Just because one form's function doesn't translate to another form doesn't mean either is necessarily flawed. Build your own furniture (or have it built), come up with different ways to use the space, and otherwise change your lifestyle so it works better with your chosen dwelling. If your point is to maximize space and efficiency, you're going to have to do this anyway.
All the more reason to use Jabber/XMPP
on
MSN Censors Your IM
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You can set up your own server, you can control your own IM stuffs, and really... it's just a better solution. You could still go with GTalk if you want access to the Jabber network without setting up a server or doing anything fancy, but in that case I'd recommend encryption for your conversations (you should probably do that anyway). If you just want to set up a new Jabber account on one of the public servers, head on over to jabber.org and pick one out.
Since electricity is produced in stationary plants, it's easier to make it more efficient, pollute less, etc. That's awfully difficult to do when you have tons and tons of little gasoline engines all over the place.
I'd recommend Octro. I found it a few months back and have been very happy with it for the most part. It's a Jabber/GTalk client, but it works fine with transports to other networks and (if I'm not mistaken) the Octro people supply some as well. It also can use Google Talk's VoIP and I *think* allows access to the PSTN as well. Right now it's free because they're still testing it, and I think it's supposed to be commercial later, but it's definitely worth it. Oh, it supports file transfers too. I use it on my T-Mobile SDA.
Perhaps somebody can clarify something for me. Obviously I understand how sell a product (i.e., a computer, a car, software, etc.) that contains somebody's patented technology without their permission, you would be liable of infringing their patents. But until this Vonage situation, I was under the impression that this didn't apply to services. Though, now that I think about it, the whole Amazon one-click fiasco is probably a similar problem. But if Verizon has patented some sort of interconnection device/method between VoIP and the PSTN, this means that nobody can perform such an action without a license from Verizon, regardless of whether or not they sell the hardware to accomplish it?
The whole thing just seems incredibly ridiculous. Obviously that's part of the problem and why we need patent reform, but it's really amazed me that a company can patent something and somehow prevent somebody else from making use of similar technology/methods when they don't in fact sell the technology/methods to others. It'd be one thing if Verizon sold the hardware or software that accomplished this feat, but to merely USE it would seem to me to not violate a patent. I know I'm mistaken, but I'd appreciate a good explanation of how this can be.
I've had some dedicated servers with Cari.net for about two years now. While I think some of their setup fees are a little excessive for new hardware (it's reasonable for the initial server setup), their monthly costs are reasonable ($60-$100/month for most machines, though they have other options after that), they have pretty decent support, and they'll install any OS you want for a bit extra in the initial setup cost. After just checking their site, it seems if you'd rather pay more monthly in lieu of setup fees, they're offering that as well.
Anyway, just thought I'd offer my experiences as advice.:)
I know who he is. I would've never called him a "famous free software writer" as he was labeled earlier today, and if he's "well-known", it's not for being a writer. The way these summaries are worded, as well as the fact that both stories today were submitted by "an anonymous user", just makes me think that somebody is looking to boost their site's traffic today. Nevermind the fact that the article is old and has already been linked to on slashdot before.
It's not Art Bell talking. It's somebody that called his show when they were doing a program about Area 51. Art Bell is supposed to be talking at the end of the call, but that part is not played during the track. I've heard later that the person called in and admitted that it was a hoax. Whether or not that's true, I guess only the person calling knows for certain.
Finding the the majority of people are receptive to the idea of a supernatural being doesn't say anything about genetics. What would be more interesting is to find out how many of those people had previously been exposed to such ideas before they actually developed an opinion on the matter. Societies tend to indoctrinate their children with their religious beliefs, traditions, etc. To me, it makes sense that the majority of people are receptive to such ideas because they've been exposed to them for as long as they can remember.
That doesn't mean that all people can hear it, though.
But an environmentalist qua environmentalist must want to protect the environment. If he throws in some other motive for why incandescents must be banned, he's not doing it out of concern for the environment.
Of course, but how a particular thing is perceived to benefit or harm the environment varies. You can be an environmentalist and not support a ban on incandescent bulbs.
I like how your third and fourth facts can be disproved by your second fact.:) If one can't make the assumption that CFLs are as pleasant as regular light, one also can't make the assumption that CFLs do or do not buzz. As far as environmentalists go, they come in all varieties, and often have different reasons for supporting or not supporting issues.
Well, since we don't have healthcare for everyone, I think the vaccine is going to be the best route right now. A universal healthcare program is going to cost a lot more than vaccines.
