I've always held that you can have as much living space as you want, just make sure to build it prudently.
Build a majority of your house underground, and you can do nearly ALL of your heating and cooling via solar + geothermal heat pump.
Build your house as a 1/2 underground monolithic dome, and you can do ALL of your heating, cooling, and electrical via solar + geothermal heat pump.
Collect your water from rain water, purify it, and than pump it out through a septic system. Feel free to pour out all the waste into the environment, as long as you use 100% biodegradable cleaners/chemicals (buy from us! www.biogenesis.com)
In short, you don't have to cut your standard of living; just build prudently, and somewhat against the grain.
I don't have the money to do this yet, but my parents will be moving into such a house in the near future, and as soon as I can afford it I will, too. Incidentally, I live in a well insulated ~800 ft^2 apartment, and my electrical/gas combined is about $50-60 a month.
Just cause Man can't catch giant squid doesn't mean that we can't study it, or that other mammals aren't studying it.
Colossal and Giant squid form a majority of the diet of adult sperm whales, which have a population of around 200,000. Ergo, there must be quite a few giant/colossal squid out there, and given that we're talking about 1-2 caught per _year_ for research, it's not a big deal. Perhaps we'll learn something from these carcassas that will actually enable us to grow them in captivity, or to enhance their survivability in the wild.
"Many Sperm whales carry scars on their backs believed to be caused by the hooks of Colossal Squid. Colossal Squid are a major prey item for Antarctic sperm whales feeding in the Southern Ocean; 14% of the squid beaks found in the stomachs of these sperm whales are those of the Colossal Squid, which indicates that Colossal Squid make up 77% of the biomass consumed by these whales.[2] Many other animals also feed on this squid, including the beaked whales (such as the bottlenose whales), Pilot Whale, Southern Elephant Seal, Patagonian toothfish, Pacific sleeper shark, and albatross (e.g., the Wandering and Sooty albatrosses). However, beaks from mature adults have only been recovered from those animals large enough to take such prey (i.e., the sperm whale and Pacific sleeper shark), while the remaining predators are limited to eating juveniles or young adults."
We're talking about a couple specimens a year, while every time we've found a sperm whale carcass, or have caught a sperm whale, it's been determined that their primary prey is squid.
I'm worried about the whale population, but I'm not too worried about squid hunting. I am more worried about habitat destruction, but until we learn more about the animal we won't even know what its habitat is.
That's because you are misusing the term "socialism".
Maybe the definition should be modernized, but traditionally, and academically, socialism means, "This control may be either direct--exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils--or it may be indirect--exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often associated with state, community or worker ownership of the means of production.
The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Of course, the article then goes on to discuss how that definition has grown softer in recent years.
Let's see what wikipedia says about Finland: "Despite the hindrance caused by an influential neighbouring country, Finland eventually became one of the most globalised nations in the world. After the Second World War, the growth rate of the GDP was high compared to other Europe, and Finland was often called "Japan of the north". In the beginning of the 1970's, Finland's GDP reached the level of Japan and the UK.
For decades now, Finland has had a highly industrialised, largely free-market economy "
Let's see what wikipedia says about Iceland: " The centre-right government plans to continue its policies of reducing the budget and current account deficits, limiting foreign borrowing, containing inflation, revising agricultural and fishing policies, diversifying the economy, and privatising state-owned industries. The government remains opposed to EU membership, primarily because of Icelanders' concern about losing control over their fishing resources."
Let's see about New Zealand: " Since 1984, successive governments have engaged in major macroeconomic restructuring, transforming New Zealand from a highly protectionist and regulated economy to a liberalised free-trade economy. Pursuant to this policy, during the late 1980s and early 1990s the New Zealand Government sold a number of former government-owned enterprises including its telecommunications company, railway network, a number of radio stations, and two financial institutions."
Denmark, with a rank of 4, is the first country on the list which is NOT moving towards economic liberalization, and which does is NOT defined, economically, by being "market oriented". Rather, Denmark's economy is governed by extensive trade unions, which have a close relationship to the government; not unlike Japan's system, where corporations (whom truly value their employees) have a close relationship with the government. This might qualify as informal socialism; but I would argue that is does NOT represent a strong central government.
Singapore? Market-oriented. And a strict dictatorship.
Sweden? Market-oriented.
Switzerland? Market-based.
Shall I go on?
I continue to hold my position that strong, centralized government is a bad idea. And I'll argue that what you are calling socialist really isn't; the non-corrupt countries you point at are at best diet socialism, and really are closer to representing responsible capitalism.
Just because the U.S. policy makers call themselves the idols of capitalism doesn't mean it's true. The U.S. economic system demonstrates serious tendancies towards cronyism, and the issue is far more complicated that merely saying "More Government=Good, Less Government=Bad."
And on that note, I hate socialized medicine. I've watched my European relatives sicken and die under socialized medicine, not receiving proper care because the system was overburdened and slow. The American system is becoming more
There have been a series of socialist governments which, indeed, did everything in their power to fight "corruption".
