Maybe. But that might be an overall plus. It depends on how much energy is being reclaimed.
They have to build more towers, sure, but if 30% of the extra power is being reclaimed by the cellphones, then we have better coverage, and the phones are being powered by energy that otherwise would simply dissipate when it reached the edge of the tower's range.
Now, for shorter range wi-fi devices, it could be a little annoying, but I still feel like this is a good way to reclaim some of the energy lost in wireless communication. I mean, I have a wi-fi modem operating 24-7 (which is also my wired router), and I have no idea what kind of a field it generates for wi-fi. What I do know is that whatever power it expends on wireless is only in use for the 1-3 hours my mother is actively using her laptop Internet. (And I've set it up so she's using it fairly close to the modem.)
Actually, I said car insurance, but it's probably closer to EPA pollution regulations. As one of the posters noted, computer viruses don't kill people.
And like EPA pollution regulations, it would depend on how much pollution it created (how vulnerable to becoming a spam-spewing bot the computer is.)
Simply doing a statistical survey of botnets (which people have already done) would tell you which versions of which OS's are in need of antivirus. The others are not as much of an issue, because a desktop Linux worm can't achieve critical mass to form a significant botnet. (Servers could, but servers are more like factories or something, where they are largely self-managing and have a different regulatory scheme than cars, which everyone uses and needs a system easy enough for the average person to understand.)
Wikipedia needs to put some accountability in place. The whole anonymous editing was nice. For 3 years.
Now we have a really valuable resource being polluted by people acting deceptively in their own interests. We need to move to linking specific people to Wikipedia accounts. The organization is large, and trusted, and can do this without harming anyone. We need the accountability.
It's getting to the point where law enforcement really needs to handle PC security. We have strict laws on what a car needs to go on the road, we really need equivalent rules about what a PC needs to connect to the Internet. I'd put something like Symantec or Mcafee as the equivalent of auto insurance, in terms of the damage it prevents to other computers on the internet. And like auto insurance, it needs to be mandatory (in addition to keeping things up to date against security threats, much like cars must keep up to safety and pollution standards.)
You're missing the point. We don't care about what people do with Firefox, we only care about the quality of the browser that we're using.
If MS claims that they are responsible for the code, that's bad for us, because people will give them money to improve the code, when in fact they have no proven track record of producing good code (at least for Firefox.)
However, if MS slaps an IE logo on it and tells people to use it, that's good for us, because it widens the testing base for Firefox, which will greaten the possibility of finding bugs.
And if MS is distributing it, they have an incentive to share their code with Mozilla, and vice versa. Software always has bugs, and the more developers working on it, the better.
It has nothing to do with who wrote the code. If it's written, it's done. The question is, who can make it better?
It's hard to follow this argument over to music and video, but the same logic sort of applies. It's all well and good for someone to do a mash-up of various artists. However, if that artist claims authorship over the components of the mash up, then people will support this artist, assuming that the artist can create more of the same (when in fact he is dependent on artists who may not be able to create without people supporting them.)
Copyright, in theory, exists to help people create new creations. Paying someone for an existing creation is backwards. We want new creations. The difficulty is in deciding who will create worthy creations.
The FSF exists for the sole purpose of doing this sort of litigation. The FFMPEG developers don't have to lift a finger. And the FSF is not going to throw in the towel unless it goes away (even if Stallman kicks it, I'm sure he has a variety of Lisp Daemons ready to kick into gear and manage the war after his demise.)
Moore's law suggests otherwise. When you get up to the standard machine having 32+ cores, even the desktop will start to see the advantage of multithreading, if you can find a way to express these things elegantly. Until alt+tab starts to look truly instant, there's still room to work, and if we've got machines with double the cores they have now, it starts to be worth your while to figure out how to divvy that 1 second task up into 30 one-tenth second tasks. Or something like that.
Parallel programming may be difficult, but we're kind of past the reasonable stage where there are honest benefits to be had from single-core optimization, and on to the how can I make this (as far as a human is concerned) instantaneous by threading.
Strawman. I for one use the same metal water bottle for all my drinking-on-the go needs, as much for concerns about whatever may be leeching out of the plastic as concerns about another bottle in the landfill / recycling (which wastes energy.)
