What? Picking and choosing your examples = having an opinion. Resources aren't infinite, therefore examples must be picked and that will occur according to the decision making authority's perspective and opinion. Using political, legal, or other resources as a tool to oppress the expression of opinions=censorship.
Google does many things better then other people. Now they're a huge company, but that doesn't mean they must be evil. I can't say that this patent means much except that their covering their rears. If they hold the patent, its unlikely anyone can file a similar one and drag them into a big lawsuit. It's not how ridiculous your patent is. It's how you use it.
That must be a tough situation to be going through. I don't know you personally, but from your web page it's clear that you're more than just a curiosity, you are a person. I admire how you openly present the facts of your case, while still showing your other interests. Good luck with your book and other projects. I don't know anything about what faith you may have, but I pray that those with authority in your case would soon arrive at sound and accurate conclusions about your condition and that you are surrounded by the people who are attracted to you because of your personality.
The parent is correct. I've worked internationally, and very few problems can simply be solved by providing material possessions to those without them. You can donate a tractor to a village and even provide them training in how to use it, but chances are it will never see even a portion of its potential. Even the most trivial of maintenance tasks for us can become incredibly compounded and complicated out there even if they have enough of a fundamental grasp of how to perform the maintenance. Where do I get oil? What happens the first time it needs an "inexpensive" $200 part from the USA or Europe?
The most successful programs that bring change to an area focus more on teaching people how to fully take advantage of the resources already at their disposal. A singular technology or resource can be brought in and taught if its fundamentally simple (like a hand water pump; forget electric) or how to make and use soap with the materials around them. Believe me, some of those tasks are already arduous.
This project is incredibly useful though, just not for the natives or computer illiterate. Target groups would be the international companies or organizations who set up bases in country and need and know how to take full advantage of the internet as a resource.
While this is partially true, there is one significant difference. You don't have to pay MORE to call a cell phone than you would to call a land line. In Europe, you don't pay for incoming calls to your mobile phone, but it costs SIGNIFICANTLY more to call a mobile phone than another land line. I always have to explain the different systems to those who don't travel between the USA and europe much.
True, I would never want to provide work giving someone other than the author credit, but whether the patch submitter in question is truly a "dick" can be debated.
Hypothetical situation: Imagine you have a lot of legitimate users who need a patch. You haven't found a fix yourself or the development time is more extensive for you. You want to get a fix in the hands of the users as quickly as possible. You already know of a fix, but management would never go for it because it's from the enemies. The legitimate users may not be looking in these "prohibited" areas to find the fix on their own. Your part of the the support team for the game and the users should be able to go to you for a fix. A link is out of the question, so what can you do? Quickly disguise the fix and post it as though it's not from your enemies. Granted, your going to have to misdirect who will get the credit, but for you it is a small price to pay to support your customers. You release it under false credentials and cross your fingers. Maybe in a few weeks you'll have a more "official" fix to publish and hope no one is any the wiser. If the truth is discovered, 1) credit will go where it deserves, 2) publicity for where the original fix is, 3) Maybe a miracle of God will let you keep your job, but more likely you'll just get fired as an unsung hero who stole someone else's 'artwork' and were incredibly stupid to post it on a company website.
If this was released by someone in the company, this person is either very brave, miscalculated the odds of being discovered, actually trying to get credit for someone else's work, or insane to the point that they don't understand what their doing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there only 2 basic ways to end up on a Wikipedia page. 1) You searched for it. 2) You followed a link to it. If either of these are true, than you already want the information in the page. It may have been advertising that brought you there, but the viewer chose to check the information. Providing factual information (loosely speaking) is a primary function of a dictionary. (Printed dictionaries are also good for sitting on and hitting your little sister...)
This reduces the question of whether an article is advertising or not to a question of content. As I understand it, some people modify articles to make themselves/their company sound better than they really are or perhaps insert references to themselves in other more popular articles. It is frequently considered "poor form" to modify your own information in Wikipedia.
If you read the article, the blogger mentions that Wikipedia referals to his site make up a very small fraction of his traffic. I would argue that even if the referals weren't so few, web links to your website from a page about your web project are pertinent article information that people would want to know if they went through the effort of coming to a Wikipedia page about you/your product/etc.
