Your flawed assumption is that the government can be trusted to properly regulate companies. I don't know about you, but at this moment in time I will take the companies. It is easy to stop using ebay, it isn't as easy to stop using the government.
So when you have implemented a government that ISN'T run by corporations, cares about the people of the state, and is worthy of me putting all my eggs in that basket... then I will admit that the free market is not the way to go.
From imbd
Gattaca Corp. is an aerospace firm in the future. During this time society analyzes your DNA and determines where you belong in life. Ethan Hawke's character was born with a congenital heart condition which would cast him out of getting a chance to travel in space. So in turn he assumes the identity of an athlete who has genes that would allow him to achieve his dream of space travel. Written by {AVision200@aol.com} How long before we are to this point?
you should check out the Kill a Watt. It tells you just how much power something draws.
Just because you have a 240 watt PS, doesn't mean you pull 240 constantly. In fact with drives and monitors off, you might be pulling 75. At least for most of our common computers.
I am environmentally aware, but I did the calculation and 16 hours of a computer running is less than 5 minutes of a $40,000 PHB's time. So the attempt to enforce the policy of shutting down computers nightly doesn't add up to the execs.
I like this one...
Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements. I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.
Plus, since when is slashdot in competition with them? If I want to read stupid stories (surprised all the legal talk didn't scare the farkoids) and even worse comments, I will go to fark/reddit/digg. I come to/. to hear halfway intellectual commentary on current issues.
In a study published Sunday in Nature Neuroscience, researchers using brain scanners could predict people's decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them ... a bunch of stuff about brain activity...
Taken together, the patterns consistently predicted whether test subjects eventually pushed a button with their left or right hand Who the hell takes 7 seconds to decide left or right? I hope they all took the bus... or maybe the shortbus?
Okay, so maybe _you_ get it... But it seems many don't understand the difference between doing things the right way and doing things the way the customer wants. I constantly fight this at work... I want to do things correctly, the business people "just want it to work" no matter what the costs. MS decided to go that route - give 'em what they want. Until users truly want security over convience (or at least both equally) MS will dominate.
I never meant to say Linux is doing it "wrong", just not the way for quick mass adoption.
Outside of Windows, most naive users do not know how to even deliberately execute an email attachment. They wouldn't just have to click on xxxx.jpg.exe; they'd have to save it and chmod +x it first Gee, I wonder why the year of Linux eludes you consistently.
These are technical (not marketshare-related) "features" of the platform, which most other OS creators have not elected to implement. You Linux zealots will never get it.
I'll bet the last time you turned down a dead end street you didn't back out. Not only is that dumb, it would take more time, energy, and be more dangerous. I would also bet that in many places driving in reverse (especially going through an intersection in reverse) is against the law. Google didn't want their drivers going in reverse down any road (private, dead end, etc.).
Again, where they screwed up was not screening for this (at the end of each day the driver could do it) or by not giving them a way to turn off the camera as someone else suggested.
And let's not forget that judges are lawyers. They have many lawyer friends. If they stop the lawsuits, they also have to go back to being lawyers (in a profession with a sudden drop in business).
The car had to turn around. TFA says it was the only house on the street and probably the only good place to turn around.
The only issue is the Google should have done a better job of screening the photos to say "hey, this shouldn't be on the site becuase the car was turning around."
The article claims that you need 10 touch screen machines to replace a single optical reader device. I have a few questions about that...
1. Why do we need touch screen - what is wrong with a mouse. Even the most retarded computerphobic morons can figure out how to use a mouse in 60 secs.
2. Use some sort of remote desktop/web service to accomplish this. Buy the cheapest thin clients possible to connect to a "server" that could be run by a P4 2ghz computer at each site.
3. Even better than #2, create a web service for each county - again reducing the amount of equipment.
4. Extrapolate #3 even further. Hire cheap techs for each county to ensure they have internet connectivity - State runs the servers.
It isn't the electronic voting... it is how they implemented it. It doesn't take a genius to realize that $3000 computers to perform basic calculations is overspending. I wonder how much the servers cost?
Really? It seems that would increase the cost of moving the cylinders from workcenter to workcenter... unless we bought those $1M machines for each workcenter for each employee's house.
