First, the cost to individuals that end up with viruses and malware is probably similar across platforms if experience/expertise level is considered. Idiots tend to do stupid things that cause them to get more viruses. Idiots tend to use Microsoft products because they don't know anything else. Microsoft looks bad comparatively to other platforms.
If you consider the number of viruses or malware problems experienced by MS users with technological proficiency along the lines of a typical Linux user, however, you would likely see that there are far fewer problems than a "typical" user would experience. Although there would indeed be an increase in malware over those using Linux, however it would not affect TCO nearly as much since these more proficient users would be more likely to identify and fix the issue before it became serious.
Second, in the case of large corporations or governments, they almost have to use Windows for a whole host of reasons: The limited technical proficiency of their employees, the need for consistency across a whole spectrum of systems, the need for third party support, etc. Obviously this becomes to a vicious cycle, but if that cycle were to ever be interrupted and a new business standard was adopted, that standard would likely have just as many problems with malware as Microsoft does now.
Overall, Iâ(TM)d have to say that, yes, Microsoftâ(TM)s TCO goes up comparably to other platforms because of issues with malware. You have to consider, though, that as people adopt other platforms, those other platforms have to deal with an increasing cost of malware, much as Apple is starting to experience with the growth of the Mac OS.
As far as art goes, there's art for everyone. There are extremely simple drawings in children's books and highly abstract pieces for the intellectuals among us, and everything in between. Because the market for art is so large, everyone can find SOMETHING that they like. Hopefully, with a broader audience, video games can achieve the same segmentation. The larger the audience as a whole, the larger the market for niche or fringe type games that wouldn't otherwise stand a chance.
My only fear is that this will further indoctrinate children that there should always be an easy button. As it is right now, too many kids quit when things get difficult, and this may end exacerbating that trend.
So how efficient is it to convert solar energy to microwave energy to electrical energy? It is unlikely that it is more efficient than converting solar directly to electrical, or we'd do it already. There must, therefore, be energy lost at both the satellite collecting solar energy and converting it to microwave, and then energy loss on the ground converting from microwave to electrical energy. The efficiency of conversion argument doesn't hold up.
The only real benefits that I've seen so far are collecting energy 24 hours a day regardless of weather conditions and usable land around the rectenna. These may be enough to make this cost efficient at this time, however I have reason to be skeptical.
What lesson did they learn from the Basel project if they maintain that it is uncertain whether or not the Basel project caused the earthquakes? You can't say "There was no problem, but we've learned from the problem."
Now I'm not advocating cyber-terrorism in any way, but how long will it be until someone turns all of these computers against the Chinese government?
Also, for conspiracy theorists out there, the North Koreans are planning a ballistic missile "test" shortly after the July 1st date. They have also forbidden foreign ships in their waters because of a naval "test." With the possibility that China is converting its entire nation into a botnet, this is slightly alarming. Could they be gearing up for war against the US?
It has to do with risk. If you are dealing with a reputable company, a 25 year warranty is almost a guarantee. The fact that they are issuing a warranty means that they are putting their assets, including their company name behind their product. This means that they must believe that a significant majority of their products will last for at least 25 years, if not considerably longer. If they are wrong, you get your money back, or at least new panels.
You're right, though, there is the possibility that they go out of business, but the likelihood of a well established company going out of business AND your warrantied product failing is probably less than the likelihood of a stock market downturn eating a significant portion of your investments.
Call it a hunch but I believe that at least some of these companies will still be in business after 25 years: Mitsubishi, Sanyo, GE, BP, Sharp.
If you're worried about your warranty, there viable companies to choose from that will likely still be around for at least as long as your warranty. It would seem that the risk in buying solar panels from one of these companies is relatively small when compared to some of the "investment vehicles" that are still being traded on the market today.
Nah, even if they didn't start immediately, they were a volunteer organization. If nobody wanted to volunteer to go look for them when there really weren't any hard facts indicating that someone was indeed missing, could you blame them? I wouldn't be surprised if there were incidents in the past where a hoax of a similar variety had taken place which had jaded the volunteer society towards helping people when there was no missing persons report.
The fact of the matter stands that he and his wife screwed up and nobody was there to save them from themselves. To sue others because of this is absurd.
I read as much of the essay as I could before I realized that the guy doesn't understand that his experience doesn't apply to everyone else. I understand where he's coming from because I tell the worst stories imaginable. I will go on talking about little, highly interesting details, until I realize that I'm the only one who finds them interesting. It took me a long time to realize that, just because I find it interesting, that doesn't mean that other people will.
