>>>If a company is able to screw me, it's because I trusted someone I should not have trusted. That is my fault,
So if Comcast suddenly turns-off your TV or net access, even though you've already paid for this month, you really truly believe that's your own fault? Riiiight. Sure. Yep. Whatever you say pal. I call such actions "theft" or "scamming" whether it's they guy on the street who sold you a Ralex watch or a magacorporation.
>>>I'm not [online everywhere] because I don't have $719.40 per year plus tax for a MiFi gateway.
I'm glad you brought that up. People claim buying a terminal/thin client will be cheaper than buying a whole PC, but that's simply not true. You end-up spending MORE money on annual software rental, plus enhanced online connectivity, than if you simply bought the stuff. Renting is always more expensive than owning. This cloud computing idea makes about as much sense as RIAA's proposals that we rent MP3 downloads instead of owning them. Or the way carmakers push leasing cars instead of buying them. This idea is just a way to make more money which is why the Megacorporations are pushing it so hard.
No I'm not. At home I have a PC online, but that's only upstairs, not downstairs or in the basement. When I visit my brother I'm not online. When I'm at the mall I'm not online. ----- So we're right back to what I said before: "Having the software on our own machines freed us to work anytime" even if we're not online.
>>>How else would you explain the 2 month time period that elapsed before a decision was made?
Simple. They were hoping they could get-away with deleting the books, just like my local Comcast was hoping they could get-away with removing TCM from their lineup, even though they did not give the 2 month notice required by the FCC. After the FCC and then the local television station came-down on comcast like a ton of bricks, they offered to give any dissatisfied customer two months free.
Same with amazon - When it became clear that negative press was affecting their bottom line, they decided to return the books two months later. If the press had been silent, then amazon would have stayed with their original decision, and customers would have nothing.
Mega-corporations prefer to operate in the dark, because they can get away with stuff.
It is only when the light of publicity shines in those dark corners, and the truth revealed, that these corporations do the right thing, but in my opinion that's too late. It's like a thief getting caught and saying, "Oh I'll just return the money to the bank." That doesn't make it right.
>>>e rant about examining only 1,176 people for the study - in which case the same kind of tv viewer statistics
Yes but those TV stats are produced by carefully selecting the homes to reflect each city's ethnic makeup (at least that's true with Nielsen in the States). In contrast the 1176 people were an uncontrolled survey of people who *volunteered* to take the poll, and therefore represents... essentially nothing. It's unscientific.
>>>I contacted the supplier of the software for that website and asked about this problem and they essentially sloughed it off and said they were not going to support anything but IE, Safari and FF. >>>
And that's why Opera renders nothing. You can fix that by right-clicking on that site (or any site) and chooosing Edit_Sit_Preferences --> Network --> Mask as Firefox. (Or IE) Problem solved.
Perhaps Indiana and the other midwest states could declare the law "nullified" due to unconstitutionality. Just because Congress passes a requirement that Midwest plants tax carbon does not mean the states have to enforce it - I can not lay my hand on any part of the Supreme Law which gives Congress that power.
On the contrary it seems quite clear that the power is reserved to the states exclusively.
Actually most filters and catalysts are extremely effective. On cars they reduce the CO, NOx, and HC to just 1/25,000th the pollution of a 1970 pre-catalyst car. Those located on coal plants, being millions of dollars more expensive and advanced than your car's filter/catalyst, probably get it down to 1 millionth as much.
Or 99.999% effective. You get more radiation gardening than you do from a coal plant.
WELL AS I SAID (but you apparently didn't bother to read): "this is one step towards that goal". You can not get to the second floor of your house in one leap - you have to take one step at a time. Today 50% solar/50% coal. Next decade 75% solar/25% coal. The decade after that 95% solar/5% coal power plants. Same applies to cars which are 10% electric/90% gasoline hybrids today, but eventually will be 95% electric with maybe a small gasoline generator for long-distance. But I guess shouldn't expect an environmentalist to understand that simple "transitional" principle. They are too busy pushing-over radio towers and then bragging about it - http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/04/washington.towers.terrorism/ I tried to make a reasonable statement, but all I got was a slap across the face. You will not win your cause by pissing-off other environmentalists who are on your side.
