Raster reprojection is done all the time in GIS, so this would be nothing new. Google Earth has plenty of georferenced old maps available as overlays, and I've made a few myself. Yes, some distortion would be introduced by the camera (as opposed to scanning), but since the projections may be arbitrary or off anyway, all this gets corrected at the same time.
It is true that you have to have some common points to current georeferenced maps in order to do this, of course. But there should be enough, and if not, then at least you are not introducing new errors.
You can do this either in the closed source ArcGIS georeferencing tools, or using open source GRASS (http://grass.osgeo.org/wiki/Georeferencing)
Or maybe it's the other way around: Wife Annoyance Factor (I forget).
I think it's mainly a MythTV mailing list acronym.
Basically, stuff that us geeks put up with without a second thought (e.g. just ssh into the box from the other computer and run alsamixer to change the volume - how hard is that?) but would annoy the hell out of a nontechnical user (e.g. one's wife) definitely lowers the WAF.
Just a wild stab: were you looking at boxee.tv as a website to view videos like hulu.com (since you compare it to hulu)? That's not what it is. It is an application you load onto your computer (like hulu desktop for example).
Hulu (the website) is a video streaming website, so it doesn't make sense to compare it to the boxee.tv website.
Gad. I hated the Saabarus and what GM did.
The quote in this story, "(SAAB) wasn't designed to be a fashion statement, it was designed to provide transportation under miserable weather conditions." tells the story of when Saab was at its best.
That's kind of an ironic statement in my opinion since (as a subaru driver for 22 years in a very snowy part of the northeast US), I would say "subaru wasn't designed to be a fashion statement, it was designed to provide transportation under miserable weather conditions."
I remember reading that what Rupert Murdoch actually wants is headlines to be trawled as currently done, but for actual news items to be paid for. He wants Google to check the story for relevance but not display it; Just a link to the place where you pay for / subscribe to the article.
um... That's the way it works now. Google indexes the site, displays the article title if it matches, and maybe at most a sentence or two for context. It doesn't "display it [the story]". For sites behind a paywall (WSJ, for example) you do indeed get a link that just leads you to a sign-in or pay-up page. So if what you describe is indeed what Murdoch wants, he already has it.
What you are saying (in your first paragraph) is technically true, but is orthogonal to the Google issue. It seems like most people (not necessarily you, I don't know) who talk about "Google stealing news stories for free" never go to google news. Google new *does not re-display news stories*! All Google news does is present a bunch of links to stories, together with about one or two sentences so you get the gist of the story. To read the news, you have to go to the *actual web site* of the newspaper (or whatever).
If the newspaper can make money by selling web ads or whatever, it still gets that revenue, so Google doesn't affect it one way or another, except perhaps *increase* the newspaper's ad revenue by sending searchers to their web page.
The question still remains, however, is whether people drop their newspaper subscriptions because they can read it on line for free at the newspaper's website. But again, that is separate from what google news does.
What really is killing the newspaper business is not loss of subscriptions, but rather loss of classified ads that have all gone to craigslist.
I still have one running linux off its 16 MB flash drive (yes, the whole operating system and applications, including netscape, is in there). I use it to run an MP3 player from KDE 1.0 (kmp3 I think it's called). It's a nice no-moving-parts/silent streaming music player (using a USB network adapter) to sit on top of my stereo.
"And the 600MW means nothing of how much electricity the turbine will produce over the year."
Of course it means nothing over a year, since MW is a rate unit, i.e. a unit of energy per time.
To be fair, I believe what you were trying to say is that it will not always be producing electricity at a rate of 600MW. To find out what the true average rate, you assume the wind speeds follow a weibull distribution, and you integrate over time assuming that distribution.
How can you sit there with a stright face (I assume you have a straight face) and say this is a government takeover of the internet?
All this is saying is that your ISP, which you have practically no choice of who it is (at best a choice between one DSL and one cable TV Co.) can't decide which websites you can visit at the full bandwidth you paid for.
