layers came in version 3.0 - i remember being SO excited when the upgrade cd arrived in the mail... as a matter of fact, i think i still have it laying around somewhere...
This thread is probably dead, but i'll respond anyways....
Nuclear is great (in my mind) but environmentalists (the ones that want us to stop using oil and coal) don't like that one either...
Wind is nice, but the only way it becomes feasible is if we can convince people to give up sizable tracts of land to put the windmills on; we can't even put them off the coast of Cape Cod because residents complain that it interferes with their skyline, the sailing, etc. And farmers find it more profitable to plant corn than have windmills.
Solar is good too, but it's still a LOT more expensive per kwh, is prone to ups and downs due to clouds, etc...
So using an electric vehicle with any of those (nuclear omitted) will tend to cost you even more - it'll just come from a different pocket (not the pocket allocated for gasoline, but instead, the electric bill).
I was about to beg for someone to give you mod points until I got to point four.
In fact, the massive oil profits DO come from a combination of the amount of oil sales but also on the increased margin per barrel of oil... Hypothetically speaking, in the 90's, oil companies extracted the cheapest to exploit reserves at a cost of $8/bbl and sold it for $12.
Now, they can go after the oil that costs $23 to extract and sell that for $65, and at the same time continue to extract oil from other fields at $7-13 / bbl.
Add to that the fact that integrated oil companies shift money around in their divisions, presumably paying themselves fair market value for extraction, pipeline support, transportation and refining, and they have a pretty sweet deal so long as the price of oil is high.
Back in the 90's, it wasn't, and oil companies didn't do so well then - they ended up dismantelling a bunch of refineries to cut costs, which is now causing us the problem of not having enough refinery capacity, etc...
To get to the end of my comment, i'll just say that I'd RATHER see high oil prices than low, even if that means record profits at oil companies, for the simple reason that alternative fuels become someone that are economically feasible. Drop the price of oil, and interest in ethanol, solar, etc will drop like a stone as well...
The only way that this could possibly be good is if the action of flipping that switch on (or off) turns off a persons ability to reproduce (retroactively, if need be!)
There's probably some good arguments here, but not this one...
Taxes on activities carried out in the Real World (tm) are taxes because those activities depend on certain services which are funded by tax monies.
You're saying that me buying business cards (as an example) depends on services that the government provides? And you're not acknowledging that the government PROVIDED you with the internet? Not Al Gore, but the Defense Department, among others....
That comparison being said, there's not pretext in the tax codes that i'm aware of that says that the government is entitled to tax items specifically because they provide a service in tandem with it... otherwise we'd have all sorts of different tax rates on different items... Want corn? That'll be a 50% tax due to government subsidies... Want a steel knife? That'll be a negative amount, due to tarriffs already received.
it seems like everyone's missing the point of this. or else i'm seeing it as being something else.
they're not trying to legallize "pretexting" so that that can pretend to be any one in particular, or in general. I THINK (key word) that they're trying for this so that they can legally run P2P client/servers and then use the resulting log files as a way of gathering evidence.
Currently, if they did so, the easiest case someone could make would be to say "well, THEY made those files available on a P2P network, they should have known someone would download them" or it could go so far as "that was entrapment".
If this goes through for them, then they can set up servers that do nothing but send files to P2P clients, log the IP addresses and forward requests for information about those addresses to DSL and cable companies.
per the article: The SEC has announced that the company is now formally under investigation. This allows them (the SEC) to issue subpeonas, since it's now an investigation rather than an inquiry.
It's not the system that's broken this time, it's the wording chosen by the submitter...
I don't care what reason they use, and what reason a fan of using their cell phone on the plane comes up with, I'm glad that for the foreseeable future, i won't have to spend 3-6-9 hours on a flight squeezed next to some blabbermouth who uses the flight as a means of catching up with long lost acquaintances...
If you just gave a list of OpenID URLs that had friend-type permission for your MySpace account and assigned them your own names then I think people would feel much less compelled to build a home on MySpace just so they could interact with a friend who had a home there
And now we know why none of the "social networking" sites will ever adopt this.
Her statement that "by doing x you are entering a contract" shouldn't hold up in any reasonable court.
So, I can deposit all those checks that are mailed to me that have fine print that reads "By depositing this check, you hereby agree to use our service"?
Anyways. Isn't this whole thing what robots.txt was invented for? Too bad so many spider seems to ignore it....