I drive an 80mpg hybrid, light my house with 25 watt or lower bulbs, and turn-off the heat in the winter to help reduce my carbon footprint - and then some shitheads named the "Earth Liberation Front" go do this. These earth-worshiping religious wackos harm the cause; they don't help it. I'd like to set fire to every one of their offices, and see how they enjoy having millions of dollars of personal property destroyed.
And if they really believe the AM radio waves are interfering with cellphones (impossible) or intercoms (probably but they are second-class devices anyway), then petition the FCC. That's why that organization exists.
Do you even know what you're talking about? Alpha particles are weak. Even if you swallowed uranium, the alpha particles couldn't pass through the cell walls to cause any damage to the DNA. You can play with alpha particles all day long and not even so much as a skin rash.
Perhaps if you had been talking about beta or gamma particles, then your post would have been "informative" but as it stands now it's just... to quote Penn & Teller... "bullshit"
Also: Don't coal plants have mandatory filters to remove all the soot from their exhaust? Yes. What comes-out is basically just water vapor - they are cleaner than your home's personal natural-gas heater (which foolishly has no filtering).
Embracing a technology that is 50% solar-powered is still better than 0% solar power. Also many people forget that coal and oil ARE solar power - it's the sunlight that fell on our planet ~300 million years ago, and now exists in condensed form. Our challenge is not to stop using ancient sunlight completely, but to use today's sunlight. Converting plants to partial-solar is one step towards that goal.
That is why you fail. Most people can barely multiple 12 * 12 or write a coherent letter, and you want them to learn the intricacies of an electronic machine? It. Won't. Work. You might as well ask them to fix their own cars, which is impossible since most people can't even change the oil.
>>>asinine software EULAs which not only state the standard fact that you don't really own anything despite having paid for it, but also state that the vendor has no liability no matter what happens, not even when the software fails to perform as advertised (I think they call it "suitability for purpose" and expressly disclaim it). >>>
The only reasonable response when a company screws you, is to screw them back.
i.e. If MS Vista cost you $200, and it refused to operate on your 1/2 gig machine even though it was advertised to work, then don't get mad. Get back your $200 or the equivalent. Steal Windows 7. "Revenge is a dish best served cold."
>>>(aka "terminal" in 70s [and also 80s] technology)
This is the man reason why I'm against cloud computing. I remember having to do college work via the central computer, and you could only do it with a terminal, which meant you had to be online. It was a major hassle. Having the software on our OWN machines freed us to work anytime, anywhere without needing a connection. Cloud computing strikes me as a step backwards to a darker time.
>>>What does the cost of bandwidth have to do with anything? It doesn't get any cheaper whether you run it with a $1500 PC or a $100 thin client >>>
Here's the math spanning a range from 1998 (when I got my first IBM PC) to 2010 when I'll probably upgrade to a new MS Office: $400 Win98 PC (this is what I spent) + $400 for newer XP-PC + $100 for Microsoft Office 97 used until the end of 2010 + $0 for online since you don't need online to write a letter or do a spreadsheet == $70/year over 13 years
- $100 thin client bought in 98 (aka "terminal" in 70s technology) + $100 thin client with newer P4-CPU + $100 thin client with newer DualCore CPU (required upgrade else you get blocked, as was the case when I tried Microsoft's online services) + $50 rent for online office software + $10 "you exceeded your download qoota" monthly overage fees == $193/year over 13 years
Oh okay. Well now that I understand what you were trying to say, I can respond:
>>>Spore, Crysis and Bioshock are all free, but got all kinds of bad press because some illegitimately-sold non-free copies included patented DRM software. >>>
Spore, Crysis and Bioshock were not illegitimately sold. The Supreme Law of the land grants to them a temporary right to develop, copy, and sell these products for profit. While you may not like the copy-protection, it is their right to protect their Constitutionally-granted exclusivity.