But more on topic, it's a simple efficiency question. Basic gaming PC usually takes a 700W PSU. If 300 Watts is sufficient, why not go with the 300 Watts?
Personally, I distrust anything that's 30% smaller than the usual model. You must be sacrificing something for that space, and I suspect it's longevity.
It also means 10 thousand. Obviously, though, in this context, it just means "a large number." This usage is a rhetorical device commonly called "hyperbole."
GMU's endowment is only $54,955,028. Wikipedia had an extra 1 on the front for some reason (I fixed it.)
At the same time, I got the corrected figure from the reference cited on Wikipedia, so it doesn't really discredit wikipedia, so much as prove you need to follow your sources, whatever you're reading.
ICANN is primarily responsible for governing this sort of stuff. Section (i) below states it pretty clearly.
The difference is between someone who used the website, and someone who bought it and immediately set up a for sale sign.
According to the US anti-cybersquatting act, if the registrant is outside the U.S., you may bring the lawsuit in rem against the domain itself, not against the registrant.
b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
Actually, given the state of the economy, the large-endowment schools are hurting the most, because suddenly their primary source of income is in fact bleeding money.
The plane went down in a lightning storm... I'd expect a good bit of interference as a result, especially for a meteor.
Still, the massive lightning storm is a much more probable cause. Given that planes generally avoid lightning storms if possible, odds are the storm is responsible.
The NPR report essentially said that planes are designed to specifications from a few decades ago when we flew a plane into a lightning storm to record the sort of charges that go off, and we use those measurements to determine 'usual discharges.'
However, once in a while you may have a plane going through a more dangerous storm, and the planes aren't designed for that.
It runs Ubuntu, so just get developing. PDF in several flavors is included with Ubuntu, so that's a given.
As for the stylus... I know Ubuntu's working on that sort of thing, and it has a touchscreen, so I imagine at least being able to write on it is already done.
No, I think what drives dissatisfaction with cable is that you can only watch what is currently on.
Oh, and you're forced to watch ads.
I'd gladly pay $10/month for on-demand commercial-free access (under Linux) to any episode of every show currently offered in Hulu's library.
Throw in Dr. Who, Torchwood, and Top Gear, and I'd pay $20/month.
I also might be persuaded to watch commercials if you did it on something that wasn't as dog-slow as flash (video tag anyone?) Hell, throw in Linux codec licensing as part of the deal and it would be great. Though this doesn't mean I want some half-assed proprietary video player. PowerDVD, Windows Media Player, just about every proprietary player, Windows or Linux, has been completely inadequate without accelerated graphics. VLC is great, Mplayer is better performance-wise. Simply put, license me the codec, and I'll watch it, but I want my own implementation, yours sucks (and that's a platform-agnostic assertion.)
No one has the right to register a domain name for the express purpose of selling it. You need to read the laws. It has nothing to do with marks, it's first come, first serve, but only if you intend to use it as your own website. Bullshit domain squatters are committing illegal acts.
What I believe he meant (and I agree) is that you shouldn't try and build a Windows emulator on top of a browser. If you want native or quasi-native functionality, write a Java app. Or any number of other cross platform, well supported languages like Python, Perl, Ruby...
If you're writing a web application, you need to accept that certain things (like context menus) are not going to happen. Obviously, you can hack them in, but they will not only break in browsers like Opera, but they will probably only partially work in the browsers you test, and almost certainly not work in the forthcoming versions of the browsers you test. If they don't work in Opera, you have almost a guarantee of that, since Opera has best implemented the W3 standards, and though the implementations are imperfect, the top browsers' design staff are also responsible for the W3 standards, so it represents what they plan to implement (in some form) in their own browsers.
I'm just going to buy one, and think of it as a high-end Smartphone. It may also function as a PC, but I'm mostly buying it to have a versatile, low-power media hub I can take with me anywhere.
Flash is really slow, and I would really like for it to die before all the hardware catches up.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe. But that might be an overall plus. It depends on how much energy is being reclaimed.
They have to build more towers, sure, but if 30% of the extra power is being reclaimed by the cellphones, then we have better coverage, and the phones are being powered by energy that otherwise would simply dissipate when it reached the edge of the tower's range.