When was the last time Microsoft's stock was over $100, let alone $400? Ballmer's more envious than anything -- he keeps wondering why no one at Google is reading the résumés he keeps sending.
No offense, but don't start investing.
A companies value is NOT reflected by the share price alone. It's the share price TIMES the number of outstanding shares.
Quick math:
Googles market cap is 137.43 billion; share price is 441.96; it has approximately 311 million shares circulating.
Microsofts market cap is 267.23 billion; share price is 27.31; it has appromately 9.7 billion shares circulating.
It's been argued that one of the main reasons that Google trades at such a high P/E ratio is because they've restricted the number of shares circulating... Like, if they split the stock to match the shares outstanding of other companies, there'd be so many shares circulating that the price would drop, not only just because there'd be more shares as a result of the splits, but because there would actually enough to fill the demand.
Not trully related to the discussion, but related to your comment...
You are allowed to short any stock you'd like. Problem is, those shares need to be borrowed from somewhere (typically, a hedge fund, mutual fund or pension fund). Since none of those sources are likely to have any holdings in your penny stock, there simply aren't any shares available to be borrowed. And if there were, rest assured, the spammers would have already acquired those lonng before sending out the first email.
Well, the way I outlined means that one can be even more thoroughly investigated WITHOUT being aware that they're being investigated. The way that you outlined, one is aware of what's occuring, and can demand to know why they're being investigated, can have a lawyer question why such and such might be considered evidence, etc.
A suite of photo-authentication tools under development by Adobe Systems could make it possible to match a digital photo to the camera that shot it, and to detect some improper manipulation of images, Wired News has learned.
Am I the only one that found this sentence in the introduction more than a little scary?
Say, Tom takes a picture of his friend Mary and posts it online. Some time later, they cease being friends, and Mary does something terribly wrong. Police find the picture of Mary and find out that Camera A took the picture. It is determined that Tom's credit card purchased camera A. Before questioning Tom, police first try to catalog all other pictures he's ever take and (could) perhaps cross reference it all with GPS data supplied by his cell phone.
Is this worrying, or do should I get a tin foil hat?
I understand and enjoy how technology allows US to do stuff we couldn't dream of before. I hate that the same technology lets THEM do what they've only ever dreamt of before.
I'm sorry if i'm sounding dumb, but i really don't understand.
Let's say that there's a straight line of track that's 186,000 miles long (or however long the exact amount of distance that light travels in a second).
I'm inside the train, standing at the back of the train. You're outside watching.
The train immediately moves at the speed of light for one second. I, too, run as fast as i can and travel from the back of the train to the front of the train in 1 second.
So, I ran 100 feet in a second (unrealistic, but still).
You saw the back of the train travel 186,000 miles and the front of the train travel 186,000 miles in one second
I exited the the front door of the train.
We don't care about my perception of time... for all it matters, i could have felt like i was on the train for 1 year or 1/20 of a second. From your perspective, didn't i just travel 186,000 miles + 100 feet in a second?
I really do want to understand this (in the slashdot fashion, i'm not prepared to go to school for a few years in order to figure this out!!!)
I'm on a "train" that's traveling 1 MPH less than the speed of light. You're in a stationary spot (somehow) able to observe me. I start running at 5 MPH towards the front of the train; from your observation, I should be going (speed of light)+4 MPH, no? Just because you're observing me, doesn't preclude me from moving, does it?
Or put another way, two stars are traveling at each other at 3/4 the speed of light; from the surface of either of the stars, the other star would appear to be approaching you at 1.5 times the speed of light.
Or does the theory of relativity somehow stop those two stars from travelling at a combined speed relative to one another in excess of the speed of light?
of course people are predictable... individuals and groups...
at the individual level, lets say for me, rudimetary surveilance would have me leaving for work M-F at 8:30 AM and returning shortly after 5:00 pm. Therefore, one could easily extrapolate that tomorrow, i'll be on the same schedule. Further, if someone tracked me, they'ed see that each morning i go to starbucks. though the drinks vary, the schedule is the same...
likewise in groups. with a large enough group, though you won't necessarily be able to predict behavior at the individual level, with past examples, you should be able to predict behavior at the group level; ask anyone in marketing.
The entire point is that there are entire sectors of workers who have made it this far along without the applications that we take for granted. And if they've made it this far along without, chances are that there's a reason.
