a fully communistic system. The time is not ripe, nor may it ever be, for the abolishment of the idea of Property. However, I would like to see the workers of the companies own the majority of the stocks. I would like to see this happen accross diverse industries, so that the worker's intrests would be put above the intrests of the few investors who do not contribute to sociaty but reap the most rewards. When companies based on worker's intrests start to come together and cooperate, we will have a system that puts everybody's intrests first, then we will see the elimination of our fiasco of a health care system. Then we will be able to see a way out of our reliance on oil, and the wars we are willing to undertake to aquire it. Then we will be able to see an end to the starving: where there is ample food supply. Then we will be able to see the end of deaths from easily immunized diseases. Then we will be able to see the end of the hardest working citizens making the least money. Then e will be able to see the end of the family that never has a chance to be together, because they have to overlap work schedules to make ends meet. Then we will be able to see the end of slums that breed crime like a dead corpse breeds maggots. Then we will be able to see the end of children unable to get an education, not because they are unable, or disintrested, but because their parents don't make enough money to send them to a good school, or even live in an area with a good public school system. Then we will be able to see the end of media wherein more time is spent advertising than presenting content.
Then, and only then, the world will be safe for Democracy.
Depends on how you think the world SHOULD work. If you accept that buisnesses top priority SHOULD be the bottom line, then you are correct. I do not accept this point by any streatch of the imagination. The love of money is the root of all evil.
A company's top priority should be, as should an individuals, to provide maximum benifit to society, although I would accept a paradigm in which the first priority is survival, and providing benifit to society was second. The mindset that self-intrest comes before world intrest not only meets my definition of evil, but also IS my definition of evil. I realize that other people have different definitons, but looking at this from my viewpoint I think it is quite easy to see why "this isn't right".
Re:And when you though no one could go lower then
on
Comcast Fires TechTV Staff
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Um, at least what Comcast is doing is legal. All Comcast is really doing is what cable companies do, look at what is good, and look for what needs to be changed. Sadly their rubric is the almighty dollar, apparently they wern't making enough money (or loosing to much, I don't know the figures) to continue as they were. So they restructured and let a bunch of people go. Is this right? Hell no! Is this honorable, definantly not. Is this standart buisness practice in every industry in the uninted states of america, yes. Sorry, this is how buisness s works, if you don't like it, join the club, but that's about all you can do right now.
SCO on the other hand seems to be making meritless accusations in court, is sueing its best clientel, and is betting everything on getting money from IP that they really don't own. This is not common buisness practices. Among the suits who approve of the comcast-style layoffs, the types of things SCO is doing would classify them as scum. No, comcast hasn't gone lower than SCO, they haven't come close.
Think games, think NEW games, think multi-dvd install disks. Think people ripping DVD's to harddrive (which will soon become as common as people ripping MP3s, not ubiquitious, but not unheard of to joe schmoe either). Yes, there will be a need for the TB drives, yes joe schmoe will use them.
Oh, you're saying that Linus Torvalds can vouch for the validity and quality of ALL Linux programs? Or can RMS vouch for all GNU Programs? No? Then why can you say that the fact that under system X, the origional creator cannot vouch for third party products means that system X is better than system Y, when under system Y the creator also cannot vouch for third party products?
No, nobody can supply you with a priori evidence that they're for real. "A priori evidence" is, first of all, slightly oxymoronic. Something that is known A priori is something known without the need for evidence: that which can be deduced logicaly without appeal to empericism. Very few things fall into this catagory; it is even arguable whether mathematics are truly a priori. A good test for A priori is: assume we're in a Matrixlike world where we are sitting in an alien's tubes with a false world feeding into our brain: that which is a priori cannot be affected by the deception, it stands as provable without haveing to prove the reality of the physical world.
I think you're looking for the OPPISITE of a priori, emperical (a postori? spelling anyone?) evidence.
As effective as DARE huh? YYou mean the same DARE that has made no stitisticly significant difference whatsoever on Drug usage? Or is it a different DARE that I have never heard of?
According to the basic rules of debate I learned in my Elementary Logic and Critical Thinking class, the person who makes the origional assertion has the burden of proof. Thus, it is the person who makes the positive claim, in this case that the majority of DCC files are illicit, that must prove his point, the person who has not made such a claim need only refute the proof offered, if possible.
That as it may, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the assertion that most DCC bandwidth is used in illegal or quasi-legal transfers.