While Wikipedia needs to be careful about content, when it comes to page existence, a web cartoonists opinion is just as valuable as anyone else's "unbiased" opinion. Someone was looking for information about them on wikipedia and they want them to be able to find it. Someone else might be equally as biased but want deletion for a variety of reasons (like someone who doesn't like the (subjectively) little guys being there).
The focus should be on content. Articles have to start somewhere, big projects had to start somewhere. The two sentence articles have been very useful to me when I've been looking for the information.
I wish I could agree, but this is far from being a good start. A good start would be to offer this feature on some of their best selling systems. I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that the XPS systems are not their top product lines.
To be a good start they would need to do something to indicate that they will offer this for all of their systems. They haven't done anything to convince me that they are starting on a path to go all the way. Instead they've chosen a product line where they hold a smaller percentage of the market share and are simply trying to make it more marketable to their target customer.
With that said, I'm glad their doing something, even if it's minimal and their motives are not directly derived from the concept of providing the best product possible for the customer.
There may be some connection, but it isn't necessarily directly TV.
From the article:
The Dragon King had lifted a ban on the small screen as part of a radical plan to modernise his country
From this I can pretty safely assume that a lot of changes were taking place in the country at the time. Any one of the changes occuring in the process of modernization may have influenced the perpetrators of the crimes. This was a relatively isolated town suddenly comming into more contact with the outside world. I suspect there were many more outsiders visiting the town than there had been in just the previous decade.
From the TV and possibly outside visitors, the inhabitants were suddenly bombarded with waves of new ideas, concepts, religions, and philosophies. This sudden contact often causes confusion and will lead to people changing their own habits and morals. Even if the change to the culture as a whole was only subtle, the changes likely had a significant effect on select individuals.
Violence on TV may have influenced them, but I suspect just the new ideas from all different cultures being broadcast into the community had a larger part. I won't claim to know what caused the crime spree, but my guess is it was some combination of "all of the above."
Lets hypothetically say I have a Quad-Processor P4 System running at 8GHz. Does that make Windows any better?
No, it doesn't make windows any better, but it DOES make your system better espescially if it's complimented by the right hardware/software to make use of those processors. I'm not judging the 360 as a whole, but it does seem to basically have the right hardware components to compliment 3 3.2GHz cores.
I'll admit to being only partially familar with Linux and how it works, but I've seen how the principle holds true for Windows systems. I've never upgraded a machine to another version of Windows OS. I always install the new OS on a fresh partition with the old OS and files safely backed up somewhere.
I know linux doesn't nearly have the same problems as windows though (which seems to need a fresh reinstall of the same OS once a year) but it appears some of the same principles hold true across the board.
Is there really some type of utopian OS where upgrades install perfectly as you want them too with minimal user intervention? (or one that theoretically could be?)
On the forum linked above, zeb_ makes a good point about this that should definately be noted.
"... the lawyers represent Shinano Kenshi, the company that writes Plextools (and Plextools Pro). They don't say they represent Plextor actually. The plaint does not come directly from Plextor. So maybe this matter could be discussed with Plextor itself."
Actually, if you read some of the other information available on the space elevator, a breakage anyewhere in the cable would liely not go splat at all. The space end of the cable will we be weighted end past geosynchronous orbit. The cable is in tension.
A break in the cable means that anything above the break point will slowly drift off into space. Depending on where a break were to occur, it might even be possible to retrieve the cable and repair the elevator. To reference the liftport site again, they have an FAQ on the matter: http://www.liftport.com/faq.php#science2
The cable below the break point would fall back to earth. If the break point was high enough,this might present potential problems, but it is most likely only the anchor station that would be in greatest danger. I imagine this wouldn't be any more risky than other space debri falling to earth like old space stations (mir).
From what I saw, the bigger issues to this have to do with international politics...
If you read the article, however, you'll note that the replacement isn't slated to be in operation until 2011. The real question is what should be done with the hubble in the mean time. Should we just go without a telescope for the next 6 years, or continue to pay expensive maintanence costs on the hubble?
A third option has been brought up though that at least warrants consideration. Is it possible to build an interim replacement for the hubble for less than the cost of maintaining it? I'm a little warry of this being an actuall possibility and still have it launched in reasonable period time to even serve an 'interim' purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
May be true, but then Slashdot is the right place for him.