Let me assume you are a republican and like to visit foxnews.com. What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors, including foxnews.com, so much it became almost unusable. Would that be OK in your book?
The ISPs should not have the power to decide what web sites and net services you can reasonably visit/use. If there were true competition in the ISP market, then maybe so. But that is not the case, and probably will never be the case. That is why we need net neutrality regulations.
I've been in the environmental remediation field for over 20 years. I'm somewhat tired of hearing of talk about "new technologies" to clean up waste. Despite the marketing hype, there really isn't much "new" that can be done, based on the basic physics/chemistry/biology, although improvements can and have been made.
Basically, if you have organic contamination, you can either destroy it by oxidation or reduction, remove it and put it somewhere else (preferrably in a more concentrated/lower volume form) or isolate it so nobody can be exposed to it.
For inorganic contamination, it's pretty much the same options, except the "destroy" part is fairly limited since metals are elments (but you can do things like changing hexavalent chromium to less toxic trivalent chromium for instance).
That's it.
Now, of course, there have been improvements in the destruction technologies, better ways to oxidize organics than simply burning them, for example. Chemical oxidation has come a long way, but it's still just oxidation. Reduction has seen great strides in anaerobic bacterial growth promotion, and the one truly new approach over the 20 years - zero valent iron to reduce chlorinated ethenes. And thermal technologies have been getting better and better in the "remove the stuff from the ground" category.
But these are all just improvements to the basic categories that have already been identified. And the basic challenge remains that for any of these to work (other than isolation), you have to get whatever magic dust you have in contact with the contaminants or it does nothing - that is almost always the toughest part.
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of innovation going on and to be done to improve these technologies, and they are being used more and more, and successfully I might add, in site cleanups. But thinking in terms of waiting for "advances in technology would make it feasible to clean up said billions of tons of contamination" just isn't considering the basic science.
Some days I wish I were in the semiconductor business. There, it truly seems that advances in technology are almost magic. Not so in environmental remediation.
I don't know. Last time I was in Mtn. View, I had to pay for my WiFi. This is on the main street (Castro St.?), at the starbucks there. I don't know who/where these people are that always have a free WiFi signal available.
IMAP clients have had the ability to thread e-mail conversations since the 1990s. I used to do this with Netscape IMAP client.
Fastmail.fm is an IMAP provider, so you can just use a threaded reader for their service.
I have been using fastmail for many years now and highly highly recommend them. When I found these guys, it was like a dream come true. As Jeremy said in the interview, it is a service that allows you to use e-mail the way you want to. Not just provide the 20% thought to be useful.
I originally just wanted an IMAP service and was using thunderbird, but I eventually switched to just their web interface because it was great (I hate just about all other web e-mail interfaces). But it is true that their web interface doesn't thread e-mails.
Because it sucked. I remember living in the S.F. bay area during the 1980s and there actually was some radio station then that had a billboard annoucing "no Rock of the 80s".
Oh sure, there's alsways some godo music being made at any given time (among the big acts, some good stuff from U2 and Dire Staits), but overall, the 80s didn't produce too much that was too memorable.
Someone may say but that was when Michael Jackson made it big. But I consider that a supporting piece of evidence to my thesis.
Slashdot Mirror
Raster reprojection is done all the time in GIS, so this would be nothing new. Google Earth has plenty of georferenced old maps available as overlays, and I've made a few myself. Yes, some distortion would be introduced by the camera (as opposed to scanning), but since the projections may be arbitrary or off anyway, all this gets corrected at the same time.
It is true that you have to have some common points to current georeferenced maps in order to do this, of course. But there should be enough, and if not, then at least you are not introducing new errors.
You can do this either in the closed source ArcGIS georeferencing tools, or using open source GRASS (http://grass.osgeo.org/wiki/Georeferencing)
Well, fortunately for you, nobody here in the US is proposing government-run hospitalization, except for veterans.