Having managed a computer lab before, I can say that the behavior of naming computers is VERY handy, especialy when one computer might change roles or you might have redundant computers for a single role. Instead of having to explain "I mean the old server, that is currently not acting as the server, but will again" or "The third workstation from the right, that's my right, your left." or somesuch you can simply say "Rocky" or "Janet" and easily differentiate which system we're dealing with. (No my boss never realized I named all the computers after characters from "Rocky Horror Picture Show")
Those habits have been very usefull outside the lab and at other jobs but mostly when dealing with my parents. They have several computers and sometimes I have to troubleshoot over the phone. As they sometimes forget they switched locations of a coutple of computers since last I was there, it is VERY handy that I've gotten them to refer to computers by name (in this case we're using a Norse God Pantheon naming scheme, not Rocky).
Ah, such a faith in absolutes. Freedom of speech is a basic human right only because one group says it is. If I find a consortium that says free health care is a basic human right (which I think it should be so considered) does that make it so?
What if allowing freedom of speach in some areas is dangerous to the majority, say somebody publishing plans to make nerve toxins or neculear weapons (assuming for the sake of the argument that components of such items were attainable to at least part of the population). What about hate speech, should speach that insites people to beat up or {jews || homosexuals || christians || arabs || blacks || women with jobs || lawyers || political leaders} be allowed to flourish? How about the classic example of child pornography, should it be protected as free speech? What about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?
Should propaganda denouncing the value of free speach be allowed? What about publication of the privite lives of ordinary citizens?
If free speach is anathema to a people, should it be forced upon them? Even if 100% object and feel threatened by it? Can you call it moral to force views on people that they do not want?
No, free speech isn't a universal human right, that is a right that exists independent upon the culture that values it. We may, as I do, culturaly consider it a good thing, but to fail to see the possibility of a valid differing moral ground is arrogance and simple mindedness.
Re:...your hand is not connected to the yo-yo?
on
Extreme Yo-Yoing
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I think its a Jedi thing. Hrmm think Luke is going to pick up the psudonym "Jedi Yo"?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, perhaps I just wasted space on /. with this post, but hey, did you post anything better?
Furthermore, I just want to say, private enterprise has NOT taken the lead in spaceflight, SSO doesn't reach the neccicary altitude for low earth orbit, much less the distance that NASA has brought us to with the Apollo missions to the moon. Private enterprise still has a LOT of catching up to do. Oh, and one would EXPECT it to be a lot cheeper to get a suborbital space flight today than it was when doing such had never been done before, we have better materials and better understanding of what we're doing.
d) Require a liscensed "Microsoft Install Technician" to do all "after-market" installs, and don't give anyone else the disks.
e) Custom-make each Windows CD to only work with one CPU serial/ID number, pass extra costs on to the customer and blame the pirates.
Anyone want to work on options f, g, h?
Either way, it would not be possible for the EFF to sully its image by defending against such a lawsuit. The only way to sully one's image through frivilous lawsuits is to bring them, not defend against them.
The legal outcome of this case does not (in spite of /. headline) make the song public domain! The girl scouts still can't sing it around campfires, other suits against other "infringers" can still be brought. EFF/JibJab (not sure who made the decision) took the easy way out at the expence of seting legal precident and lost a chance of opening a song up to public use. EFF tarnished its image by REFUSING to fight this one for the all people and settling with a paltry victory that simply allows one person (JibJab) to continue using the song in a parody of our political canditates for president.
IANAL
Have you seen "Plan Nine From Outer Space"? If not, see it and see if you still think Eraserhead is worst. (Allocate several days to P9FOS and it is actually enjoyable, but it's to bad to watch all at once)
I just fed a troll though, didn't I?
And the /. crowd is up in arms AGAINST the legislation? Somebody tell me what they put in my water supply.
Hopefully AFTER we get interplanatary colonies, otherwise that's a really, really STUPID weapon to use... (Of course, I'm still waiting on a color bomb or space rotation bomb)
The poster never says anything of the sort. All he says is that the computer will not be used for military projects. The "not bombs" bit does not appear to be all-inclusive. Considering the computer is being developed in a city which traces its origions back to "the bomb" it is a rational consideration that it might be used in bomb/missle research, so it is appropriate to point out that it will not be.
Not that you don't generaly have a point or anything. I've driven a minivan and gotten 27MPG while when my brother borrowed it he got 19. (mostly Highway on both)
It's not us, it's every student at MIT ordering Pizza at the same time...
Sadly, most layoffs seem to happen not because the companies can no longer afford to pay them, but because the companies can now afford NOT to pay them. Employess are seen as expence, something to eliminate whenever possible. There are those who care, and they probably do very well in the small to middle-sized buisnesses. But the multi-million dollar conglomerate CEO's are not that kind of person.
Because the people most likly to pirate Windows, are those who are more likly to do their own installs. Therefore they are the people with a little more tech savy. Therefore they are the people MOST likly to update their systems. Not that they all do, probably, but there is a reason why they would, when people who would never try anything with a computer their dell tech support representitive didn't tell them to do, would not.
