Not allow them how exactly? Flex is no more "cross platform" then this. HTML is barely cross platform, and that has _tons_ of pressure trying to make it so. This is a losing battle. Your confused about the lack of clout we have. We will need a reverse engineering effort on _both_ these technologies. Microsoft is playing a convenient and old card here. We'll see how successful it is. I hope people will see the ruse for what it is, but I doubt history matters at all to most. Both adobe and microsoft will try to lock you in to this new format. The only thing you can do is resist the temptation.
Fewest holes? It has holes you could drive trucks through. The first and most important one is that it doesn't require an intelligent observer to cause a collapse of the quantum wave function. Interaction with any other matter is the only thing required for decoherence.
The war for web browser video is over. Google knew that. They weren't even competing against it with google video. The TV industry is kidding themselves that it matters.
Sure, people will go to the site to watch stuff, but not with the same kind of loyal viewership that youtube gets. My _mom_ told me she loved it. It is as ubiquitous as google is for search.
If they make it easier than going to Youtube...
Their competition is google. These guys make everything they do relevant and easy. Microsoft can't compete with them. I doubt the technophobes at the media concerns have any chance of coming up with something better than them.
As someone who is both getting older and buying less, I can tell you that it has very little to do with wanting to consume music less, and more to do with lack of exposure to sources of new music. The last genuine interest I got for a new artist was John Mayer, and only then because someone got it for me since I hade never heard of him before that. But there in lies the rub, I don't have any avenue I know of to discover those great new artists. Radio is dead. MTV is dead. VH1 is dead. The only artists that do get through this total lack of exposure to me is lifestyle crap.
that may be promising if a proof of concept was out today, and we wait another 5 to 10 years for it to achieve mass production and longevity testing. In the meantime, it is pie in the sky wishful thinking and offers no practical solution today, and doesn't even resolve the issue you discuss. The player issue exists for both CD/DVD/HD and chemical encoders. Any encoding mechanism is going to need a player, Any player or encoding scheme is going to be subject to obsolescence.
Ignoring the chemical encoding of your proposal, highly distributed copies of the digital data is indeed the best solution to archival issue. What TFA ignores is the strength of digital encoding. Copying is cheap. Very cheap. So amazingly cheap that long term storage is the _worst_ strategy to retain it. copy it every where, to whatever online media you can as often as you can and it will stay around as long as you keep it up.
Archival copies, including your proposed chemical ones, are expensive. Very expensive. Why not just put pools of disks in libraries around the world and have them distribute content between each other constantly. Disk is cheap, fast and reliable. Its the trifecta medium that when added to some clever software and a network connection is about the best possible archival format that we could build for digital data.
Time zone specific calculations are on the client end, as all NTP sources give time in UST. So even if your embedded device is time syncing, if the software says "DST starts in april in timezone X" it is going to be wrong (even if it is very close to being wrong by an hour). The GP ignores the fact that no amount of "flexibility" in the DST implementation is going to make it economically feasible to support a $50 device for longer than production run. The thing to fix is setting up a public system that stores time offsets for all localities and make it a standard part of all OSes, like NTP.
I would accept your apology, but I won't. Not again. You keep promising to stop abusing my trust, but their you are, doing it all over again. While your busy sipping your mocha-frappa-iced-chino with your buddies, you leave me toiling away in a hot server room. And do I get a thank you? No, just snide condescension about how I have really let myself go. That's it society... you need to find yourself someone else to take your abuse!
That is why you assume that, if it isn't in writing, then it isn't going to happen. If they refuse to put it in writing, you don't quit your current job. blaiming others for your lack of skepticism doesn't reflect badly on them. Remember, no one is responsible for your life except you, even if it is easier to blaim your problems on something else.
The Cox AUP seems to disagree. I thought it did say that, but it doesn't. I also thought NAT's were also banned, but there not. Though "servers" are banned. Which irks me, but what are you gonna do.
While it clearly is the content owners who are asking for these deleterious requirements, it is still Microsoft who agreed, implemented and required them of all their customers. Do they have a DRM free version of their system that doesn't impede performance of a users system to make them _less_ useful? Blaming the content owners for how Microsoft designed _their_ product is non-sensical. The sad thing is that Microsoft could have just dropped the code and the content owners would have needed to support windows. You simply can't ignore the numbers.
So if these problems only apply to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, I don't see them as a criticism of Microsoft and Vista, but rather to the content producers who demand these changes.Microsoft can't be criticized for implementing features that none of their customers want, because they are detrimental to their customers systems performance. What kind of kool-aid acid test are you taking? Last time I bought a tool, the designers actually tried to make it the best damn screwdriver I ever owned. At what point can someone convince you that encrypting data on my bus is a design flaw by microsoft? When they make fluffy kittens the only desktop you can have?