10000 women altogether will be diagnosed with cervical cancer each year in the United States. Of those 10000, 4000 women will die from it. If 70% of those cases were caused by HPV, that's 2800 cases that could have been prevented. If we can prevent death, I think we should do it, and I think it should be easy for anyone to have access to these vaccines. It's mandatory in the sense that all vaccines are mandatory, which means you can opt-out. So what's the problem?
I know HPV infection does not automatically lead to cancer. But, it's guaranteed that if you don't have HPV, you won't get cancer caused by HPV. Is it a huge expense? I don't think so, but that's just going to have to be a matter of opinion. But when we're spending billions of dollars a month on a joke of a war, I think several hundred million a year to prevent 70% of cases of cervical cancer is probably a better investment.
It's "mandatory" the same as all other vaccinations. If you don't want your children to have them, you can opt out, sign a form, and it's all done.
As far as the other things go, I don't think birth control should be mandatory because it doesn't prevent diseases. They do place restrictions on children driving (learners permits, curfews, reduced point limit on licenses, only allowing people of certain ages in the car at the same time, etc.). I have no problem with that, and I don't know anyone who does aside from kids who feel it's too limiting.
How about we do it before she'd had the opportunity to be exposed to it, and then it's not an issue on whether or not anything happens? I'm for the same thing for boys too, as soon as it's approved for them.
I'm not a doctor, pharmacist, scientist, chemist, whatever. But, from all the information I've seen about this over the past 6 months or so, they've said 80%. Even so, those strains of HPV are responsible for a large number of cervical cancer cases. Once you've been infected with HPV, that's it. Your body may clear the infection at some point, or it may not. You also may transmit it to other people. While a pap smear can detect the abnormal cells, and can lead to a cancer diagnosis and treatment... they can't cure HPV once you've contracted it, nor can they prevent it from developing into cancer. It makes more sense to me to vaccinate people against the virus before they've been exposed, and continue vaccinations as needed (since I think they only know that it'll last at least 5 years, maybe more...). $800 million/year is NOTHING compared to what we spend on other, not NEARLY as important things.
Except it goes beyond pre-marital sex. Your daughter may be an angel and never do anything with anyone but her husband after she's married. But that doesn't mean her husband hasn't fucked around before marriage, cheated on her, or done some other thing that resulted in him becoming infected with HPV. He gets HPV, shows no symptoms, and then infects your daughter. She could've been protected against it, but no, you HAD to be "right".
However, with the price of the vaccine, if it's not made mandatory (and it's not even REALLY mandatory, since parents can still opt out of having their daughters vaccinated), the chance that everyone who wants it will be able to be vaccinated is not likely. Since it prevents the spread of a communicable disease that has the potential to cause a variety of cancers (namely cervical, though these particular strains do play a part in some other cancers), it's within the public's interest to have this vaccine available at a reasonable price for everyone.
From what I understand, they tested it on women first to determine its effectiveness at preventing infectiton by the HPV strains that cause 80% of all cases of cervical cancer. It's being tested in men, but, I don't think they've completed those trials yet. But, since it's primarily to prevent HPV infection to prevent the majority of cases of cervical cancer, it's not entirely dishonest to say it's a cervical cancer vaccine. That's my opinion, any way.
The author also doesn't get paid when someone chooses not to purchase his software. Since that is also depriving him of money, is it also wrong?
From what I understand, using a pirated key or a pirated program is not a crime. It is a crime to distribute said programs (I'm not really sure about distributing keys), but in either of those cases, it's not theft. If I could go up to somebody, copy their wallet (and all contents stored within), and then left. Did I steal that person's wallet? No. I may have a copy of the wallet, but I did not deprive the owner of their property. It may or may not be legally or morally right, but it's not the same as if I took it outright and deprived the owner of their property.
Well, I don't speak for everyone, but I know that I'm interested in science and technology (as well as politics, unfortunately). That includes energy efficiency, new sources of energy and self-sufficiency, and all sorts of stuff like that. So, I think this is perfectl valid for/.
Ethanol isn't a bad idea, but it's not a drop-in replacement either. I don't think there are ANY renewable sources that can easily supplant our our dependence on oil. We're going to have to make things more efficient, reduce our fuel and energy consumption, and diversify our energy supply. Ethanol is a piece of this puzzle, but there's no way it could replace gasoline by itself, especially when produced from corn. Cellulosic ethanol is being worked on, and I think there are some promising methods to obtain ethanol from different weeds or other waste plant materials. But, I don't think there's anything conclusive yet, and it still isn't a good idea to take all our eggs out of one basket and place all of them into a different one.