The Solviet Union failed, not because of communist idiology, but because of inept implimentation thereof. What those loons were thinking is beyond me. I would say Lennin was the worst thing ever to happen to Communism, but that's really understating Stalin. The Russian Communist Revolution was a travesty, and the actions of their government were atrotious. I do not argue these points. China and Cuba have some human rights violations to speak for (as does the US, especialy overseas). I don't support pure communist theory, however I think the view selfsishness as a virtue is perhaps the most evil thing to come out of the modern era.
As for your statement and if consumers demand a product, a corporation will supply it to get the buck. You obviously miss the major developments in the modern economy over earlt industrial culture. In the modern economy, the coorperations, through advertising, tie-ins and product placement thoughout the ubiquitious media drive the desire for goods. The public doesn't demand and the companies supply. The companies supply, then create the demand. I agree that capatilism is the fastest way to grow a manufacturing infrastructure (as would Marx) but we have gotten to the point where the greeds of the few outweigh the needs of the many. This is wrong.
I do not, at this time, support a fully communistic system. The time is not ripe, nor may it ever be, for the abolishment of the idea of Property. However, I would like to see the workers of the companies own the majority of the stocks. I would like to see this happen accross diverse industries, so that the worker's intrests would be put above the intrests of the few investors who do not contribute to sociaty but reap the most rewards. When companies based on worker's intrests start to come together and cooperate, we will have a system that puts everybody's intrests first, then we will see the elimination of our fiasco of a health care system. Then we will be able to see a way out of our reliance on oil, and the wars we are willing to undertake to aquire it. Then we will be able to see an end to the starving: where there is ample food supply. Then we will be able to see the end of deaths from easily immunized diseases. Then we will be able to see the end of the hardest working citizens making the least money. Then e will be able to see the end of the family that never has a chance to be together, because they have to overlap work schedules to make ends meet. Then we will be able to see the end of slums that breed crime like a dead corpse breeds maggots. Then we will be able to see the end of children unable to get an education, not because they are unable, or disintrested, but because their parents don't make enough money to send them to a good school, or even live in an area with a good public school system. Then we will be able to see the end of media wherein more time is spent advertising than presenting content.
Then, and only then, the world will be safe for Democracy.
A company's top priority should be, as should an individuals, to provide maximum benifit to society, although I would accept a paradigm in which the first priority is survival, and providing benifit to society was second. The mindset that self-intrest comes before world intrest not only meets my definition of evil, but also IS my definition of evil. I realize that other people have different definitons, but looking at this from my viewpoint I think it is quite easy to see why "this isn't right".
SCO on the other hand seems to be making meritless accusations in court, is sueing its best clientel, and is betting everything on getting money from IP that they really don't own. This is not common buisness practices. Among the suits who approve of the comcast-style layoffs, the types of things SCO is doing would classify them as scum. No, comcast hasn't gone lower than SCO, they haven't come close.
Think games, think NEW games, think multi-dvd install disks. Think people ripping DVD's to harddrive (which will soon become as common as people ripping MP3s, not ubiquitious, but not unheard of to joe schmoe either). Yes, there will be a need for the TB drives, yes joe schmoe will use them.
I think you're looking for the OPPISITE of a priori, emperical (a postori? spelling anyone?) evidence.
As effective as DARE huh? YYou mean the same DARE that has made no stitisticly significant difference whatsoever on Drug usage? Or is it a different DARE that I have never heard of?
That as it may, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the assertion that most DCC bandwidth is used in illegal or quasi-legal transfers.
Those habits have been very usefull outside the lab and at other jobs but mostly when dealing with my parents. They have several computers and sometimes I have to troubleshoot over the phone. As they sometimes forget they switched locations of a coutple of computers since last I was there, it is VERY handy that I've gotten them to refer to computers by name (in this case we're using a Norse God Pantheon naming scheme, not Rocky).
What if allowing freedom of speach in some areas is dangerous to the majority, say somebody publishing plans to make nerve toxins or neculear weapons (assuming for the sake of the argument that components of such items were attainable to at least part of the population). What about hate speech, should speach that insites people to beat up or {jews || homosexuals || christians || arabs || blacks || women with jobs || lawyers || political leaders} be allowed to flourish? How about the classic example of child pornography, should it be protected as free speech? What about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?
Should propaganda denouncing the value of free speach be allowed? What about publication of the privite lives of ordinary citizens?
If free speach is anathema to a people, should it be forced upon them? Even if 100% object and feel threatened by it? Can you call it moral to force views on people that they do not want?
No, free speech isn't a universal human right, that is a right that exists independent upon the culture that values it. We may, as I do, culturaly consider it a good thing, but to fail to see the possibility of a valid differing moral ground is arrogance and simple mindedness.
I think its a Jedi thing. Hrmm think Luke is going to pick up the psudonym "Jedi Yo"?