Here's a short list: 1. The Taliban. 2. Kim Jong-Il land, ahem, I mean North Korea. 3. Cambodia's Khmer Rouge 4. Mao's China, in the beginning. 5. Soviet Russia, under Stalin's purges. 6. Saudi Arabia, which remains a feudal state. No need for bribes; the rich already run the place. And they fight really, really hard to keep those corrupt Woman and the Plebs out of the government. 7. Cuba. Fidel is crazy enough to really believe in his vision. Bribes don't work with those people that have a god complex.
It's not hard to find a socialist government that truly tries to fight corruption. All you have to do is find a dictatorship run by a "true" believer; generally, the telltale signs include a river of blood in their wake.
These people aren't interested in corruption, and although, since they generally have a warped view point, they find it difficult to "fight" corruption, they actually do try to eliminate marketering and corrupt bureaucrats.
Unfortunately, their definition of corrupt generally includes things like Jews, Homosexuals, Rich People, Educated People, People who try to Exercise Free Speech, and Anything that Goes Against The State Karma.
AFAIK, locality oversight is in _trade_ for easy (and city-wide) grants of Rights-Of-Way to run lines.
AFAIK, if a company wanted to negotiate with landowners individually to build its own network, it could.
Granting Right-Of-Way, and stealing my land for telecom usage is government intervention in the market. Once you have government intervention, responsible oversight is a necessary condition.
I have no problem if Comcast wants to setup an all private system. Just they should understand that if they are going to run lines across my land, they damn well better pay me for the privilege, and I'm not going to settle for a song and a couple of shiny beads.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander; and if corporations are getting rights over MY property without MY permission, I fully expect them to be controlled regarding those rights by my local elected representative. We aren't strictly talking about a private entity here; we are speaking about a semi-public entity which literally relies upon public property. Without those rights-of-way, telecoms would not exist in the same form they do today.
Those lines ostensibly belong to the teleco company, but exist by the good graces of the LOCAL governments. That land was taken from the local community for the greater good.
There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with local communities regulating what goes over essentially public property. In fact, I'd rather have localities controlling that then the federal government.
If AT&T wants to build a fancy new network without dealing with localities, all they have to do is secure their own rights of way from property owners. Build an entirely private network, and you don't have to deal with the local government.
But forcibly releasing locality control over public property to giant telecom companies? That's fascism.
Given that public access channels generally include the ONLY coverage of local politics, I really think that's a small price to pay.
Consider; across the ENTIRE US, that's $750 million. That's really not a large chunk of change to insure that _each_ and _every_ small community has broadcasting of it's internal politics. All of the other stuff, PBS, etc. . . are freebies.
Power should be devolved as much as possible. If it's responsible for landowners to manage their own property in some aspects, they should. Things that need to be managed by localities should be. Things that need to be managed by the states should be, and up until the federal government.
Efficiency is not the goal here; and besides, the Soviet Union demonstrated that continuous centralization != efficiency. And please don't hold up AT&T's Project Lightspeed as an example of the wired future. AT&T's Project Lightspeed makes the U.S.S.R. look efficient.
I find it atrocious that companies shouldn't have to pay something for essentially "free" right of way access to lines. Cable companies are required to carry certain community channels, are a forced to negotiate with the local governments in terms of what sorts of service they are required to provide.
If they don't want to deal with local governments, they can simply negotiate with every individual land owner for line-stringing rights, or they can go wireless.
If my local community is going to be forcible taking land from landowners for telecom companies, those telecom companies better follow the landowner's rules, which are represent by the local governments.
I'm sorry you live in a small town with little choice, but at my location I've got a fair number of choices; I can go with the 2 satellite companies, or 3 cable companies. The 3 cable companies ALL have franchise rights with the accompanying requirements; I get local Chicago public television, and I get state channels, which includes all kinds of political goodies.
This is not about the FCC allowing good old fashioned competition. This is about AT&T taking my land away. Either buy it from me, or put up with my town's laws/requirements. But don't try and spin this as a free market thing; having the federal government take away land rights from landowners in the name of the world's largest telecom company is most _certainly_ not a free market position.
Nope, that is actual, Telco-installed phone wire (it says electrical wire on the pic but it's actually telephone wire). If you ever go to Buenos Aires and look up, you'll see that all over the country. There aren't that many cable pirates heh.
I'm too lazy to go take a picture, it's 4 blocks away from here, but I could show you a good ol' fashioned wooden telephone pole (one of the few remaining) with almost 100 lines coming out of it in every direction. It's so weird it's like a monument or something.
Actually the telco replaced those poles about 10 years ago, with surface boxes bolted to people's walls, and multipair cables going underground to somewhere (never had the luck to see where those cables go underground, because they go way inside the block and come out I don't know where, and come out at little white closets every few blocks (where I assume they go through more heavier multipair wires). I think those "mega-poles" remain in service because it's too complicated to rewire that many houses. I can take a picture of the cable lines behind my apartment.
My block consists of 3-5 unit apartment buildings in two rows, centering on an alley, with maybe 10 buildings per side.
Each _unit_ has its own feed running from a central bundle of cables in the middle of the alley, there are three cable providers, and two telephone providers.
It's like a bloody mesh up there. It's ugly as sin.
Thank god we've got alleys; but that stuff should be underground.