A cashier doesn't need to post on an electronic bulletin board about needing personal days when there's a real life bulletin board that does the job. Employee training materials may be provided in paper form because a company doesn't want to have to shell out the money to purchase computers, have support capacity, when the same thing can be accomplished by a few cheap photocopies or a book that the employee reads and returns.
Back to the McDonalds analogy since you like that one so much... does the cashier need email so they can write to corporate? No. Do they even care about employee morale? I don't think so... there's plenty of high schoolers and felons that need jobs, after all...
Yes, you may want whoever's writing your check to purchase as many desktops as possible, with a slew of applications that need updating, because that keeps you employed, but the reality is, providing people with computers who don't need them only adds extra headache and costs to the system. It's called return on investment; investment means spending money, which a company may not want to do for whatever reason.
I still do. Maybe slashdot isn't best place to advocate that IT isn't the be-all-end-all solution to fixing everything. Sorry, but some for some jobs, workers just don't need email and/or productivity suites to do their jobs, let alone computers. I have a feeling that computers would be damaged on a regular basis, not to mention the extra time needed to show employees how to use them.
What? Some people don't know how to use computers? Yes, it's true... And really, it's not McDonalds' responsibility to show them.
But yes, trust the IT worker to come up with a reason why everyone should have technology...
Let's figure the cost of a printed page (offset, NOT laser) at half a cent. Maybe distribution and all that brings it up to a penny (we'll call it 5 cents PER PAGE to be on the absurdly high side). Figure that McDonalds gives each employee 20 pages of documents, that's 1 dollar per employee for all the communications they require to do their jobs.
Now figure a computer for $300, DSL for $40 per month.
Say there's 40 employees there that share the single computer. After 2 months, the cost of the DSL has outstripped the old distribution method. The computer isn't getting paid for, and in fact McDonalds now needs to hire an IT team to service the area (yes, it's google that runs the apps, but someones got to make sure the computers are running in the store), adding additional costs.
Slashdot Mirror
layers came in version 3.0 - i remember being SO excited when the upgrade cd arrived in the mail... as a matter of fact, i think i still have it laying around somewhere...
This thread is probably dead, but i'll respond anyways....
:)
Nuclear is great (in my mind) but environmentalists (the ones that want us to stop using oil and coal) don't like that one either...
Wind is nice, but the only way it becomes feasible is if we can convince people to give up sizable tracts of land to put the windmills on; we can't even put them off the coast of Cape Cod because residents complain that it interferes with their skyline, the sailing, etc. And farmers find it more profitable to plant corn than have windmills.
Solar is good too, but it's still a LOT more expensive per kwh, is prone to ups and downs due to clouds, etc...
So using an electric vehicle with any of those (nuclear omitted) will tend to cost you even more - it'll just come from a different pocket (not the pocket allocated for gasoline, but instead, the electric bill).
We've got ourselves in a fine mess...
I was about to beg for someone to give you mod points until I got to point four.
In fact, the massive oil profits DO come from a combination of the amount of oil sales but also on the increased margin per barrel of oil... Hypothetically speaking, in the 90's, oil companies extracted the cheapest to exploit reserves at a cost of $8/bbl and sold it for $12.
Now, they can go after the oil that costs $23 to extract and sell that for $65, and at the same time continue to extract oil from other fields at $7-13 / bbl.
Add to that the fact that integrated oil companies shift money around in their divisions, presumably paying themselves fair market value for extraction, pipeline support, transportation and refining, and they have a pretty sweet deal so long as the price of oil is high.
Back in the 90's, it wasn't, and oil companies didn't do so well then - they ended up dismantelling a bunch of refineries to cut costs, which is now causing us the problem of not having enough refinery capacity, etc...
To get to the end of my comment, i'll just say that I'd RATHER see high oil prices than low, even if that means record profits at oil companies, for the simple reason that alternative fuels become someone that are economically feasible. Drop the price of oil, and interest in ethanol, solar, etc will drop like a stone as well...
And the source of the energy to power your car when you plug it in at night?
Oil, or worse, coal, though possibly nuclear...
The only way that this could possibly be good is if the action of flipping that switch on (or off) turns off a persons ability to reproduce (retroactively, if need be!)
What are the authorities the OP relies on? I don't think I'm going to take Slashdot seriously any more. It's being invaded by bs.
Funny that was what put you over the edge...
There's probably some good arguments here, but not this one...
Taxes on activities carried out in the Real World (tm) are taxes because those activities depend on certain services which are funded by tax monies.