Umm, if you think DHML and CSS are the same on every platform, you need to use some other platforms. Every browser renders the content differently, even if you follow all the standards to the letter. That's just not acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because one form's function doesn't translate to another form doesn't mean either is necessarily flawed. Build your own furniture (or have it built), come up with different ways to use the space, and otherwise change your lifestyle so it works better with your chosen dwelling. If your point is to maximize space and efficiency, you're going to have to do this anyway.
You can set up your own server, you can control your own IM stuffs, and really ... it's just a better solution. You could still go with GTalk if you want access to the Jabber network without setting up a server or doing anything fancy, but in that case I'd recommend encryption for your conversations (you should probably do that anyway). If you just want to set up a new Jabber account on one of the public servers, head on over to jabber.org and pick one out.
Since electricity is produced in stationary plants, it's easier to make it more efficient, pollute less, etc. That's awfully difficult to do when you have tons and tons of little gasoline engines all over the place.
I'd recommend Octro. I found it a few months back and have been very happy with it for the most part. It's a Jabber/GTalk client, but it works fine with transports to other networks and (if I'm not mistaken) the Octro people supply some as well. It also can use Google Talk's VoIP and I *think* allows access to the PSTN as well. Right now it's free because they're still testing it, and I think it's supposed to be commercial later, but it's definitely worth it. Oh, it supports file transfers too. I use it on my T-Mobile SDA.
Perhaps somebody can clarify something for me. Obviously I understand how sell a product (i.e., a computer, a car, software, etc.) that contains somebody's patented technology without their permission, you would be liable of infringing their patents. But until this Vonage situation, I was under the impression that this didn't apply to services. Though, now that I think about it, the whole Amazon one-click fiasco is probably a similar problem. But if Verizon has patented some sort of interconnection device/method between VoIP and the PSTN, this means that nobody can perform such an action without a license from Verizon, regardless of whether or not they sell the hardware to accomplish it?
The whole thing just seems incredibly ridiculous. Obviously that's part of the problem and why we need patent reform, but it's really amazed me that a company can patent something and somehow prevent somebody else from making use of similar technology/methods when they don't in fact sell the technology/methods to others. It'd be one thing if Verizon sold the hardware or software that accomplished this feat, but to merely USE it would seem to me to not violate a patent. I know I'm mistaken, but I'd appreciate a good explanation of how this can be.
I've had some dedicated servers with Cari.net for about two years now. While I think some of their setup fees are a little excessive for new hardware (it's reasonable for the initial server setup), their monthly costs are reasonable ($60-$100/month for most machines, though they have other options after that), they have pretty decent support, and they'll install any OS you want for a bit extra in the initial setup cost. After just checking their site, it seems if you'd rather pay more monthly in lieu of setup fees, they're offering that as well.
:)
Anyway, just thought I'd offer my experiences as advice.
If I could mod you up, I would! It's funny 'cause it's true :)
I know who he is. I would've never called him a "famous free software writer" as he was labeled earlier today, and if he's "well-known", it's not for being a writer. The way these summaries are worded, as well as the fact that both stories today were submitted by "an anonymous user", just makes me think that somebody is looking to boost their site's traffic today. Nevermind the fact that the article is old and has already been linked to on slashdot before.
Anyway, just seemed fishy to me. That's my $0.02.
It's not Art Bell talking. It's somebody that called his show when they were doing a program about Area 51. Art Bell is supposed to be talking at the end of the call, but that part is not played during the track. I've heard later that the person called in and admitted that it was a hoax. Whether or not that's true, I guess only the person calling knows for certain.
Finding the the majority of people are receptive to the idea of a supernatural being doesn't say anything about genetics. What would be more interesting is to find out how many of those people had previously been exposed to such ideas before they actually developed an opinion on the matter. Societies tend to indoctrinate their children with their religious beliefs, traditions, etc. To me, it makes sense that the majority of people are receptive to such ideas because they've been exposed to them for as long as they can remember.
A buzz can be measured by impersonal equipment.
That doesn't mean that all people can hear it, though.
But an environmentalist qua environmentalist must want to protect the environment. If he throws in some other motive for why incandescents must be banned, he's not doing it out of concern for the environment.
Of course, but how a particular thing is perceived to benefit or harm the environment varies. You can be an environmentalist and not support a ban on incandescent bulbs.
I like how your third and fourth facts can be disproved by your second fact. :) If one can't make the assumption that CFLs are as pleasant as regular light, one also can't make the assumption that CFLs do or do not buzz. As far as environmentalists go, they come in all varieties, and often have different reasons for supporting or not supporting issues.
Well, since we don't have healthcare for everyone, I think the vaccine is going to be the best route right now. A universal healthcare program is going to cost a lot more than vaccines.