For years, we (tin hat specialists?) have been yelling that tying your games to DirectX = being swallowed by the MS behemoth. MS described DirectX as a (superior) API to existing technologies.
Now, finally, I feel vindicated. "Games for Windows" games will get all kinds of features that won't work on non-"Games for Windows" games.
Hopefully, this will be make OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL, etc. . . look even better (as they've been rapidly improving of late) in comparison to the DirectX suite of APIs.
" Open With: [Program Name Here] Use this application to open all documents like this. [Change All Button] "
What part of "Use this application to open all documents like this" could be clearer? It's obviously not working correctly, because other documents like _this one_ are NOT opening up in the application that I specified for ALL such documents.
The behavior is broken; there's nothing wrong with the default behavior being application specified, but if I specify something, particularly with a control that says, "Change All", it damn well better change all.
Huh? 1, 2, and 3 are Finder ssues. 2, 3, and in particular minor issue 3 are finder threading issues. 4 is also a Finder issue; or does Finder not handle MIME types. 1. No write access on remote FTP sites. That's pretty ugly. KDE/Gnome/Explorer can all do this, why not Finder? On OS X, default, to upload files to an FTP site you have to use the Terminal; and the way finder works it makes it look like a permissions issue rather than an inbuilt limitation. 2. Nasty locking on loss of network shares. This can render your laptop unusable unless you are careful to eject all network shares each and every time you suspend. Loss of network connectivity should not cripple your desktop. KDE/Gnome/Explorer get around this by using multiple instances; a particular Konqueror window might freeze, but you don't loose everything. 3. Locking issues on copying large numbers of files. This can slow Finder down to a crawl, even though everything else is perfectly responsive. Minor Issues: 1. Copying a Folder to a directory with a Folder of the same name results in the existing contents of that Folder being overwritten, rather than the merged contents of the two Folders. This makes it annoying to move around large trees of files, if you like to "sync" things manually. 2. No Packet CD-RW support. It's _really_ nice to have re-writable CDRWs that work like large floppy disks. Makes life easier. Not essential, though. More worrying is Finder's inability to not finalize a CD; sometimes I like to have multisession disks. 3. Serious performance issues with using Spotlight in Finder Windows. I've got a Dual G5 2.7 Ghz, and a MacBook Pro. Why is Spotlight on these Finder windows so slow? Why do I have to type one character at a time, and then wait for the search? Why do I have to wait 5 seconds to backspace over my typos? It's not like I'm running the bottom of the barrel configurations here. 4. Flaky MIME type recognition. No matter how many times I try to force ALL pdfs to open on Preview, I keep finding pdfs that open on Acrobat. Acrobat takes so long to open, so I really want that to be my secondary option; but no, it doesn't work like that.
Well, there are a series of serious problems with Finder.
Serious Issues: 1. No write access on remote FTP sites. That's pretty ugly. KDE/Gnome/Explorer can all do this, why not Finder? On OS X, default, to upload files to an FTP site you have to use the Terminal; and the way finder works it makes it look like a permissions issue rather than an inbuilt limitation. 2. Nasty locking on loss of network shares. This can render your laptop unusable unless you are careful to eject all network shares each and every time you suspend. Loss of network connectivity should not cripple your desktop. KDE/Gnome/Explorer get around this by using multiple instances; a particular Konqueror window might freeze, but you don't loose everything. 3. Locking issues on copying large numbers of files. This can slow Finder down to a crawl, even though everything else is perfectly responsive. Minor Issues: 1. Copying a Folder to a directory with a Folder of the same name results in the existing contents of that Folder being overwritten, rather than the merged contents of the two Folders. This makes it annoying to move around large trees of files, if you like to "sync" things manually. 2. No Packet CD-RW support. It's _really_ nice to have re-writable CDRWs that work like large floppy disks. Makes life easier. Not essential, though. More worrying is Finder's inability to not finalize a CD; sometimes I like to have multisession disks. 3. Serious performance issues with using Spotlight in Finder Windows. I've got a Dual G5 2.7 Ghz, and a MacBook Pro. Why is Spotlight on these Finder windows so slow? Why do I have to type one character at a time, and then wait for the search? Why do I have to wait 5 seconds to backspace over my typos? It's not like I'm running the bottom of the barrel configurations here. 4. Flaky MIME type recognition. No matter how many times I try to force ALL pdfs to open on Preview, I keep finding pdfs that open on Acrobat. Acrobat takes so long to open, so I really want that to be my secondary option; but no, it doesn't work like that.
For the most part, these issues aren't that severe, and (except for the FTP issue) only affect power users like me. Most people don't know (or ceonceptualize) multisessions CDs, and most people don't use network shares that IT doesn't setup for you. Still, it's very annoying that these issues have persisted through 4 iterations of OS X, and I'd much rather see someone work these out then a new version of Aqua.
Finder is stagnating, and it really is pretty crappy compared to some of the alternatives out there. KDE's Konqueror, with KIO-Slaves is _vastly_ superior.
It does use the Apple menu bar. The only issue is that some of the dialogue boxes are still OpenOffice.org dialogues, not OS X style. I believe this is mainly an issue when you print.