What? Picking and choosing your examples = having an opinion. Resources aren't infinite, therefore examples must be picked and that will occur according to the decision making authority's perspective and opinion. Using political, legal, or other resources as a tool to oppress the expression of opinions=censorship.
Google does many things better then other people. Now they're a huge company, but that doesn't mean they must be evil. I can't say that this patent means much except that their covering their rears. If they hold the patent, its unlikely anyone can file a similar one and drag them into a big lawsuit.
It's not how ridiculous your patent is. It's how you use it.
Hi Maya,
That must be a tough situation to be going through. I don't know you personally, but from your web page it's clear that you're more than just a curiosity, you are a person. I admire how you openly present the facts of your case, while still showing your other interests. Good luck with your book and other projects.
I don't know anything about what faith you may have, but I pray that those with authority in your case would soon arrive at sound and accurate conclusions about your condition and that you are surrounded by the people who are attracted to you because of your personality.
David
The parent is correct. I've worked internationally, and very few problems can simply be solved by providing material possessions to those without them. You can donate a tractor to a village and even provide them training in how to use it, but chances are it will never see even a portion of its potential. Even the most trivial of maintenance tasks for us can become incredibly compounded and complicated out there even if they have enough of a fundamental grasp of how to perform the maintenance. Where do I get oil? What happens the first time it needs an "inexpensive" $200 part from the USA or Europe?
The most successful programs that bring change to an area focus more on teaching people how to fully take advantage of the resources already at their disposal. A singular technology or resource can be brought in and taught if its fundamentally simple (like a hand water pump; forget electric) or how to make and use soap with the materials around them. Believe me, some of those tasks are already arduous.
This project is incredibly useful though, just not for the natives or computer illiterate. Target groups would be the international companies or organizations who set up bases in country and need and know how to take full advantage of the internet as a resource.
...by the number of callers left alive at the end of the day.
While this is partially true, there is one significant difference. You don't have to pay MORE to call a cell phone than you would to call a land line. In Europe, you don't pay for incoming calls to your mobile phone, but it costs SIGNIFICANTLY more to call a mobile phone than another land line.
I always have to explain the different systems to those who don't travel between the USA and europe much.
True, I would never want to provide work giving someone other than the author credit, but whether the patch submitter in question is truly a "dick" can be debated.
Hypothetical situation:
Imagine you have a lot of legitimate users who need a patch. You haven't found a fix yourself or the development time is more extensive for you. You want to get a fix in the hands of the users as quickly as possible. You already know of a fix, but management would never go for it because it's from the enemies. The legitimate users may not be looking in these "prohibited" areas to find the fix on their own. Your part of the the support team for the game and the users should be able to go to you for a fix. A link is out of the question, so what can you do?
Quickly disguise the fix and post it as though it's not from your enemies. Granted, your going to have to misdirect who will get the credit, but for you it is a small price to pay to support your customers. You release it under false credentials and cross your fingers. Maybe in a few weeks you'll have a more "official" fix to publish and hope no one is any the wiser. If the truth is discovered,
1) credit will go where it deserves,
2) publicity for where the original fix is,
3) Maybe a miracle of God will let you keep your job, but more likely you'll just get fired as an unsung hero who stole someone else's 'artwork' and were incredibly stupid to post it on a company website.
If this was released by someone in the company, this person is either very brave, miscalculated the odds of being discovered, actually trying to get credit for someone else's work, or insane to the point that they don't understand what their doing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there only 2 basic ways to end up on a Wikipedia page. 1) You searched for it. 2) You followed a link to it. If either of these are true, than you already want the information in the page. It may have been advertising that brought you there, but the viewer chose to check the information. Providing factual information (loosely speaking) is a primary function of a dictionary. (Printed dictionaries are also good for sitting on and hitting your little sister...)
This reduces the question of whether an article is advertising or not to a question of content. As I understand it, some people modify articles to make themselves/their company sound better than they really are or perhaps insert references to themselves in other more popular articles. It is frequently considered "poor form" to modify your own information in Wikipedia.
If you read the article, the blogger mentions that Wikipedia referals to his site make up a very small fraction of his traffic. I would argue that even if the referals weren't so few, web links to your website from a page about your web project are pertinent article information that people would want to know if they went through the effort of coming to a Wikipedia page about you/your product/etc.