>>>Being a guest speaker does not give you any kind of immunity. It is ludicrous to demand that -
(writes in notebook). "Okay Mr. Madcow, your next exam is an automatic 25% reduction. Even if you get all the questions right, the best you'll get is a C. If you don't like it you can drop out and I'll give you a "W" on your transcript, even though technically you deserve a "WF" because you're currently failing this class."
"Welcome to the Real World. I've treated you far better than your future bosses will. They would have fired you by now."
>>>They are just kids. It only seems problematic when you think of them as adults. 21 is adult in a legal sense only.
No not 21. It's 18. Which means every freshman who enters a U.S. college is a legal adult. The universities even emphasize that saying, "We treat you like adults, including adult consequences (jail) if you get out of line."
Even 18 is too old in my opinion. I think when you become a teenager (13 ideally; high school freshman at the latest) you should start thinking of yourself as an adult. Yes you're inexperienced, but it's still time to stop throwing temper tantrums when you don't get your way (like those college kids shouting down the guest speaker), and start acting like a rational, wall-mannered human being.
>>>>>I would liken it to a competing radio station blasting it's signal and many times your wattage in your space.
>>The problem with drowning out somebody's radio signal isn't freedom of speech, it's a spectrum regulation issue, though.
Actually the original Supreme Court case DID use the freedom of speech argument. They said a radio spectrum where everyone was allowed to broadcast whenever they felt like it, would be equivalent to a room where everyone is shouting at the same time and nothing productive happens. Therefore just as it's sometimes necessary to moderate a room and take turns speaking, the courts decided it was necessary for the FCC to moderate the radio spectrum to keep it organized.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>If a company is able to screw me, it's because I trusted someone I should not have trusted. That is my fault,
So if Comcast suddenly turns-off your TV or net access, even though you've already paid for this month, you really truly believe that's your own fault? Riiiight. Sure. Yep. Whatever you say pal. I call such actions "theft" or "scamming" whether it's they guy on the street who sold you a Ralex watch or a magacorporation.
>>>it's not computing in the cloud as much as rental of desktop applications.
Shush. You are bringing "negative energy" to our cloud computing cult. We don't want logic here.
>>>We can pay to upgrade the servers and pay again to upgrade the client, hey that looks like a perfect plan in somebody's eyes.
Accountants.
>>>I'm not [online everywhere] because I don't have $719.40 per year plus tax for a MiFi gateway.
I'm glad you brought that up. People claim buying a terminal/thin client will be cheaper than buying a whole PC, but that's simply not true. You end-up spending MORE money on annual software rental, plus enhanced online connectivity, than if you simply bought the stuff. Renting is always more expensive than owning. This cloud computing idea makes about as much sense as RIAA's proposals that we rent MP3 downloads instead of owning them. Or the way carmakers push leasing cars instead of buying them. This idea is just a way to make more money which is why the Megacorporations are pushing it so hard.
>>>But now you're online everywhere
No I'm not. At home I have a PC online, but that's only upstairs, not downstairs or in the basement. When I visit my brother I'm not online. When I'm at the mall I'm not online. ----- So we're right back to what I said before: "Having the software on our own machines freed us to work anytime" even if we're not online.
>>>"Please stop posting to /."
Frak off Censor.
2002 Honda Insight. I routinely get 80 MPG but have had it as high as 100 MPG by driving slow (50mph).
>>"Please stop posting to /."
Frak off Censor.
>>>How else would you explain the 2 month time period that elapsed before a decision was made?
Simple. They were hoping they could get-away with deleting the books, just like my local Comcast was hoping they could get-away with removing TCM from their lineup, even though they did not give the 2 month notice required by the FCC. After the FCC and then the local television station came-down on comcast like a ton of bricks, they offered to give any dissatisfied customer two months free.
Same with amazon - When it became clear that negative press was affecting their bottom line, they decided to return the books two months later. If the press had been silent, then amazon would have stayed with their original decision, and customers would have nothing.
Mega-corporations prefer to operate in the dark, because they can get away with stuff.