Other than that, just about everything else is OS X style, proper menus, proper backgrounds, etc. . .
NeoOffice 2.0 is much further along towards Aqua that 1.0
A) 720p->1080p B) 720p->480p C) 1080p->1080i D) 1080p->720p
Basically, what I want to know is if I get a PS3 for my HDTV capable of 1080i/720p/480p, will it convert 1080p to either 1080i or 720p, or will I be stuck with 480p?
This is a brand new set, with HDMI and evertything, just no 1080p. I'll be quite miffed if the PS3 can't output properly to it.
I'm sitting in from of my 62" LCD (sadly, 720p only). I'm flipping back and forth between Starz and Starz-HD, as they are simulcasting Chronicles of Narnia. There's a vast difference.
It helps that I have good vision (I don't wear/need glasses); but even my friends, girlfriends, etc . . . notice the difference.
We were watching Grey's anatomy in HD the other day, and one of my friends who knows nothing about HD or electronics in general noted that, "Your TV is so big that I can see all the pimples and stuff in their faces. Grey isn't 1/2 as sexy as I thought she was."
As I flip back and forth between Narnia HD and no-HD, I notice: A) The wood grains, which I can't see in normal resolution. B) The wrinkles in skin and fabric. C) The details in water ripples and carpet patterns. D) Fine hairs rising from woolen sweaters. E) The grainy texture of snow, rather than white stuff on the ground.
Actor's faces look more realistic. Detail doesn't fade into the background. It's a huge difference.
This is seated ~8 feet from the TV.
I don't have a 1080p capable set, but there's a huge difference in 720p and 480i for me, and for everyone I've tested on, without telling them whether they are currently watching HD or non-HD content.
objective sources seem to be saying there is no reason to move to either blu-ray or HD-DVD since most people can't see any difference.
I've never met _anyone_ who couldn't see a significant difference between 1080i or 720p and 480i/p.
The difference isn't just minor; it's striking. Unless you have seriously impaired vision, it's very, very, very easy to see the difference, and it really is a lot better.
Your full of crap if you think that these objective sources exist; because to make such a claim means that either a)You've never seen decent HDTV, or b) Your trying to be deceptive.
Things that strike me as "real" innovations in the computing sector:
1. Pre-emptive multitasking. Pre-emptive multitasking literally changed the way people (both groups and individuals) operated a computer. 2. Postscript printers and IP based printing. No longer fooling with printer drivers, and direct application -> printer output. 3. USB. USB single handedly saved us from a plethora of proprietary and non-standard ports. 4. Open source development/distribution. Buying software one piece at a time is fundamentally different from having all software avaliable for you at any given time, with the right to modify it. 5. The "web". The WWW changed the way averaged people banked, payed their bills, shopped, et cetera. This isn't just polishing, it was a fundamental revolution in computer usage. The "killer app" for networking, if you will. 6. P2P content distribution. The "killer app" for broadband networking. Keep in mind that P2P (Bittorrent, et al) comprises the majority of internet traffic these days. High throughput peer to peer, worldwide networking is fundamentally different than the traditional client-server model. 7. Virtual Machines. Run anywhere software (Microsoft perversions notwithstanding) changes the whole ball game when it comes to future-proofing your software. Java, in particular, but not limited to Java (in someways, I'd put Flash into this category).
That's some general "innovations" I can think of. Microsoft is not related to any of these.
I'm sure one could come up with hundred of others, but not a one could be attributed to MS.
PreacherTom writes "Once upon a time, the now-eponymous portable derived its name from the small sections (deemed "cells") into which a city was divided in order to keep voice calls smooth and uninterrupted. Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones, while Wi-Fi and WiMax use ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth. Both make the "cellular" moniker obsolete. Is it time for a new name, or is a rose by any other name still as sweet?"
Right.....
'cause even though I'm a nerd, and I hang out with nerds, and I would guess that my experience is biased _towards_ people who use mobile's for data, the _vast_ majority of my usage, and my friend's usage, is for voice.
I only two people with unlimited data plans, and one of them is me!
Just because data has become a mobile "app" that is just now leaving the realm of total nerds != data is the king of mobile applications. Voice, by a large margin, is the largest usage of mobile bandwidth, and will continue to be for the forseeable future.
IBM doesn't have anything to "win" by going after SCO, except it's reputation. The countersuits will never, ever generate any cash.
On the other hand, an IBM countersuit against Microsoft could potentially result in _billions_ of dollars of revenue, given that Microsoft literaly has _billions_ of dollars in liquid assets.
Make no mistake. Microsoft infringes on thousands, possibly tens of thousands of IBM patents. IBM is, by far, the big dog when it comes to patents.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always held that you can have as much living space as you want, just make sure to build it prudently.
Build a majority of your house underground, and you can do nearly ALL of your heating and cooling via solar + geothermal heat pump.
Build your house as a 1/2 underground monolithic dome, and you can do ALL of your heating, cooling, and electrical via solar + geothermal heat pump.
Collect your water from rain water, purify it, and than pump it out through a septic system. Feel free to pour out all the waste into the environment, as long as you use 100% biodegradable cleaners/chemicals (buy from us! www.biogenesis.com)
In short, you don't have to cut your standard of living; just build prudently, and somewhat against the grain.