While Wikipedia needs to be careful about content, when it comes to page existence, a web cartoonists opinion is just as valuable as anyone else's "unbiased" opinion. Someone was looking for information about them on wikipedia and they want them to be able to find it. Someone else might be equally as biased but want deletion for a variety of reasons (like someone who doesn't like the (subjectively) little guys being there).
The focus should be on content. Articles have to start somewhere, big projects had to start somewhere. The two sentence articles have been very useful to me when I've been looking for the information.
I wish I could agree, but this is far from being a good start. A good start would be to offer this feature on some of their best selling systems. I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that the XPS systems are not their top product lines.
To be a good start they would need to do something to indicate that they will offer this for all of their systems. They haven't done anything to convince me that they are starting on a path to go all the way. Instead they've chosen a product line where they hold a smaller percentage of the market share and are simply trying to make it more marketable to their target customer.
With that said, I'm glad their doing something, even if it's minimal and their motives are not directly derived from the concept of providing the best product possible for the customer.
There may be some connection, but it isn't necessarily directly TV.
From the article:
From this I can pretty safely assume that a lot of changes were taking place in the country at the time. Any one of the changes occuring in the process of modernization may have influenced the perpetrators of the crimes. This was a relatively isolated town suddenly comming into more contact with the outside world. I suspect there were many more outsiders visiting the town than there had been in just the previous decade.
From the TV and possibly outside visitors, the inhabitants were suddenly bombarded with waves of new ideas, concepts, religions, and philosophies. This sudden contact often causes confusion and will lead to people changing their own habits and morals. Even if the change to the culture as a whole was only subtle, the changes likely had a significant effect on select individuals.
Violence on TV may have influenced them, but I suspect just the new ideas from all different cultures being broadcast into the community had a larger part. I won't claim to know what caused the crime spree, but my guess is it was some combination of "all of the above."
Whats cool about Wikipedia is that if you wanted it to mention something about Dr. Freeman's work at the University of Innsbruck, it could.
Wow, with 29 notes I bet it can play a few more chords than the 3 or 4 chords most of the bands out there only know.
I'll admit to being only partially familar with Linux and how it works, but I've seen how the principle holds true for Windows systems. I've never upgraded a machine to another version of Windows OS. I always install the new OS on a fresh partition with the old OS and files safely backed up somewhere.
I know linux doesn't nearly have the same problems as windows though (which seems to need a fresh reinstall of the same OS once a year) but it appears some of the same principles hold true across the board.
Is there really some type of utopian OS where upgrades install perfectly as you want them too with minimal user intervention? (or one that theoretically could be?)
Should probably say this also; zeb_ is one of the people who recieved the letter from the lawyer.
On the forum linked above, zeb_ makes a good point about this that should definately be noted.
"... the lawyers represent Shinano Kenshi, the company that writes Plextools (and Plextools Pro). They don't say they represent Plextor actually. The plaint does not come directly from Plextor. So maybe this matter could be discussed with Plextor itself."
Perhaps it needed to be said, but it seems to me like this post is a statement of the obvious.
I'm sure I'll be modded down for just posting my blunt thoughts in responst to the post.
Actually, if you read some of the other information available on the space elevator, a breakage anyewhere in the cable would liely not go splat at all. The space end of the cable will we be weighted end past geosynchronous orbit. The cable is in tension. A break in the cable means that anything above the break point will slowly drift off into space. Depending on where a break were to occur, it might even be possible to retrieve the cable and repair the elevator. To reference the liftport site again, they have an FAQ on the matter: http://www.liftport.com/faq.php#science2 The cable below the break point would fall back to earth. If the break point was high enough,this might present potential problems, but it is most likely only the anchor station that would be in greatest danger. I imagine this wouldn't be any more risky than other space debri falling to earth like old space stations (mir). From what I saw, the bigger issues to this have to do with international politics...
I believe there have been plans to replace the hubble for a long time in different forms, as can clearly be evidenced by this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/29/webb_mirro rs_begin/ article.
If you read the article, however, you'll note that the replacement isn't slated to be in operation until 2011. The real question is what should be done with the hubble in the mean time. Should we just go without a telescope for the next 6 years, or continue to pay expensive maintanence costs on the hubble?
A third option has been brought up though that at least warrants consideration. Is it possible to build an interim replacement for the hubble for less than the cost of maintaining it? I'm a little warry of this being an actuall possibility and still have it launched in reasonable period time to even serve an 'interim' purpose.