You're saying that me buying business cards (as an example) depends on services that the government provides? And you're not acknowledging that the government PROVIDED you with the internet? Not Al Gore, but the Defense Department, among others....
That comparison being said, there's not pretext in the tax codes that i'm aware of that says that the government is entitled to tax items specifically because they provide a service in tandem with it... otherwise we'd have all sorts of different tax rates on different items... Want corn? That'll be a 50% tax due to government subsidies... Want a steel knife? That'll be a negative amount, due to tarriffs already received.
it seems like everyone's missing the point of this. or else i'm seeing it as being something else.
they're not trying to legallize "pretexting" so that that can pretend to be any one in particular, or in general. I THINK (key word) that they're trying for this so that they can legally run P2P client/servers and then use the resulting log files as a way of gathering evidence.
Currently, if they did so, the easiest case someone could make would be to say "well, THEY made those files available on a P2P network, they should have known someone would download them" or it could go so far as "that was entrapment".
If this goes through for them, then they can set up servers that do nothing but send files to P2P clients, log the IP addresses and forward requests for information about those addresses to DSL and cable companies.
BUT (to be the devils advocate)
if in 20 years you decide to stop buying CD's, you have 240 CD's.
if in 20 years you decide to stop subscribing to your service, you have nothing.
per the article: The SEC has announced that the company is now formally under investigation. This allows them (the SEC) to issue subpeonas, since it's now an investigation rather than an inquiry.
It's not the system that's broken this time, it's the wording chosen by the submitter...
I don't care what reason they use, and what reason a fan of using their cell phone on the plane comes up with, I'm glad that for the foreseeable future, i won't have to spend 3-6-9 hours on a flight squeezed next to some blabbermouth who uses the flight as a means of catching up with long lost acquaintances...
You have to explain this math to me... how did the 4 turn into a 5
If you just gave a list of OpenID URLs that had friend-type permission for your MySpace account and assigned them your own names then I think people would feel much less compelled to build a home on MySpace just so they could interact with a friend who had a home there
And now we know why none of the "social networking" sites will ever adopt this.
Her statement that "by doing x you are entering a contract" shouldn't hold up in any reasonable court.
So, I can deposit all those checks that are mailed to me that have fine print that reads "By depositing this check, you hereby agree to use our service"?
Anyways. Isn't this whole thing what robots.txt was invented for? Too bad so many spider seems to ignore it....
When was the last time Microsoft's stock was over $100, let alone $400? Ballmer's more envious than anything -- he keeps wondering why no one at Google is reading the résumés he keeps sending.
No offense, but don't start investing.
A companies value is NOT reflected by the share price alone. It's the share price TIMES the number of outstanding shares.
Quick math:
Googles market cap is 137.43 billion; share price is 441.96; it has approximately 311 million shares circulating.
Microsofts market cap is 267.23 billion; share price is 27.31; it has appromately 9.7 billion shares circulating.
It's been argued that one of the main reasons that Google trades at such a high P/E ratio is because they've restricted the number of shares circulating... Like, if they split the stock to match the shares outstanding of other companies, there'd be so many shares circulating that the price would drop, not only just because there'd be more shares as a result of the splits, but because there would actually enough to fill the demand.
Not trully related to the discussion, but related to your comment...
You are allowed to short any stock you'd like. Problem is, those shares need to be borrowed from somewhere (typically, a hedge fund, mutual fund or pension fund). Since none of those sources are likely to have any holdings in your penny stock, there simply aren't any shares available to be borrowed. And if there were, rest assured, the spammers would have already acquired those lonng before sending out the first email.
Well, the way I outlined means that one can be even more thoroughly investigated WITHOUT being aware that they're being investigated. The way that you outlined, one is aware of what's occuring, and can demand to know why they're being investigated, can have a lawyer question why such and such might be considered evidence, etc.
A suite of photo-authentication tools under development by Adobe Systems could make it possible to match a digital photo to the camera that shot it, and to detect some improper manipulation of images, Wired News has learned.
Am I the only one that found this sentence in the introduction more than a little scary?
Say, Tom takes a picture of his friend Mary and posts it online. Some time later, they cease being friends, and Mary does something terribly wrong. Police find the picture of Mary and find out that Camera A took the picture. It is determined that Tom's credit card purchased camera A. Before questioning Tom, police first try to catalog all other pictures he's ever take and (could) perhaps cross reference it all with GPS data supplied by his cell phone.
Is this worrying, or do should I get a tin foil hat?