I don't have the money to do this yet, but my parents will be moving into such a house in the near future, and as soon as I can afford it I will, too. Incidentally, I live in a well insulated ~800 ft^2 apartment, and my electrical/gas combined is about $50-60 a month.
It's not rare.
Just cause Man can't catch giant squid doesn't mean that we can't study it, or that other mammals aren't studying it.
Colossal and Giant squid form a majority of the diet of adult sperm whales, which have a population of around 200,000. Ergo, there must be quite a few giant/colossal squid out there, and given that we're talking about 1-2 caught per _year_ for research, it's not a big deal. Perhaps we'll learn something from these carcassas that will actually enable us to grow them in captivity, or to enhance their survivability in the wild.
"Many Sperm whales carry scars on their backs believed to be caused by the hooks of Colossal Squid. Colossal Squid are a major prey item for Antarctic sperm whales feeding in the Southern Ocean; 14% of the squid beaks found in the stomachs of these sperm whales are those of the Colossal Squid, which indicates that Colossal Squid make up 77% of the biomass consumed by these whales.[2] Many other animals also feed on this squid, including the beaked whales (such as the bottlenose whales), Pilot Whale, Southern Elephant Seal, Patagonian toothfish, Pacific sleeper shark, and albatross (e.g., the Wandering and Sooty albatrosses). However, beaks from mature adults have only been recovered from those animals large enough to take such prey (i.e., the sperm whale and Pacific sleeper shark), while the remaining predators are limited to eating juveniles or young adults."
We're talking about a couple specimens a year, while every time we've found a sperm whale carcass, or have caught a sperm whale, it's been determined that their primary prey is squid.
I'm worried about the whale population, but I'm not too worried about squid hunting. I am more worried about habitat destruction, but until we learn more about the animal we won't even know what its habitat is.
That's because you are misusing the term "socialism".
Maybe the definition should be modernized, but traditionally, and academically, socialism means,
"This control may be either direct--exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils--or it may be indirect--exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often associated with state, community or worker ownership of the means of production.
The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Of course, the article then goes on to discuss how that definition has grown softer in recent years.
Let's see what wikipedia says about Finland:
"Despite the hindrance caused by an influential neighbouring country, Finland eventually became one of the most globalised nations in the world. After the Second World War, the growth rate of the GDP was high compared to other Europe, and Finland was often called "Japan of the north". In the beginning of the 1970's, Finland's GDP reached the level of Japan and the UK.
For decades now, Finland has had a highly industrialised, largely free-market economy "
Let's see what wikipedia says about Iceland:
"
The centre-right government plans to continue its policies of reducing the budget and current account deficits, limiting foreign borrowing, containing inflation, revising agricultural and fishing policies, diversifying the economy, and privatising state-owned industries. The government remains opposed to EU membership, primarily because of Icelanders' concern about losing control over their fishing resources."
Let's see about New Zealand:
"
Since 1984, successive governments have engaged in major macroeconomic restructuring, transforming New Zealand from a highly protectionist and regulated economy to a liberalised free-trade economy. Pursuant to this policy, during the late 1980s and early 1990s the New Zealand Government sold a number of former government-owned enterprises including its telecommunications company, railway network, a number of radio stations, and two financial institutions."
Denmark, with a rank of 4, is the first country on the list which is NOT moving towards economic liberalization, and which does is NOT defined, economically, by being "market oriented". Rather, Denmark's economy is governed by extensive trade unions, which have a close relationship to the government; not unlike Japan's system, where corporations (whom truly value their employees) have a close relationship with the government. This might qualify as informal socialism; but I would argue that is does NOT represent a strong central government.
Singapore? Market-oriented. And a strict dictatorship.
Sweden? Market-oriented.
Switzerland? Market-based.
Shall I go on?
I continue to hold my position that strong, centralized government is a bad idea. And I'll argue that what you are calling socialist really isn't; the non-corrupt countries you point at are at best diet socialism, and really are closer to representing responsible capitalism.
Just because the U.S. policy makers call themselves the idols of capitalism doesn't mean it's true. The U.S. economic system demonstrates serious tendancies towards cronyism, and the issue is far more complicated that merely saying "More Government=Good, Less Government=Bad."
And on that note, I hate socialized medicine. I've watched my European relatives sicken and die under socialized medicine, not receiving proper care because the system was overburdened and slow. The American system is becoming more
How do you issue Right-of-Way for stringing lines without franchise laws?
Do you let all companies string as much wire as they want everwhere?
That's not always true.
There have been a series of socialist governments which, indeed, did everything in their power to fight "corruption".
Here's a short list:
1. The Taliban.
2. Kim Jong-Il land, ahem, I mean North Korea.
3. Cambodia's Khmer Rouge
4. Mao's China, in the beginning.
5. Soviet Russia, under Stalin's purges.
6. Saudi Arabia, which remains a feudal state. No need for bribes; the rich already run the place. And they fight really, really hard to keep those corrupt Woman and the Plebs out of the government.
7. Cuba. Fidel is crazy enough to really believe in his vision. Bribes don't work with those people that have a god complex.