To say that mathematics should be taught in the way that he likes the most is silly, at best. Most people will be able to pass through life with a rudimentary, at best, understanding of mathematics. Most jobs in this world do not require 90% of the theorems and principles that people are forced to learn through high school. I agree with the essay 100% on that point.
The key to math education, though, is not memorizing these principles, but rather learning how to solve problems. If someone can logically plan their way through a calculus problem, almost anything that they have to figure out at their job would be well within reason.
I never have understood the concept of math as an art, yet I enjoy math. I enjoy solving problems, enough so that I earned my BS in Mathematics, but this guy takes it to a whole new level. If not even all mathematicians think like he does, why does he expect that the general population will?
"I know some of my friends check the Google Voice page almost every day to see when they can grab a number and get started using it."
And I have friends who have never heard of Google Voice and completely lack the technical understanding to want to use it. I hate it when people use anecdotal evidence to suggest how great or grand something is going to be.
Most of my friends actually have just one phone (their cell) to their name anyway. While I see some of the features being semi-useful for a single-phone user, many require one to be at their computer, or at least have a smart phone, thus eliminating their usefulness in a large variety of circumstances.
It reminds me of attempts to control the invasive Purple Loosestrife flower here in the states. One of the earlier efforts to control it was with the use of the Small Engrailed moth. It turned out to be just as bad as it not only ate the Purple Loosestrife, but pretty much everything else. They now have a species of beetle that kills off the Purple Loosestrife without attacking other plants. Making this kind of mistake on a global scale rather than just in a local ecosystem, though, has the potential to be catastrophic to say the least.
In the short term, volcanic eruptions do indeed cool the earth, however, that effect is only temporary. In the long run, they actually help to warm the Earth because of the the CO2 that they release. They are actually cited as the reason that Earth was able to break out of/avoid becoming Snowball Earth.
According to my layman's understanding of climate change theory, the energy comes from the sun. What your car is doing is emitting CO2 which builds up in the atmosphere. Because of the extra buildup of CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gases" the energy that would normally leave the earth into space does so at a much slower pace, thus the average temperature of the earth is slowly increasing.
When it snows a small amount, sure, you don't have to plow, but when there are more than a couple of inches you have to plow the road anyway. The problem then is that the plows also take layers off the roads when they plow them, meaning that through the winter, the roads become less safe as the gravel disappears and the dirt below is left. This is especially bad considering that gravel roads are less safe at high speeds to begin with, and believe me, stupid people drive at high speeds regardless of road type or conditions.
Or they could just give you a login name and password and you can sign in if you pay for the channel. Then they aren't charging thousands or millions of people for content that they don't want or need.
I, for one, have never paid for an anti-virus. I have used a wide variety of pre-installed programs, and when their free grace period runs out, I download AVG or Avira or a myriad of others that have since come and gone.
Also, I think it would be foolish for anyone at McAfee or Symantec to dismiss the weight that the Microsoft name carries behind it. To the mass consumer, MS is a known commodity and is known for putting out relatively good (if not overpriced) products. They assume that if MS puts their name on something, it can't be complete crap because the company wouldn't risk taking a hit to their reputation. The mass consumer (read: non-nerd) would be more likely to try out a free security program from Microsoft than try out something free from a relatively unknown company like AVG.
Okay, maybe I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, but if Americans aren't spending money on mp3s and downloaded movies, aren't they instead spending that money elsewhere? We have one of the lowest savings rates in the world, so it's not like the money is disappearing into our savings accounts. Therefore, downloading content on the internet should theoretically cost the economy $0 and $0 jobs, or at least considerably less than the figures quoted in the article, and instead create new jobs in other sectors rather than lining the pockets of movie execs. Then again, this whole philosophy is moot if nobodyâ(TM)s following the Pirates Code of Honor and buying content that is actually good.
Well, technically you still haven't met me, but.. I'm a liberal who is generally happy content with my life. I would say I have never met a conservative who isn't a racist bastard, but that stereotype doesn't quite cover all of you.
That said, why has this become a liberal vs. conservative or Bush vs Obama issue? This is an idiot psychiatrist vs. common sense issue. The human existence has long been one of suffering, ergo many people are bitter. That's the way it works.
Don't even get me started at the overdiagnosis of ADHD or the confusion between sadness and depression.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I hear, you can do kegel exercises nearly anywhere at any time.