I understand and enjoy how technology allows US to do stuff we couldn't dream of before. I hate that the same technology lets THEM do what they've only ever dreamt of before.
I'm sorry if i'm sounding dumb, but i really don't understand.
Let's say that there's a straight line of track that's 186,000 miles long (or however long the exact amount of distance that light travels in a second).
I'm inside the train, standing at the back of the train. You're outside watching.
The train immediately moves at the speed of light for one second. I, too, run as fast as i can and travel from the back of the train to the front of the train in 1 second.
So, I ran 100 feet in a second (unrealistic, but still).
You saw the back of the train travel 186,000 miles and the front of the train travel 186,000 miles in one second
I exited the the front door of the train.
We don't care about my perception of time... for all it matters, i could have felt like i was on the train for 1 year or 1/20 of a second. From your perspective, didn't i just travel 186,000 miles + 100 feet in a second?
I really do want to understand this (in the slashdot fashion, i'm not prepared to go to school for a few years in order to figure this out!!!)
Thanks
I'm very confused.
I'm on a "train" that's traveling 1 MPH less than the speed of light. You're in a stationary spot (somehow) able to observe me. I start running at 5 MPH towards the front of the train; from your observation, I should be going (speed of light)+4 MPH, no? Just because you're observing me, doesn't preclude me from moving, does it?
Or put another way, two stars are traveling at each other at 3/4 the speed of light; from the surface of either of the stars, the other star would appear to be approaching you at 1.5 times the speed of light.
Or does the theory of relativity somehow stop those two stars from travelling at a combined speed relative to one another in excess of the speed of light?
of course people are predictable... individuals and groups...
at the individual level, lets say for me, rudimetary surveilance would have me leaving for work M-F at 8:30 AM and returning shortly after 5:00 pm. Therefore, one could easily extrapolate that tomorrow, i'll be on the same schedule. Further, if someone tracked me, they'ed see that each morning i go to starbucks. though the drinks vary, the schedule is the same...
likewise in groups. with a large enough group, though you won't necessarily be able to predict behavior at the individual level, with past examples, you should be able to predict behavior at the group level; ask anyone in marketing.
I saw the main page, and I thought it read:
"First Graphene Calculator"
Which would make sense, as that's basically what transistor does, only it's been done already...
I know, I know, I know...
You're funny...
The entire point is that there are entire sectors of workers who have made it this far along without the applications that we take for granted. And if they've made it this far along without, chances are that there's a reason.
A cashier doesn't need to post on an electronic bulletin board about needing personal days when there's a real life bulletin board that does the job. Employee training materials may be provided in paper form because a company doesn't want to have to shell out the money to purchase computers, have support capacity, when the same thing can be accomplished by a few cheap photocopies or a book that the employee reads and returns.
Back to the McDonalds analogy since you like that one so much... does the cashier need email so they can write to corporate? No. Do they even care about employee morale? I don't think so... there's plenty of high schoolers and felons that need jobs, after all...
Yes, you may want whoever's writing your check to purchase as many desktops as possible, with a slew of applications that need updating, because that keeps you employed, but the reality is, providing people with computers who don't need them only adds extra headache and costs to the system. It's called return on investment; investment means spending money, which a company may not want to do for whatever reason.
I still do. Maybe slashdot isn't best place to advocate that IT isn't the be-all-end-all solution to fixing everything. Sorry, but some for some jobs, workers just don't need email and/or productivity suites to do their jobs, let alone computers. I have a feeling that computers would be damaged on a regular basis, not to mention the extra time needed to show employees how to use them.
What? Some people don't know how to use computers? Yes, it's true... And really, it's not McDonalds' responsibility to show them.
But yes, trust the IT worker to come up with a reason why everyone should have technology...
Very funny that this was brought up before...
Let's figure the cost of a printed page (offset, NOT laser) at half a cent. Maybe distribution and all that brings it up to a penny (we'll call it 5 cents PER PAGE to be on the absurdly high side). Figure that McDonalds gives each employee 20 pages of documents, that's 1 dollar per employee for all the communications they require to do their jobs.
Now figure a computer for $300, DSL for $40 per month.
Say there's 40 employees there that share the single computer. After 2 months, the cost of the DSL has outstripped the old distribution method. The computer isn't getting paid for, and in fact McDonalds now needs to hire an IT team to service the area (yes, it's google that runs the apps, but someones got to make sure the computers are running in the store), adding additional costs.