Those sites are so busy nobody goes there anymore.
See my comment above http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1507704&cid=30752620
Wife Acceptance Factor.
Or maybe it's the other way around: Wife Annoyance Factor (I forget).
I think it's mainly a MythTV mailing list acronym.
Basically, stuff that us geeks put up with without a second thought (e.g. just ssh into the box from the other computer and run alsamixer to change the volume - how hard is that?) but would annoy the hell out of a nontechnical user (e.g. one's wife) definitely lowers the WAF.
Just a wild stab: were you looking at boxee.tv as a website to view videos like hulu.com (since you compare it to hulu)? That's not what it is. It is an application you load onto your computer (like hulu desktop for example).
Hulu (the website) is a video streaming website, so it doesn't make sense to compare it to the boxee.tv website.
Which part of http://boxee.tv/download/?ver=source isn't open source?
http://dl.boxee.tv/boxee-0.9.20.10263-source.tar.bz2
http://dl.boxee.tv/flashlib-shared-6684.tar.gz
Gad. I hated the Saabarus and what GM did. The quote in this story, "(SAAB) wasn't designed to be a fashion statement, it was designed to provide transportation under miserable weather conditions." tells the story of when Saab was at its best.
That's kind of an ironic statement in my opinion since (as a subaru driver for 22 years in a very snowy part of the northeast US), I would say "subaru wasn't designed to be a fashion statement, it was designed to provide transportation under miserable weather conditions."
Sigh...
Gratis vs. Libre
Look it up.
um... That's the way it works now. Google indexes the site, displays the article title if it matches, and maybe at most a sentence or two for context. It doesn't "display it [the story]". For sites behind a paywall (WSJ, for example) you do indeed get a link that just leads you to a sign-in or pay-up page. So if what you describe is indeed what Murdoch wants, he already has it.
What you are saying (in your first paragraph) is technically true, but is orthogonal to the Google issue. It seems like most people (not necessarily you, I don't know) who talk about "Google stealing news stories for free" never go to google news. Google new *does not re-display news stories*! All Google news does is present a bunch of links to stories, together with about one or two sentences so you get the gist of the story. To read the news, you have to go to the *actual web site* of the newspaper (or whatever).
If the newspaper can make money by selling web ads or whatever, it still gets that revenue, so Google doesn't affect it one way or another, except perhaps *increase* the newspaper's ad revenue by sending searchers to their web page.
The question still remains, however, is whether people drop their newspaper subscriptions because they can read it on line for free at the newspaper's website. But again, that is separate from what google news does.
What really is killing the newspaper business is not loss of subscriptions, but rather loss of classified ads that have all gone to craigslist.
My browsers ask me. Maybe you don't use IE or Firefox?
What I was thinking, too.
Remember this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Opener
I still have one running linux off its 16 MB flash drive (yes, the whole operating system and applications, including netscape, is in there). I use it to run an MP3 player from KDE 1.0 (kmp3 I think it's called). It's a nice no-moving-parts/silent streaming music player (using a USB network adapter) to sit on top of my stereo.
If you are interested in "that democracy stuff", you'd know that all treaties have to be ratified by Congress before they take effect.
"And the 600MW means nothing of how much electricity the turbine will produce over the year."
Of course it means nothing over a year, since MW is a rate unit, i.e. a unit of energy per time.
To be fair, I believe what you were trying to say is that it will not always be producing electricity at a rate of 600MW. To find out what the true average rate, you assume the wind speeds follow a weibull distribution, and you integrate over time assuming that distribution.
On line calculator: http://www.reuk.co.uk/Calculate-kWh-Generated-by-Wind-Turbine.htm
Not according to the Kubuntu page. And Kubuntu is just Ubuntu with KDE.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KarmicUpgrades/Kubuntu/8.04
Says you upgrade directly from 8.04
Windows 2000 was actually 5.0
XP was 5.1
That would be very funny if it werent' so true.