First, the cost to individuals that end up with viruses and malware is probably similar across platforms if experience/expertise level is considered. Idiots tend to do stupid things that cause them to get more viruses. Idiots tend to use Microsoft products because they don't know anything else. Microsoft looks bad comparatively to other platforms.
If you consider the number of viruses or malware problems experienced by MS users with technological proficiency along the lines of a typical Linux user, however, you would likely see that there are far fewer problems than a "typical" user would experience. Although there would indeed be an increase in malware over those using Linux, however it would not affect TCO nearly as much since these more proficient users would be more likely to identify and fix the issue before it became serious.
Second, in the case of large corporations or governments, they almost have to use Windows for a whole host of reasons: The limited technical proficiency of their employees, the need for consistency across a whole spectrum of systems, the need for third party support, etc. Obviously this becomes to a vicious cycle, but if that cycle were to ever be interrupted and a new business standard was adopted, that standard would likely have just as many problems with malware as Microsoft does now.
Overall, Iâ(TM)d have to say that, yes, Microsoftâ(TM)s TCO goes up comparably to other platforms because of issues with malware. You have to consider, though, that as people adopt other platforms, those other platforms have to deal with an increasing cost of malware, much as Apple is starting to experience with the growth of the Mac OS.
And soldiers die in Iraq because the US is not sufficiently anti-gay, right?
As far as art goes, there's art for everyone. There are extremely simple drawings in children's books and highly abstract pieces for the intellectuals among us, and everything in between. Because the market for art is so large, everyone can find SOMETHING that they like. Hopefully, with a broader audience, video games can achieve the same segmentation. The larger the audience as a whole, the larger the market for niche or fringe type games that wouldn't otherwise stand a chance.
My only fear is that this will further indoctrinate children that there should always be an easy button. As it is right now, too many kids quit when things get difficult, and this may end exacerbating that trend.
So how efficient is it to convert solar energy to microwave energy to electrical energy? It is unlikely that it is more efficient than converting solar directly to electrical, or we'd do it already. There must, therefore, be energy lost at both the satellite collecting solar energy and converting it to microwave, and then energy loss on the ground converting from microwave to electrical energy. The efficiency of conversion argument doesn't hold up.
The only real benefits that I've seen so far are collecting energy 24 hours a day regardless of weather conditions and usable land around the rectenna. These may be enough to make this cost efficient at this time, however I have reason to be skeptical.
What lesson did they learn from the Basel project if they maintain that it is uncertain whether or not the Basel project caused the earthquakes? You can't say "There was no problem, but we've learned from the problem."
Now I'm not advocating cyber-terrorism in any way, but how long will it be until someone turns all of these computers against the Chinese government?
Also, for conspiracy theorists out there, the North Koreans are planning a ballistic missile "test" shortly after the July 1st date. They have also forbidden foreign ships in their waters because of a naval "test." With the possibility that China is converting its entire nation into a botnet, this is slightly alarming. Could they be gearing up for war against the US?
It has to do with risk. If you are dealing with a reputable company, a 25 year warranty is almost a guarantee. The fact that they are issuing a warranty means that they are putting their assets, including their company name behind their product. This means that they must believe that a significant majority of their products will last for at least 25 years, if not considerably longer. If they are wrong, you get your money back, or at least new panels.
You're right, though, there is the possibility that they go out of business, but the likelihood of a well established company going out of business AND your warrantied product failing is probably less than the likelihood of a stock market downturn eating a significant portion of your investments.
Call it a hunch but I believe that at least some of these companies will still be in business after 25 years: Mitsubishi, Sanyo, GE, BP, Sharp.
If you're worried about your warranty, there viable companies to choose from that will likely still be around for at least as long as your warranty. It would seem that the risk in buying solar panels from one of these companies is relatively small when compared to some of the "investment vehicles" that are still being traded on the market today.
Nah, even if they didn't start immediately, they were a volunteer organization. If nobody wanted to volunteer to go look for them when there really weren't any hard facts indicating that someone was indeed missing, could you blame them? I wouldn't be surprised if there were incidents in the past where a hoax of a similar variety had taken place which had jaded the volunteer society towards helping people when there was no missing persons report.
The fact of the matter stands that he and his wife screwed up and nobody was there to save them from themselves. To sue others because of this is absurd.
And if there are no actualized profits?
It's certainly better than having the entire user base beta test the patch for them which is where we're at now in most cases.
he's making a difference.
I read as much of the essay as I could before I realized that the guy doesn't understand that his experience doesn't apply to everyone else. I understand where he's coming from because I tell the worst stories imaginable. I will go on talking about little, highly interesting details, until I realize that I'm the only one who finds them interesting. It took me a long time to realize that, just because I find it interesting, that doesn't mean that other people will.