If the fucktard to whom I was responding can get away with equating being forced to work in a sweatshop for lack of other options (else starve or get beaten to death) and being forced to buy into DRM
And yet, while comingeling slavery with freedom of speech seems like a good way of: A) Bringing awareness to your pet concern of the day B) Entertaining your own delusion of importance C) Thinking you are better than someone else
It only results in you looking silly. Really, you want to debate the ongoing economic incentive of making people work for free versus the cessation of your personal rights as an owner of property. What, if anything, makes your cause seem anything but silly?
Travel. Gain some perspective. I suggest visiting the exurbs of Kabul for starters. See if you still think your "right" to listen to the latest tracks on MTV in any way compares to the right of children to play in the grass without getting their legs blown off by landmines.
Nice hand waving. What the heck does landmines have to do with sweatshops? Landmines are a shame, but have nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of commerce. I think the perspective you've gained has led you into a false dichotomy. It is not a matter of landmines versus freedom of speech on the moral litmus test. Both are valid concerns, with valid moral backing and valid topics for discussion. In this case you have conflated a totally irrelevant issue to diminish the importance of another.
You see if you haven't been paying attention the US economy has gone from 25% financial 75% industrial to 75% finacial to 25% industrial in our economy.
Yanking figures out your wazoo isn't very becoming. According the CIA world fact book we have: agriculture: 1% industry: 20.4% services: 78.7% (2005 est.)
Services include consulting, outsourcing, financial, hospitality, etc. While that in itself is interesting, it doesn't mean that most money is "labor free".
How can you compare an area to a length? It really doesn't matter how long the cost line is cause your missing a dimension there. If your going to measure it that way I vote Libraries of congress like the GP.
66 km^2 is about 2% of Rhode Island since it is about 3,144 km^2. But if you are trying to make it sound big, your measuring stick should definitely be _smaller_ than what your measuring.
Frankly, I think the claim that humans can't effect ecology and climate is the more extrodinary of the two claims and therefore requires the more extrodinary proof. No simple proof through disproof will work here. The fact is we often affect habitat in our normal human pursuits. We have wiped out specie, polluted wetlands and air and are creating dead-zones in the oceans. All of it has lots of data to establish us as an offender of negative affect in our environment. This proves nothing as far as our involvment in global warming, but it does set precedent.
Meanwhile, your proposition still doesn't explain why CO2 levels are rising or how they _don't_ contribute to thermal insolation. This in spite of a lot of corrobarating data saying that it does in both model, observation and experiment. The more I think about your proposition the less tied to reality it seems. The simplest explanation is that what we observe is what is happening. CO2 levels are rising, CO2 acts as a thermal reflector, we humans are freeing a lot of previously stored CO2 and meanwhile a warming phenomena closely matches our industrialization.
While the onus is on the humans can't effect the globe people for science, I do agree that the onus is on the environmentalist to convince us that whatever rediculous amount of money will have an appreciable effect. And on that we can probably agree the jury is still out on.
Of course I did mention the usefullness. And I do think that there is enough evidence to suggest those models have sufficient predictive power. How well those models work over the span of the next 50 years wont be confirmed for... well... 50 years.
No, model is a set of equations describing a phenomena to some degree of error. Nor did I even mention "usefullness", as that only relates to its predictive power.
How? Those experiments should be up to scale, otherwise there is no point.
That is non-sensical. Of course you can extrapolate meaningful predictions from smaller scale experiments. Physics and chemistry have always used differntly scaled experiments to provide data for larger or smaller scale phenomena. You are never going to be able to modal a system that is beyond the technology we have. We have used this since the dawn of science and is still a very important technique. As long as the methodology is sound and I have yet to see anything convincing me in this case that it is not.
Some? Some?? How can you be sure of any degree of certainty if you do not have definitive experiments?
Experiments have nothing to do with verifying a simulation. Data does that. Experiments might provide data that is relavant to the simulation. You can also get it from observation and inference.
That is not enough.
No combination of fact, model and prediction will ever be enough for those who think climatoligist are making this up. But I have yet to hear about any alternative models that don't just try to dismiss the facts as "useless" or "made-up". Nor have I heard any that are coming from within climatology or related scientific disciplines.
I am all for scientific review and conservative approaches. I will be happy to entertain any alternative notions that pass critical review by knowledgable experts. I will never entertain the thought that laymen are capable of dismissing entire models by pointing out minor flaws, or as is more the case, pushing absolute false or miscontstrued data. The same kind of methods used to "debunk" global warming are used to "debunk" evolution.