10000 women altogether will be diagnosed with cervical cancer each year in the United States. Of those 10000, 4000 women will die from it. If 70% of those cases were caused by HPV, that's 2800 cases that could have been prevented. If we can prevent death, I think we should do it, and I think it should be easy for anyone to have access to these vaccines. It's mandatory in the sense that all vaccines are mandatory, which means you can opt-out. So what's the problem?
I know HPV infection does not automatically lead to cancer. But, it's guaranteed that if you don't have HPV, you won't get cancer caused by HPV. Is it a huge expense? I don't think so, but that's just going to have to be a matter of opinion. But when we're spending billions of dollars a month on a joke of a war, I think several hundred million a year to prevent 70% of cases of cervical cancer is probably a better investment.
It's "mandatory" the same as all other vaccinations. If you don't want your children to have them, you can opt out, sign a form, and it's all done.
As far as the other things go, I don't think birth control should be mandatory because it doesn't prevent diseases. They do place restrictions on children driving (learners permits, curfews, reduced point limit on licenses, only allowing people of certain ages in the car at the same time, etc.). I have no problem with that, and I don't know anyone who does aside from kids who feel it's too limiting.
How about we do it before she'd had the opportunity to be exposed to it, and then it's not an issue on whether or not anything happens? I'm for the same thing for boys too, as soon as it's approved for them.
I'm not a doctor, pharmacist, scientist, chemist, whatever. But, from all the information I've seen about this over the past 6 months or so, they've said 80%. Even so, those strains of HPV are responsible for a large number of cervical cancer cases. Once you've been infected with HPV, that's it. Your body may clear the infection at some point, or it may not. You also may transmit it to other people. While a pap smear can detect the abnormal cells, and can lead to a cancer diagnosis and treatment ... they can't cure HPV once you've contracted it, nor can they prevent it from developing into cancer. It makes more sense to me to vaccinate people against the virus before they've been exposed, and continue vaccinations as needed (since I think they only know that it'll last at least 5 years, maybe more...). $800 million/year is NOTHING compared to what we spend on other, not NEARLY as important things.
Except it goes beyond pre-marital sex. Your daughter may be an angel and never do anything with anyone but her husband after she's married. But that doesn't mean her husband hasn't fucked around before marriage, cheated on her, or done some other thing that resulted in him becoming infected with HPV. He gets HPV, shows no symptoms, and then infects your daughter. She could've been protected against it, but no, you HAD to be "right".
However, with the price of the vaccine, if it's not made mandatory (and it's not even REALLY mandatory, since parents can still opt out of having their daughters vaccinated), the chance that everyone who wants it will be able to be vaccinated is not likely. Since it prevents the spread of a communicable disease that has the potential to cause a variety of cancers (namely cervical, though these particular strains do play a part in some other cancers), it's within the public's interest to have this vaccine available at a reasonable price for everyone.
From what I understand, they tested it on women first to determine its effectiveness at preventing infectiton by the HPV strains that cause 80% of all cases of cervical cancer. It's being tested in men, but, I don't think they've completed those trials yet. But, since it's primarily to prevent HPV infection to prevent the majority of cases of cervical cancer, it's not entirely dishonest to say it's a cervical cancer vaccine. That's my opinion, any way.
The author also doesn't get paid when someone chooses not to purchase his software. Since that is also depriving him of money, is it also wrong?
From what I understand, using a pirated key or a pirated program is not a crime. It is a crime to distribute said programs (I'm not really sure about distributing keys), but in either of those cases, it's not theft. If I could go up to somebody, copy their wallet (and all contents stored within), and then left. Did I steal that person's wallet? No. I may have a copy of the wallet, but I did not deprive the owner of their property. It may or may not be legally or morally right, but it's not the same as if I took it outright and deprived the owner of their property.
Well, I don't speak for everyone, but I know that I'm interested in science and technology (as well as politics, unfortunately). That includes energy efficiency, new sources of energy and self-sufficiency, and all sorts of stuff like that. So, I think this is perfectl valid for /.
Ethanol isn't a bad idea, but it's not a drop-in replacement either. I don't think there are ANY renewable sources that can easily supplant our our dependence on oil. We're going to have to make things more efficient, reduce our fuel and energy consumption, and diversify our energy supply. Ethanol is a piece of this puzzle, but there's no way it could replace gasoline by itself, especially when produced from corn. Cellulosic ethanol is being worked on, and I think there are some promising methods to obtain ethanol from different weeds or other waste plant materials. But, I don't think there's anything conclusive yet, and it still isn't a good idea to take all our eggs out of one basket and place all of them into a different one.
Umm, if you think DHML and CSS are the same on every platform, you need to use some other platforms. Every browser renders the content differently, even if you follow all the standards to the letter. That's just not acceptable.