To say that mathematics should be taught in the way that he likes the most is silly, at best. Most people will be able to pass through life with a rudimentary, at best, understanding of mathematics. Most jobs in this world do not require 90% of the theorems and principles that people are forced to learn through high school. I agree with the essay 100% on that point.
The key to math education, though, is not memorizing these principles, but rather learning how to solve problems. If someone can logically plan their way through a calculus problem, almost anything that they have to figure out at their job would be well within reason.
I never have understood the concept of math as an art, yet I enjoy math. I enjoy solving problems, enough so that I earned my BS in Mathematics, but this guy takes it to a whole new level. If not even all mathematicians think like he does, why does he expect that the general population will?
"I know some of my friends check the Google Voice page almost every day to see when they can grab a number and get started using it."
And I have friends who have never heard of Google Voice and completely lack the technical understanding to want to use it. I hate it when people use anecdotal evidence to suggest how great or grand something is going to be.
Most of my friends actually have just one phone (their cell) to their name anyway. While I see some of the features being semi-useful for a single-phone user, many require one to be at their computer, or at least have a smart phone, thus eliminating their usefulness in a large variety of circumstances.
It reminds me of attempts to control the invasive Purple Loosestrife flower here in the states. One of the earlier efforts to control it was with the use of the Small Engrailed moth. It turned out to be just as bad as it not only ate the Purple Loosestrife, but pretty much everything else. They now have a species of beetle that kills off the Purple Loosestrife without attacking other plants. Making this kind of mistake on a global scale rather than just in a local ecosystem, though, has the potential to be catastrophic to say the least.
In the short term, volcanic eruptions do indeed cool the earth, however, that effect is only temporary. In the long run, they actually help to warm the Earth because of the the CO2 that they release. They are actually cited as the reason that Earth was able to break out of/avoid becoming Snowball Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
According to my layman's understanding of climate change theory, the energy comes from the sun. What your car is doing is emitting CO2 which builds up in the atmosphere. Because of the extra buildup of CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gases" the energy that would normally leave the earth into space does so at a much slower pace, thus the average temperature of the earth is slowly increasing.
For more information: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming
I'm still using my will to suppress your evidence that global warming is a problem.
Amen.
When it snows a small amount, sure, you don't have to plow, but when there are more than a couple of inches you have to plow the road anyway. The problem then is that the plows also take layers off the roads when they plow them, meaning that through the winter, the roads become less safe as the gravel disappears and the dirt below is left. This is especially bad considering that gravel roads are less safe at high speeds to begin with, and believe me, stupid people drive at high speeds regardless of road type or conditions.
Or they could just give you a login name and password and you can sign in if you pay for the channel. Then they aren't charging thousands or millions of people for content that they don't want or need.
I, for one, have never paid for an anti-virus. I have used a wide variety of pre-installed programs, and when their free grace period runs out, I download AVG or Avira or a myriad of others that have since come and gone.
Also, I think it would be foolish for anyone at McAfee or Symantec to dismiss the weight that the Microsoft name carries behind it. To the mass consumer, MS is a known commodity and is known for putting out relatively good (if not overpriced) products. They assume that if MS puts their name on something, it can't be complete crap because the company wouldn't risk taking a hit to their reputation. The mass consumer (read: non-nerd) would be more likely to try out a free security program from Microsoft than try out something free from a relatively unknown company like AVG.
Okay, maybe I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, but if Americans aren't spending money on mp3s and downloaded movies, aren't they instead spending that money elsewhere? We have one of the lowest savings rates in the world, so it's not like the money is disappearing into our savings accounts. Therefore, downloading content on the internet should theoretically cost the economy $0 and $0 jobs, or at least considerably less than the figures quoted in the article, and instead create new jobs in other sectors rather than lining the pockets of movie execs. Then again, this whole philosophy is moot if nobodyâ(TM)s following the Pirates Code of Honor and buying content that is actually good.
Well, technically you still haven't met me, but.. I'm a liberal who is generally happy content with my life. I would say I have never met a conservative who isn't a racist bastard, but that stereotype doesn't quite cover all of you. That said, why has this become a liberal vs. conservative or Bush vs Obama issue? This is an idiot psychiatrist vs. common sense issue. The human existence has long been one of suffering, ergo many people are bitter. That's the way it works. Don't even get me started at the overdiagnosis of ADHD or the confusion between sadness and depression.