It's not hard to find a socialist government that truly tries to fight corruption. All you have to do is find a dictatorship run by a "true" believer; generally, the telltale signs include a river of blood in their wake.
These people aren't interested in corruption, and although, since they generally have a warped view point, they find it difficult to "fight" corruption, they actually do try to eliminate marketering and corrupt bureaucrats.
Unfortunately, their definition of corrupt generally includes things like Jews, Homosexuals, Rich People, Educated People, People who try to Exercise Free Speech, and Anything that Goes Against The State Karma.
No, No, No, No.
AFAIK, locality oversight is in _trade_ for easy (and city-wide) grants of Rights-Of-Way to run lines.
AFAIK, if a company wanted to negotiate with landowners individually to build its own network, it could.
Granting Right-Of-Way, and stealing my land for telecom usage is government intervention in the market. Once you have government intervention, responsible oversight is a necessary condition.
I have no problem if Comcast wants to setup an all private system. Just they should understand that if they are going to run lines across my land, they damn well better pay me for the privilege, and I'm not going to settle for a song and a couple of shiny beads.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander; and if corporations are getting rights over MY property without MY permission, I fully expect them to be controlled regarding those rights by my local elected representative. We aren't strictly talking about a private entity here; we are speaking about a semi-public entity which literally relies upon public property. Without those rights-of-way, telecoms would not exist in the same form they do today.
I give EVERYONE in the world permission to infringe copyrights. Go Forth, and Infringe!
.AU?
Does that mean I'm now in line for extradition to
Thanks,
WhiteWolf666
River west, and I've got WOW, Comcast, and RCN.
RCN is currently in the middle of a franchise dispute with the City, in terms of not rolling out far enough.
The city is forcing them to rollout to more of the city; and they would not be able to do this without the franchise agreements.
That's BS.
Those lines ostensibly belong to the teleco company, but exist by the good graces of the LOCAL governments. That land was taken from the local community for the greater good.
There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with local communities regulating what goes over essentially public property. In fact, I'd rather have localities controlling that then the federal government.
If AT&T wants to build a fancy new network without dealing with localities, all they have to do is secure their own rights of way from property owners. Build an entirely private network, and you don't have to deal with the local government.
But forcibly releasing locality control over public property to giant telecom companies? That's fascism.
$15 million dollars a year for your state?
Holy smokes, batman!
Given that public access channels generally include the ONLY coverage of local politics, I really think that's a small price to pay.
Consider; across the ENTIRE US, that's $750 million. That's really not a large chunk of change to insure that _each_ and _every_ small community has broadcasting of it's internal politics. All of the other stuff, PBS, etc. . . are freebies.
Power should be devolved as much as possible. If it's responsible for landowners to manage their own property in some aspects, they should. Things that need to be managed by localities should be. Things that need to be managed by the states should be, and up until the federal government.
Efficiency is not the goal here; and besides, the Soviet Union demonstrated that continuous centralization != efficiency. And please don't hold up AT&T's Project Lightspeed as an example of the wired future. AT&T's Project Lightspeed makes the U.S.S.R. look efficient.
Nonsense. You sound like a shill.
I find it atrocious that companies shouldn't have to pay something for essentially "free" right of way access to lines. Cable companies are required to carry certain community channels, are a forced to negotiate with the local governments in terms of what sorts of service they are required to provide.
If they don't want to deal with local governments, they can simply negotiate with every individual land owner for line-stringing rights, or they can go wireless.
If my local community is going to be forcible taking land from landowners for telecom companies, those telecom companies better follow the landowner's rules, which are represent by the local governments.
I'm sorry you live in a small town with little choice, but at my location I've got a fair number of choices; I can go with the 2 satellite companies, or 3 cable companies. The 3 cable companies ALL have franchise rights with the accompanying requirements; I get local Chicago public television, and I get state channels, which includes all kinds of political goodies.
This is not about the FCC allowing good old fashioned competition. This is about AT&T taking my land away. Either buy it from me, or put up with my town's laws/requirements. But don't try and spin this as a free market thing; having the federal government take away land rights from landowners in the name of the world's largest telecom company is most _certainly_ not a free market position.
I'm too lazy to go take a picture, it's 4 blocks away from here, but I could show you a good ol' fashioned wooden telephone pole (one of the few remaining) with almost 100 lines coming out of it in every direction. It's so weird it's like a monument or something.
Actually the telco replaced those poles about 10 years ago, with surface boxes bolted to people's walls, and multipair cables going underground to somewhere (never had the luck to see where those cables go underground, because they go way inside the block and come out I don't know where, and come out at little white closets every few blocks (where I assume they go through more heavier multipair wires). I think those "mega-poles" remain in service because it's too complicated to rewire that many houses. I can take a picture of the cable lines behind my apartment.
My block consists of 3-5 unit apartment buildings in two rows, centering on an alley, with maybe 10 buildings per side.
Each _unit_ has its own feed running from a central bundle of cables in the middle of the alley, there are three cable providers, and two telephone providers.
It's like a bloody mesh up there. It's ugly as sin.
Thank god we've got alleys; but that stuff should be underground.
That's my point; its NOT being changed.