Neither your lack of imagination nor firm belief makes something impossible. The climate is complex, sure, but can still be modeled to a useful degree. Certainly the ratio of "greenhouse gases" can be tracked in the atmosphere. We can speak to the amount of that human activity is contributing to those ratios to some degree of certainty. We can run physical experiments to show how much insulation those gases provide at a given ratio. We can simulate the environment to some degree of certainty showing how those gas ratios effect thermal retention. We have several environmental facts that agree with both the models and the lab experiments. While the ultimate cause might not be the same as the hypothesis any replacement would still need to match those facts.
Slashdot Mirror
You are now my hero.
Not allow them how exactly? Flex is no more "cross platform" then this. HTML is barely cross platform, and that has _tons_ of pressure trying to make it so. This is a losing battle. Your confused about the lack of clout we have. We will need a reverse engineering effort on _both_ these technologies.
Microsoft is playing a convenient and old card here. We'll see how successful it is. I hope people will see the ruse for what it is, but I doubt history matters at all to most. Both adobe and microsoft will try to lock you in to this new format. The only thing you can do is resist the temptation.
Fewest holes? It has holes you could drive trucks through. The first and most important one is that it doesn't require an intelligent observer to cause a collapse of the quantum wave function. Interaction with any other matter is the only thing required for decoherence.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't have HDMI after you strip the encryption and play the file from your laptop/media center/DVR
Sure, people will go to the site to watch stuff, but not with the same kind of loyal viewership that youtube gets. My _mom_ told me she loved it. It is as ubiquitous as google is for search.Their competition is google. These guys make everything they do relevant and easy. Microsoft can't compete with them. I doubt the technophobes at the media concerns have any chance of coming up with something better than them.
As someone who is both getting older and buying less, I can tell you that it has very little to do with wanting to consume music less, and more to do with lack of exposure to sources of new music. The last genuine interest I got for a new artist was John Mayer, and only then because someone got it for me since I hade never heard of him before that. But there in lies the rub, I don't have any avenue I know of to discover those great new artists. Radio is dead. MTV is dead. VH1 is dead. The only artists that do get through this total lack of exposure to me is lifestyle crap.
that may be promising if a proof of concept was out today, and we wait another 5 to 10 years for it to achieve mass production and longevity testing. In the meantime, it is pie in the sky wishful thinking and offers no practical solution today, and doesn't even resolve the issue you discuss. The player issue exists for both CD/DVD/HD and chemical encoders. Any encoding mechanism is going to need a player, Any player or encoding scheme is going to be subject to obsolescence.
Ignoring the chemical encoding of your proposal, highly distributed copies of the digital data is indeed the best solution to archival issue. What TFA ignores is the strength of digital encoding. Copying is cheap. Very cheap. So amazingly cheap that long term storage is the _worst_ strategy to retain it. copy it every where, to whatever online media you can as often as you can and it will stay around as long as you keep it up.
Archival copies, including your proposed chemical ones, are expensive. Very expensive. Why not just put pools of disks in libraries around the world and have them distribute content between each other constantly. Disk is cheap, fast and reliable. Its the trifecta medium that when added to some clever software and a network connection is about the best possible archival format that we could build for digital data.
Time zone specific calculations are on the client end, as all NTP sources give time in UST. So even if your embedded device is time syncing, if the software says "DST starts in april in timezone X" it is going to be wrong (even if it is very close to being wrong by an hour). The GP ignores the fact that no amount of "flexibility" in the DST implementation is going to make it economically feasible to support a $50 device for longer than production run. The thing to fix is setting up a public system that stores time offsets for all localities and make it a standard part of all OSes, like NTP.
I would accept your apology, but I won't. Not again. You keep promising to stop abusing my trust, but their you are, doing it all over again. While your busy sipping your mocha-frappa-iced-chino with your buddies, you leave me toiling away in a hot server room. And do I get a thank you? No, just snide condescension about how I have really let myself go. That's it society... you need to find yourself someone else to take your abuse!
That is why you assume that, if it isn't in writing, then it isn't going to happen. If they refuse to put it in writing, you don't quit your current job. blaiming others for your lack of skepticism doesn't reflect badly on them. Remember, no one is responsible for your life except you, even if it is easier to blaim your problems on something else.
The Cox AUP seems to disagree. I thought it did say that, but it doesn't. I also thought NAT's were also banned, but there not. Though "servers" are banned. Which irks me, but what are you gonna do.