It is only when the light of publicity shines in those dark corners, and the truth revealed, that these corporations do the right thing, but in my opinion that's too late. It's like a thief getting caught and saying, "Oh I'll just return the money to the bank." That doesn't make it right.
>>>e rant about examining only 1,176 people for the study - in which case the same kind of tv viewer statistics
Yes but those TV stats are produced by carefully selecting the homes to reflect each city's ethnic makeup (at least that's true with Nielsen in the States). In contrast the 1176 people were an uncontrolled survey of people who *volunteered* to take the poll, and therefore represents... essentially nothing. It's unscientific.
>>>I contacted the supplier of the software for that website and asked about this problem and they essentially sloughed it off and said they were not going to support anything but IE, Safari and FF.
>>>
And that's why Opera renders nothing. You can fix that by right-clicking on that site (or any site) and chooosing Edit_Sit_Preferences --> Network --> Mask as Firefox. (Or IE) Problem solved.
Perhaps Indiana and the other midwest states could declare the law "nullified" due to unconstitutionality. Just because Congress passes a requirement that Midwest plants tax carbon does not mean the states have to enforce it - I can not lay my hand on any part of the Supreme Law which gives Congress that power.
On the contrary it seems quite clear that the power is reserved to the states exclusively.
>>>a filter was not 100% effective
Actually most filters and catalysts are extremely effective. On cars they reduce the CO, NOx, and HC to just 1/25,000th the pollution of a 1970 pre-catalyst car. Those located on coal plants, being millions of dollars more expensive and advanced than your car's filter/catalyst, probably get it down to 1 millionth as much.
Or 99.999% effective. You get more radiation gardening than you do from a coal plant.
WELL AS I SAID (but you apparently didn't bother to read): "this is one step towards that goal". You can not get to the second floor of your house in one leap - you have to take one step at a time. Today 50% solar/50% coal. Next decade 75% solar/25% coal. The decade after that 95% solar/5% coal power plants. Same applies to cars which are 10% electric/90% gasoline hybrids today, but eventually will be 95% electric with maybe a small gasoline generator for long-distance. But I guess shouldn't expect an environmentalist to understand that simple "transitional" principle. They are too busy pushing-over radio towers and then bragging about it - http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/04/washington.towers.terrorism/ I tried to make a reasonable statement, but all I got was a slap across the face. You will not win your cause by pissing-off other environmentalists who are on your side.
I drive an 80mpg hybrid, light my house with 25 watt or lower bulbs, and turn-off the heat in the winter to help reduce my carbon footprint - and then some shitheads named the "Earth Liberation Front" go do this. These earth-worshiping religious wackos harm the cause; they don't help it. I'd like to set fire to every one of their offices, and see how they enjoy having millions of dollars of personal property destroyed.
And if they really believe the AM radio waves are interfering with cellphones (impossible) or intercoms (probably but they are second-class devices anyway), then petition the FCC. That's why that organization exists.
Do you even know what you're talking about? Alpha particles are weak. Even if you swallowed uranium, the alpha particles couldn't pass through the cell walls to cause any damage to the DNA. You can play with alpha particles all day long and not even so much as a skin rash.
Perhaps if you had been talking about beta or gamma particles, then your post would have been "informative" but as it stands now it's just... to quote Penn & Teller... "bullshit"
Also: Don't coal plants have mandatory filters to remove all the soot from their exhaust? Yes. What comes-out is basically just water vapor - they are cleaner than your home's personal natural-gas heater (which foolishly has no filtering).
So?
Embracing a technology that is 50% solar-powered is still better than 0% solar power. Also many people forget that coal and oil ARE solar power - it's the sunlight that fell on our planet ~300 million years ago, and now exists in condensed form. Our challenge is not to stop using ancient sunlight completely, but to use today's sunlight. Converting plants to partial-solar is one step towards that goal.
>>> 1. educate users
That is why you fail. Most people can barely multiple 12 * 12 or write a coherent letter, and you want them to learn the intricacies of an electronic machine? It. Won't. Work. You might as well ask them to fix their own cars, which is impossible since most people can't even change the oil.