Now, for shorter range wi-fi devices, it could be a little annoying, but I still feel like this is a good way to reclaim some of the energy lost in wireless communication. I mean, I have a wi-fi modem operating 24-7 (which is also my wired router), and I have no idea what kind of a field it generates for wi-fi. What I do know is that whatever power it expends on wireless is only in use for the 1-3 hours my mother is actively using her laptop Internet. (And I've set it up so she's using it fairly close to the modem.)
They all work, they just don't cure the kind of cancer you have.
Sorry.
Actually, I said car insurance, but it's probably closer to EPA pollution regulations. As one of the posters noted, computer viruses don't kill people.
And like EPA pollution regulations, it would depend on how much pollution it created (how vulnerable to becoming a spam-spewing bot the computer is.)
Simply doing a statistical survey of botnets (which people have already done) would tell you which versions of which OS's are in need of antivirus. The others are not as much of an issue, because a desktop Linux worm can't achieve critical mass to form a significant botnet. (Servers could, but servers are more like factories or something, where they are largely self-managing and have a different regulatory scheme than cars, which everyone uses and needs a system easy enough for the average person to understand.)
Wikipedia needs to put some accountability in place. The whole anonymous editing was nice. For 3 years.
Now we have a really valuable resource being polluted by people acting deceptively in their own interests. We need to move to linking specific people to Wikipedia accounts. The organization is large, and trusted, and can do this without harming anyone. We need the accountability.
It's getting to the point where law enforcement really needs to handle PC security. We have strict laws on what a car needs to go on the road, we really need equivalent rules about what a PC needs to connect to the Internet. I'd put something like Symantec or Mcafee as the equivalent of auto insurance, in terms of the damage it prevents to other computers on the internet. And like auto insurance, it needs to be mandatory (in addition to keeping things up to date against security threats, much like cars must keep up to safety and pollution standards.)
You're missing the point. We don't care about what people do with Firefox, we only care about the quality of the browser that we're using.
If MS claims that they are responsible for the code, that's bad for us, because people will give them money to improve the code, when in fact they have no proven track record of producing good code (at least for Firefox.)
However, if MS slaps an IE logo on it and tells people to use it, that's good for us, because it widens the testing base for Firefox, which will greaten the possibility of finding bugs.
And if MS is distributing it, they have an incentive to share their code with Mozilla, and vice versa. Software always has bugs, and the more developers working on it, the better.
It has nothing to do with who wrote the code. If it's written, it's done. The question is, who can make it better?
It's hard to follow this argument over to music and video, but the same logic sort of applies. It's all well and good for someone to do a mash-up of various artists. However, if that artist claims authorship over the components of the mash up, then people will support this artist, assuming that the artist can create more of the same (when in fact he is dependent on artists who may not be able to create without people supporting them.)
Copyright, in theory, exists to help people create new creations. Paying someone for an existing creation is backwards. We want new creations. The difficulty is in deciding who will create worthy creations.
Fuck you AC, you're out of your element! You came in half-way through the conversation, you've got no idea what we're talking about!
By the time FFMpeg got all the requisite signatures to dual-license, the patents would be expired.
(According to Wikipedia this debate becomes entirely academic in 2017.)
(and this is the citation)
The FSF exists for the sole purpose of doing this sort of litigation. The FFMPEG developers don't have to lift a finger. And the FSF is not going to throw in the towel unless it goes away (even if Stallman kicks it, I'm sure he has a variety of Lisp Daemons ready to kick into gear and manage the war after his demise.)
Moore's law suggests otherwise. When you get up to the standard machine having 32+ cores, even the desktop will start to see the advantage of multithreading, if you can find a way to express these things elegantly. Until alt+tab starts to look truly instant, there's still room to work, and if we've got machines with double the cores they have now, it starts to be worth your while to figure out how to divvy that 1 second task up into 30 one-tenth second tasks. Or something like that.
Parallel programming may be difficult, but we're kind of past the reasonable stage where there are honest benefits to be had from single-core optimization, and on to the how can I make this (as far as a human is concerned) instantaneous by threading.
Strawman. I for one use the same metal water bottle for all my drinking-on-the go needs, as much for concerns about whatever may be leeching out of the plastic as concerns about another bottle in the landfill / recycling (which wastes energy.)
But more on topic, it's a simple efficiency question. Basic gaming PC usually takes a 700W PSU. If 300 Watts is sufficient, why not go with the 300 Watts?