I cannot set my PDFs to be opened by Preview, even though I vastly prefer preview to Adobe Acrobat for reading PDFs.
For years, we (tin hat specialists?) have been yelling that tying your games to DirectX = being swallowed by the MS behemoth. MS described DirectX as a (superior) API to existing technologies.
Now, finally, I feel vindicated. "Games for Windows" games will get all kinds of features that won't work on non-"Games for Windows" games.
Hopefully, this will be make OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL, etc. . . look even better (as they've been rapidly improving of late) in comparison to the DirectX suite of APIs.
That's _really_ goofy.
Here's what it says in "Get Info":
"
Open With:
[Program Name Here]
Use this application to open all documents like this.
[Change All Button]
"
What part of "Use this application to open all documents like this" could be clearer? It's obviously not working correctly, because other documents like _this one_ are NOT opening up in the application that I specified for ALL such documents.
The behavior is broken; there's nothing wrong with the default behavior being application specified, but if I specify something, particularly with a control that says, "Change All", it damn well better change all.
Huh?
1, 2, and 3 are Finder ssues. 2, 3, and in particular minor issue 3 are finder threading issues. 4 is also a Finder issue; or does Finder not handle MIME types.
1. No write access on remote FTP sites. That's pretty ugly. KDE/Gnome/Explorer can all do this, why not Finder? On OS X, default, to upload files to an FTP site you have to use the Terminal; and the way finder works it makes it look like a permissions issue rather than an inbuilt limitation.
2. Nasty locking on loss of network shares. This can render your laptop unusable unless you are careful to eject all network shares each and every time you suspend. Loss of network connectivity should not cripple your desktop. KDE/Gnome/Explorer get around this by using multiple instances; a particular Konqueror window might freeze, but you don't loose everything.
3. Locking issues on copying large numbers of files. This can slow Finder down to a crawl, even though everything else is perfectly responsive.
Minor Issues:
1. Copying a Folder to a directory with a Folder of the same name results in the existing contents of that Folder being overwritten, rather than the merged contents of the two Folders. This makes it annoying to move around large trees of files, if you like to "sync" things manually.
2. No Packet CD-RW support. It's _really_ nice to have re-writable CDRWs that work like large floppy disks. Makes life easier. Not essential, though. More worrying is Finder's inability to not finalize a CD; sometimes I like to have multisession disks.
3. Serious performance issues with using Spotlight in Finder Windows. I've got a Dual G5 2.7 Ghz, and a MacBook Pro. Why is Spotlight on these Finder windows so slow? Why do I have to type one character at a time, and then wait for the search? Why do I have to wait 5 seconds to backspace over my typos? It's not like I'm running the bottom of the barrel configurations here.
4. Flaky MIME type recognition. No matter how many times I try to force ALL pdfs to open on Preview, I keep finding pdfs that open on Acrobat. Acrobat takes so long to open, so I really want that to be my secondary option; but no, it doesn't work like that.
Try it. Writing files doesn't work.
FTP in Finder uses the OS X volume mounting system, and Darwin doesn't support write access to FTP mounts.
Well, there are a series of serious problems with Finder.
Serious Issues:
1. No write access on remote FTP sites. That's pretty ugly. KDE/Gnome/Explorer can all do this, why not Finder? On OS X, default, to upload files to an FTP site you have to use the Terminal; and the way finder works it makes it look like a permissions issue rather than an inbuilt limitation.
2. Nasty locking on loss of network shares. This can render your laptop unusable unless you are careful to eject all network shares each and every time you suspend. Loss of network connectivity should not cripple your desktop. KDE/Gnome/Explorer get around this by using multiple instances; a particular Konqueror window might freeze, but you don't loose everything.
3. Locking issues on copying large numbers of files. This can slow Finder down to a crawl, even though everything else is perfectly responsive.
Minor Issues:
1. Copying a Folder to a directory with a Folder of the same name results in the existing contents of that Folder being overwritten, rather than the merged contents of the two Folders. This makes it annoying to move around large trees of files, if you like to "sync" things manually.
2. No Packet CD-RW support. It's _really_ nice to have re-writable CDRWs that work like large floppy disks. Makes life easier. Not essential, though. More worrying is Finder's inability to not finalize a CD; sometimes I like to have multisession disks.
3. Serious performance issues with using Spotlight in Finder Windows. I've got a Dual G5 2.7 Ghz, and a MacBook Pro. Why is Spotlight on these Finder windows so slow? Why do I have to type one character at a time, and then wait for the search? Why do I have to wait 5 seconds to backspace over my typos? It's not like I'm running the bottom of the barrel configurations here.
4. Flaky MIME type recognition. No matter how many times I try to force ALL pdfs to open on Preview, I keep finding pdfs that open on Acrobat. Acrobat takes so long to open, so I really want that to be my secondary option; but no, it doesn't work like that.
For the most part, these issues aren't that severe, and (except for the FTP issue) only affect power users like me. Most people don't know (or ceonceptualize) multisessions CDs, and most people don't use network shares that IT doesn't setup for you. Still, it's very annoying that these issues have persisted through 4 iterations of OS X, and I'd much rather see someone work these out then a new version of Aqua.