Not all of use produce things so easily transported.
And these are airplane cylinders... not cars. So ease up on the circular logic.
to allow pictures taken from a public place (the street). Granted, this case involves a private road, but your idea is invalid as it only takes one person to opt in to allow a picture from a public place - in this case it was google that opted in for the pictures to be viewable. Or another way to look at it is that I pay taxes for all the roads in my city... I want to allow google to use this service on all the roads I pay taxes for.
So a single picture shows 3 houses... who allows that? What about apartments?
It is a compicated issue, but it would seem that a good majority doesn't have a problem with this (based on what I have read and talking with others). So most are okay with it and anyone that is greatly opposed has the ability to remove the pictures... I don't see an issue.
I can understand your point. Doing something and saying "but you can have it reversed at a later date" doesn't mean you are free and clear of doing the wrong thing in the first place. But...
Google has the option of removing the pictures... it is a courtesy. They are doing this as a service to the public with (IMHO) no ill will. So just ask for your pics to be removed and move on... really who would have found the pictures before they made all this stink? Only those that knew about where they lived, their address and had some reason to be curious about them. Those people could have just drove there anyways (with regular google map technology), so should we be suing over that as well? Google is a kind neighbor at this point, and they act like one by letting you request removal. So be a good neighbor and just ask for removal and move on with your life... suing is so lame at this point.
I used street view the other day to see what the drive to a location I had never been to would look like. And sure enough it came in handy as I remembered what landmarks looked like from the street (which probably wouldn't have happened from the satellite view). I see the usefulness and I don't want to see it go away.
We are not productive anymore, they don't need us to make things anymore, it's all automated. What are we for then? We're consumers. Okay, buy a lot of stuff, you're a good citizen. But if you don't buy a lot of stuff, you know what? You're mentally ill! That's a fact!
Adobe is becoming smarter by the day I wish they would put some of that smarts into the products they buy and ruin.
More on-topic, this is something we are going to have to get used to. In 10 years my guess is that all major software will have something like this and in 20 years MS Office, Adobe Acrobat and many others might be completely online, forcing (or attempting) to force you to purchase licenses for the software.
Slashdot Mirror
Your flawed assumption is that the government can be trusted to properly regulate companies. I don't know about you, but at this moment in time I will take the companies. It is easy to stop using ebay, it isn't as easy to stop using the government.
So when you have implemented a government that ISN'T run by corporations, cares about the people of the state, and is worthy of me putting all my eggs in that basket... then I will admit that the free market is not the way to go.
You're right on that. If the desktop OS is supposed to "just work", how do you turn that into a profitable service based company?
As much as people bitch about windows reliability... nobody I know buys any support services.
Gattaca Corp. is an aerospace firm in the future. During this time society analyzes your DNA and determines where you belong in life. Ethan Hawke's character was born with a congenital heart condition which would cast him out of getting a chance to travel in space. So in turn he assumes the identity of an athlete who has genes that would allow him to achieve his dream of space travel. Written by {AVision200@aol.com} How long before we are to this point?
I re-read your comment... I was way off on what you were saying. Sorry for that.
So is the program that intensive? Will it really pull that much power?
you should check out the Kill a Watt. It tells you just how much power something draws.
Just because you have a 240 watt PS, doesn't mean you pull 240 constantly. In fact with drives and monitors off, you might be pulling 75. At least for most of our common computers.
I am environmentally aware, but I did the calculation and 16 hours of a computer running is less than 5 minutes of a $40,000 PHB's time. So the attempt to enforce the policy of shutting down computers nightly doesn't add up to the execs.
What about folding@work? I have access to 150 computers, most of which stay on 24/5, and do nothing 16/5 (okay, maybe 20/5).
I, of course, would have to get the okay to do this, but I am not even sure I would want to...
Has anyone done this? How did you go about it? What concerns are there (security, reliability)?
Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements. I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.
Then submit it to /. sooner.
/. to hear halfway intellectual commentary on current issues.
Plus, since when is slashdot in competition with them? If I want to read stupid stories (surprised all the legal talk didn't scare the farkoids) and even worse comments, I will go to fark/reddit/digg. I come to
Me too... even graduated first in my little AF programming class (Keesler AFB). And I can't code for shit.
if you could run untangle on it that would be cool. anybody know if that would be possible?