>>>it works out to about 83 cents a mile I'd rather ride in one of these. 240mpg == just over 1 cent per mile. Or maybe a revival of the Lupo 3L which got 88 mpg on the highway, or 3-and-a-half cents per mile. LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo_3L
>>>asinine software EULAs which not only state the standard fact that you don't really own anything despite having paid for it, but also state that the vendor has no liability no matter what happens, not even when the software fails to perform as advertised (I think they call it "suitability for purpose" and expressly disclaim it).
>>>
The only reasonable response when a company screws you, is to screw them back.
i.e. If MS Vista cost you $200, and it refused to operate on your 1/2 gig machine even though it was advertised to work, then don't get mad. Get back your $200 or the equivalent. Steal Windows 7. "Revenge is a dish best served cold."
>>>(aka "terminal" in 70s [and also 80s] technology)
This is the man reason why I'm against cloud computing. I remember having to do college work via the central computer, and you could only do it with a terminal, which meant you had to be online. It was a major hassle. Having the software on our OWN machines freed us to work anytime, anywhere without needing a connection. Cloud computing strikes me as a step backwards to a darker time.
>>>What does the cost of bandwidth have to do with anything? It doesn't get any cheaper whether you run it with a $1500 PC or a $100 thin client
>>>
Here's the math spanning a range from 1998 (when I got my first IBM PC) to 2010 when I'll probably upgrade to a new MS Office: $400 Win98 PC (this is what I spent) + $400 for newer XP-PC + $100 for Microsoft Office 97 used until the end of 2010 + $0 for online since you don't need online to write a letter or do a spreadsheet == $70/year over 13 years
- $100 thin client bought in 98 (aka "terminal" in 70s technology) + $100 thin client with newer P4-CPU + $100 thin client with newer DualCore CPU (required upgrade else you get blocked, as was the case when I tried Microsoft's online services) + $50 rent for online office software + $10 "you exceeded your download qoota" monthly overage fees == $193/year over 13 years
I prefer to stick with my current plan.
Oh okay. Well now that I understand what you were trying to say, I can respond:
>>>Spore, Crysis and Bioshock are all free, but got all kinds of bad press because some illegitimately-sold non-free copies included patented DRM software.
>>>
Spore, Crysis and Bioshock were not illegitimately sold. The Supreme Law of the land grants to them a temporary right to develop, copy, and sell these products for profit. While you may not like the copy-protection, it is their right to protect their Constitutionally-granted exclusivity.
>>>Being a guest speaker does not give you any kind of immunity. It is ludicrous to demand that -
(writes in notebook). "Okay Mr. Madcow, your next exam is an automatic 25% reduction. Even if you get all the questions right, the best you'll get is a C. If you don't like it you can drop out and I'll give you a "W" on your transcript, even though technically you deserve a "WF" because you're currently failing this class."
"Welcome to the Real World. I've treated you far better than your future bosses will. They would have fired you by now."
>>>They are just kids. It only seems problematic when you think of them as adults. 21 is adult in a legal sense only.
No not 21. It's 18. Which means every freshman who enters a U.S. college is a legal adult. The universities even emphasize that saying, "We treat you like adults, including adult consequences (jail) if you get out of line."
Even 18 is too old in my opinion. I think when you become a teenager (13 ideally; high school freshman at the latest) you should start thinking of yourself as an adult. Yes you're inexperienced, but it's still time to stop throwing temper tantrums when you don't get your way (like those college kids shouting down the guest speaker), and start acting like a rational, wall-mannered human being.
>>>>>I would liken it to a competing radio station blasting it's signal and many times your wattage in your space.
>>The problem with drowning out somebody's radio signal isn't freedom of speech, it's a spectrum regulation issue, though.
Actually the original Supreme Court case DID use the freedom of speech argument. They said a radio spectrum where everyone was allowed to broadcast whenever they felt like it, would be equivalent to a room where everyone is shouting at the same time and nothing productive happens. Therefore just as it's sometimes necessary to moderate a room and take turns speaking, the courts decided it was necessary for the FCC to moderate the radio spectrum to keep it organized.