How can you sit there with a stright face (I assume you have a straight face) and say this is a government takeover of the internet?
All this is saying is that your ISP, which you have practically no choice of who it is (at best a choice between one DSL and one cable TV Co.) can't decide which websites you can visit at the full bandwidth you paid for.
Let me assume you are a republican and like to visit foxnews.com. What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors, including foxnews.com, so much it became almost unusable. Would that be OK in your book?
The ISPs should not have the power to decide what web sites and net services you can reasonably visit/use. If there were true competition in the ISP market, then maybe so. But that is not the case, and probably will never be the case. That is why we need net neutrality regulations.
It's not a "good idea". It's a "been there, done that".
Obligatory wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_Winds
Although it it true that those turbines are not on the most contaminated portions of the old Bethlehem steel.
I've been in the environmental remediation field for over 20 years. I'm somewhat tired of hearing of talk about "new technologies" to clean up waste. Despite the marketing hype, there really isn't much "new" that can be done, based on the basic physics/chemistry/biology, although improvements can and have been made.
Basically, if you have organic contamination, you can either destroy it by oxidation or reduction, remove it and put it somewhere else (preferrably in a more concentrated/lower volume form) or isolate it so nobody can be exposed to it.
For inorganic contamination, it's pretty much the same options, except the "destroy" part is fairly limited since metals are elments (but you can do things like changing hexavalent chromium to less toxic trivalent chromium for instance).
That's it.
Now, of course, there have been improvements in the destruction technologies, better ways to oxidize organics than simply burning them, for example. Chemical oxidation has come a long way, but it's still just oxidation. Reduction has seen great strides in anaerobic bacterial growth promotion, and the one truly new approach over the 20 years - zero valent iron to reduce chlorinated ethenes. And thermal technologies have been getting better and better in the "remove the stuff from the ground" category.
But these are all just improvements to the basic categories that have already been identified. And the basic challenge remains that for any of these to work (other than isolation), you have to get whatever magic dust you have in contact with the contaminants or it does nothing - that is almost always the toughest part.
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of innovation going on and to be done to improve these technologies, and they are being used more and more, and successfully I might add, in site cleanups. But thinking in terms of waiting for "advances in technology would make it feasible to clean up said billions of tons of contamination" just isn't considering the basic science.
Some days I wish I were in the semiconductor business. There, it truly seems that advances in technology are almost magic. Not so in environmental remediation.
Yeah. Isn't that how Worldcom went down? They booked their costs under "investments", when they were supposed to be "costs".
I don't know. Last time I was in Mtn. View, I had to pay for my WiFi. This is on the main street (Castro St.?), at the starbucks there. I don't know who/where these people are that always have a free WiFi signal available.
IMAP clients have had the ability to thread e-mail conversations since the 1990s. I used to do this with Netscape IMAP client.
Fastmail.fm is an IMAP provider, so you can just use a threaded reader for their service.
I have been using fastmail for many years now and highly highly recommend them. When I found these guys, it was like a dream come true. As Jeremy said in the interview, it is a service that allows you to use e-mail the way you want to. Not just provide the 20% thought to be useful.
I originally just wanted an IMAP service and was using thunderbird, but I eventually switched to just their web interface because it was great (I hate just about all other web e-mail interfaces). But it is true that their web interface doesn't thread e-mails.
"Why aren't teens listening to 80's music now?"
Because it sucked. I remember living in the S.F. bay area during the 1980s and there actually was some radio station then that had a billboard annoucing "no Rock of the 80s".
Oh sure, there's alsways some godo music being made at any given time (among the big acts, some good stuff from U2 and Dire Staits), but overall, the 80s didn't produce too much that was too memorable.
Someone may say but that was when Michael Jackson made it big. But I consider that a supporting piece of evidence to my thesis.