Okay, so maybe _you_ get it... But it seems many don't understand the difference between doing things the right way and doing things the way the customer wants. I constantly fight this at work... I want to do things correctly, the business people "just want it to work" no matter what the costs. MS decided to go that route - give 'em what they want. Until users truly want security over convience (or at least both equally) MS will dominate. I never meant to say Linux is doing it "wrong", just not the way for quick mass adoption.
1. thank you for helping me prove my point. 2. why do you have such a large vehicle?
I'll bet the last time you turned down a dead end street you didn't back out. Not only is that dumb, it would take more time, energy, and be more dangerous. I would also bet that in many places driving in reverse (especially going through an intersection in reverse) is against the law. Google didn't want their drivers going in reverse down any road (private, dead end, etc.).
Again, where they screwed up was not screening for this (at the end of each day the driver could do it) or by not giving them a way to turn off the camera as someone else suggested.
And let's not forget that judges are lawyers. They have many lawyer friends. If they stop the lawsuits, they also have to go back to being lawyers (in a profession with a sudden drop in business).
Lawsuits will never end.
The car had to turn around. TFA says it was the only house on the street and probably the only good place to turn around.
The only issue is the Google should have done a better job of screening the photos to say "hey, this shouldn't be on the site becuase the car was turning around."
Mother Earth, you ignorant slut, you obviously picked some bad seeds.
The how do you feel about troop positions and nuclear silos communicating over unsecured networks?
Check out how these communicate over this.
The article claims that you need 10 touch screen machines to replace a single optical reader device. I have a few questions about that...
1. Why do we need touch screen - what is wrong with a mouse. Even the most retarded computerphobic morons can figure out how to use a mouse in 60 secs.
2. Use some sort of remote desktop/web service to accomplish this. Buy the cheapest thin clients possible to connect to a "server" that could be run by a P4 2ghz computer at each site.
3. Even better than #2, create a web service for each county - again reducing the amount of equipment.
4. Extrapolate #3 even further. Hire cheap techs for each county to ensure they have internet connectivity - State runs the servers.
It isn't the electronic voting... it is how they implemented it. It doesn't take a genius to realize that $3000 computers to perform basic calculations is overspending. I wonder how much the servers cost?
Really? It seems that would increase the cost of moving the cylinders from workcenter to workcenter... unless we bought those $1M machines for each workcenter for each employee's house.
Not all of use produce things so easily transported.
And these are airplane cylinders... not cars. So ease up on the circular logic.
to allow pictures taken from a public place (the street). Granted, this case involves a private road, but your idea is invalid as it only takes one person to opt in to allow a picture from a public place - in this case it was google that opted in for the pictures to be viewable. Or another way to look at it is that I pay taxes for all the roads in my city... I want to allow google to use this service on all the roads I pay taxes for.
So a single picture shows 3 houses... who allows that? What about apartments?
It is a compicated issue, but it would seem that a good majority doesn't have a problem with this (based on what I have read and talking with others). So most are okay with it and anyone that is greatly opposed has the ability to remove the pictures... I don't see an issue.
I can understand your point. Doing something and saying "but you can have it reversed at a later date" doesn't mean you are free and clear of doing the wrong thing in the first place. But...
Google has the option of removing the pictures... it is a courtesy. They are doing this as a service to the public with (IMHO) no ill will. So just ask for your pics to be removed and move on... really who would have found the pictures before they made all this stink? Only those that knew about where they lived, their address and had some reason to be curious about them. Those people could have just drove there anyways (with regular google map technology), so should we be suing over that as well? Google is a kind neighbor at this point, and they act like one by letting you request removal. So be a good neighbor and just ask for removal and move on with your life... suing is so lame at this point.
I used street view the other day to see what the drive to a location I had never been to would look like. And sure enough it came in handy as I remembered what landmarks looked like from the street (which probably wouldn't have happened from the satellite view). I see the usefulness and I don't want to see it go away.
More on-topic, this is something we are going to have to get used to. In 10 years my guess is that all major software will have something like this and in 20 years MS Office, Adobe Acrobat and many others might be completely online, forcing (or attempting) to force you to purchase licenses for the software.