Finder is stagnating, and it really is pretty crappy compared to some of the alternatives out there. KDE's Konqueror, with KIO-Slaves is _vastly_ superior.
Hmm?
It does use the Apple menu bar. The only issue is that some of the dialogue boxes are still OpenOffice.org dialogues, not OS X style. I believe this is mainly an issue when you print.
Other than that, just about everything else is OS X style, proper menus, proper backgrounds, etc. . .
NeoOffice 2.0 is much further along towards Aqua that 1.0
I'm very, very confused.
Let me see if I get it:
The PS3 _can_ do the following conversions:
A) 720p->1080p
B) 720p->480p
C) 1080p->1080i
D) 1080p->720p
Basically, what I want to know is if I get a PS3 for my HDTV capable of 1080i/720p/480p, will it convert 1080p to either 1080i or 720p, or will I be stuck with 480p?
This is a brand new set, with HDMI and evertything, just no 1080p. I'll be quite miffed if the PS3 can't output properly to it.
There's a huge difference.
I'm sitting in from of my 62" LCD (sadly, 720p only). I'm flipping back and forth between Starz and Starz-HD, as they are simulcasting Chronicles of Narnia. There's a vast difference.
It helps that I have good vision (I don't wear/need glasses); but even my friends, girlfriends, etc . . . notice the difference.
We were watching Grey's anatomy in HD the other day, and one of my friends who knows nothing about HD or electronics in general noted that, "Your TV is so big that I can see all the pimples and stuff in their faces. Grey isn't 1/2 as sexy as I thought she was."
As I flip back and forth between Narnia HD and no-HD, I notice:
A) The wood grains, which I can't see in normal resolution.
B) The wrinkles in skin and fabric.
C) The details in water ripples and carpet patterns.
D) Fine hairs rising from woolen sweaters.
E) The grainy texture of snow, rather than white stuff on the ground.
Actor's faces look more realistic. Detail doesn't fade into the background. It's a huge difference.
This is seated ~8 feet from the TV.
I don't have a 1080p capable set, but there's a huge difference in 720p and 480i for me, and for everyone I've tested on, without telling them whether they are currently watching HD or non-HD content.
objective sources seem to be saying there is no reason to move to either blu-ray or HD-DVD since most people can't see any difference.
I've never met _anyone_ who couldn't see a significant difference between 1080i or 720p and 480i/p.
The difference isn't just minor; it's striking. Unless you have seriously impaired vision, it's very, very, very easy to see the difference, and it really is a lot better.
Your full of crap if you think that these objective sources exist; because to make such a claim means that either a)You've never seen decent HDTV, or b) Your trying to be deceptive.
Things that strike me as "real" innovations in the computing sector:
1. Pre-emptive multitasking. Pre-emptive multitasking literally changed the way people (both groups and individuals) operated a computer.
2. Postscript printers and IP based printing. No longer fooling with printer drivers, and direct application -> printer output.
3. USB. USB single handedly saved us from a plethora of proprietary and non-standard ports.
4. Open source development/distribution. Buying software one piece at a time is fundamentally different from having all software avaliable for you at any given time, with the right to modify it.
5. The "web". The WWW changed the way averaged people banked, payed their bills, shopped, et cetera. This isn't just polishing, it was a fundamental revolution in computer usage. The "killer app" for networking, if you will.
6. P2P content distribution. The "killer app" for broadband networking. Keep in mind that P2P (Bittorrent, et al) comprises the majority of internet traffic these days. High throughput peer to peer, worldwide networking is fundamentally different than the traditional client-server model.
7. Virtual Machines. Run anywhere software (Microsoft perversions notwithstanding) changes the whole ball game when it comes to future-proofing your software. Java, in particular, but not limited to Java (in someways, I'd put Flash into this category).
That's some general "innovations" I can think of. Microsoft is not related to any of these.
I'm sure one could come up with hundred of others, but not a one could be attributed to MS.
PreacherTom writes "Once upon a time, the now-eponymous portable derived its name from the small sections (deemed "cells") into which a city was divided in order to keep voice calls smooth and uninterrupted. Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones, while Wi-Fi and WiMax use ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth. Both make the "cellular" moniker obsolete. Is it time for a new name, or is a rose by any other name still as sweet?"
Right.....
'cause even though I'm a nerd, and I hang out with nerds, and I would guess that my experience is biased _towards_ people who use mobile's for data, the _vast_ majority of my usage, and my friend's usage, is for voice.
I only two people with unlimited data plans, and one of them is me!
Just because data has become a mobile "app" that is just now leaving the realm of total nerds != data is the king of mobile applications. Voice, by a large margin, is the largest usage of mobile bandwidth, and will continue to be for the forseeable future.
You have it backwards.
IBM doesn't have anything to "win" by going after SCO, except it's reputation. The countersuits will never, ever generate any cash.
On the other hand, an IBM countersuit against Microsoft could potentially result in _billions_ of dollars of revenue, given that Microsoft literaly has _billions_ of dollars in liquid assets.
Make no mistake. Microsoft infringes on thousands, possibly tens of thousands of IBM patents. IBM is, by far, the big dog when it comes to patents.