Personally, I distrust anything that's 30% smaller than the usual model. You must be sacrificing something for that space, and I suspect it's longevity.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/myriad
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myriad
It also means 10 thousand. Obviously, though, in this context, it just means "a large number." This usage is a rhetorical device commonly called "hyperbole."
Also the AC above was right:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/items/3749
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason_University
GMU's endowment is only $54,955,028. Wikipedia had an extra 1 on the front for some reason (I fixed it.)
At the same time, I got the corrected figure from the reference cited on Wikipedia, so it doesn't really discredit wikipedia, so much as prove you need to follow your sources, whatever you're reading.
http://eagle.gmu.edu/gazette/articles/9750
This article also puts the endowment as just reaching 50 million a few years ago.
ICANN is primarily responsible for governing this sort of stuff. Section (i) below states it pretty clearly.
The difference is between someone who used the website, and someone who bought it and immediately set up a for sale sign.
According to the US anti-cybersquatting act, if the registrant is outside the U.S., you may bring the lawsuit in rem against the domain itself, not against the registrant.
Anti-cybersquatting act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.1255.IS:=
Icann regulations:
http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm
Actually, given the state of the economy, the large-endowment schools are hurting the most, because suddenly their primary source of income is in fact bleeding money.
The plane went down in a lightning storm... I'd expect a good bit of interference as a result, especially for a meteor.
Still, the massive lightning storm is a much more probable cause. Given that planes generally avoid lightning storms if possible, odds are the storm is responsible.
The NPR report essentially said that planes are designed to specifications from a few decades ago when we flew a plane into a lightning storm to record the sort of charges that go off, and we use those measurements to determine 'usual discharges.'
However, once in a while you may have a plane going through a more dangerous storm, and the planes aren't designed for that.
Duh, 50% markup, the point stands. One year and based on this thing someone will have a mass-produced $200 model.
A 30% markup is reasonable for the first generation.
And I don't see how a dinky little iPod touch even begins to compare to a full-fledged touchscreen like this.
It runs Ubuntu, so just get developing. PDF in several flavors is included with Ubuntu, so that's a given.
As for the stylus... I know Ubuntu's working on that sort of thing, and it has a touchscreen, so I imagine at least being able to write on it is already done.
No, I think what drives dissatisfaction with cable is that you can only watch what is currently on.
Oh, and you're forced to watch ads.
I'd gladly pay $10/month for on-demand commercial-free access (under Linux) to any episode of every show currently offered in Hulu's library.
Throw in Dr. Who, Torchwood, and Top Gear, and I'd pay $20/month.
I also might be persuaded to watch commercials if you did it on something that wasn't as dog-slow as flash (video tag anyone?) Hell, throw in Linux codec licensing as part of the deal and it would be great. Though this doesn't mean I want some half-assed proprietary video player. PowerDVD, Windows Media Player, just about every proprietary player, Windows or Linux, has been completely inadequate without accelerated graphics. VLC is great, Mplayer is better performance-wise. Simply put, license me the codec, and I'll watch it, but I want my own implementation, yours sucks (and that's a platform-agnostic assertion.)
I think you've been watching too much House.
No one has the right to register a domain name for the express purpose of selling it. You need to read the laws. It has nothing to do with marks, it's first come, first serve, but only if you intend to use it as your own website. Bullshit domain squatters are committing illegal acts.
Likewise.
What I believe he meant (and I agree) is that you shouldn't try and build a Windows emulator on top of a browser. If you want native or quasi-native functionality, write a Java app. Or any number of other cross platform, well supported languages like Python, Perl, Ruby...
If you're writing a web application, you need to accept that certain things (like context menus) are not going to happen. Obviously, you can hack them in, but they will not only break in browsers like Opera, but they will probably only partially work in the browsers you test, and almost certainly not work in the forthcoming versions of the browsers you test. If they don't work in Opera, you have almost a guarantee of that, since Opera has best implemented the W3 standards, and though the implementations are imperfect, the top browsers' design staff are also responsible for the W3 standards, so it represents what they plan to implement (in some form) in their own browsers.
I'm just going to buy one, and think of it as a high-end Smartphone. It may also function as a PC, but I'm mostly buying it to have a versatile, low-power media hub I can take with me anywhere.
Flash is really slow, and I would really like for it to die before all the hardware catches up.