While it clearly is the content owners who are asking for these deleterious requirements, it is still Microsoft who agreed, implemented and required them of all their customers. Do they have a DRM free version of their system that doesn't impede performance of a users system to make them _less_ useful? Blaming the content owners for how Microsoft designed _their_ product is non-sensical. The sad thing is that Microsoft could have just dropped the code and the content owners would have needed to support windows. You simply can't ignore the numbers.
So if these problems only apply to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, I don't see them as a criticism of Microsoft and Vista, but rather to the content producers who demand these changes.Microsoft can't be criticized for implementing features that none of their customers want, because they are detrimental to their customers systems performance. What kind of kool-aid acid test are you taking? Last time I bought a tool, the designers actually tried to make it the best damn screwdriver I ever owned. At what point can someone convince you that encrypting data on my bus is a design flaw by microsoft? When they make fluffy kittens the only desktop you can have?
A) Bringing awareness to your pet concern of the day
B) Entertaining your own delusion of importance
C) Thinking you are better than someone else
It only results in you looking silly. Really, you want to debate the ongoing economic incentive of making people work for free versus the cessation of your personal rights as an owner of property. What, if anything, makes your cause seem anything but silly?
agriculture: 1%
industry: 20.4%
services: 78.7% (2005 est.)
Services include consulting, outsourcing, financial, hospitality, etc. While that in itself is interesting, it doesn't mean that most money is "labor free".
How can you compare an area to a length? It really doesn't matter how long the cost line is cause your missing a dimension there. If your going to measure it that way I vote Libraries of congress like the GP.
66 km^2 is about 2% of Rhode Island since it is about 3,144 km^2. But if you are trying to make it sound big, your measuring stick should definitely be _smaller_ than what your measuring.
Seriously, is there anything happening in the arctic or antarctic regions that IS NOT the cause of Global Warming?
I guess global warming is causing reading comprehension to recede as well.
And since phishing sites are bad for people we should also have ISPs block outbound port 80 and 443. That will stop those pesky get rich schemes.
Frankly, I think the claim that humans can't effect ecology and climate is the more extrodinary of the two claims and therefore requires the more extrodinary proof. No simple proof through disproof will work here. The fact is we often affect habitat in our normal human pursuits. We have wiped out specie, polluted wetlands and air and are creating dead-zones in the oceans. All of it has lots of data to establish us as an offender of negative affect in our environment. This proves nothing as far as our involvment in global warming, but it does set precedent.
Meanwhile, your proposition still doesn't explain why CO2 levels are rising or how they _don't_ contribute to thermal insolation. This in spite of a lot of corrobarating data saying that it does in both model, observation and experiment. The more I think about your proposition the less tied to reality it seems. The simplest explanation is that what we observe is what is happening. CO2 levels are rising, CO2 acts as a thermal reflector, we humans are freeing a lot of previously stored CO2 and meanwhile a warming phenomena closely matches our industrialization.
While the onus is on the humans can't effect the globe people for science, I do agree that the onus is on the environmentalist to convince us that whatever rediculous amount of money will have an appreciable effect. And on that we can probably agree the jury is still out on.
Of course I did mention the usefullness. And I do think that there is enough evidence to suggest those models have sufficient predictive power. How well those models work over the span of the next 50 years wont be confirmed for... well... 50 years.
That is non-sensical. Of course you can extrapolate meaningful predictions from smaller scale experiments. Physics and chemistry have always used differntly scaled experiments to provide data for larger or smaller scale phenomena. You are never going to be able to modal a system that is beyond the technology we have. We have used this since the dawn of science and is still a very important technique. As long as the methodology is sound and I have yet to see anything convincing me in this case that it is not.
Experiments have nothing to do with verifying a simulation. Data does that. Experiments might provide data that is relavant to the simulation. You can also get it from observation and inference.
No combination of fact, model and prediction will ever be enough for those who think climatoligist are making this up. But I have yet to hear about any alternative models that don't just try to dismiss the facts as "useless" or "made-up". Nor have I heard any that are coming from within climatology or related scientific disciplines.
I am all for scientific review and conservative approaches. I will be happy to entertain any alternative notions that pass critical review by knowledgable experts. I will never entertain the thought that laymen are capable of dismissing entire models by pointing out minor flaws, or as is more the case, pushing absolute false or miscontstrued data. The same kind of methods used to "debunk" global warming are used to "debunk" evolution.
Neither your lack of imagination nor firm belief makes something impossible. The climate is complex, sure, but can still be modeled to a useful degree. Certainly the ratio of "greenhouse gases" can be tracked in the atmosphere. We can speak to the amount of that human activity is contributing to those ratios to some degree of certainty. We can run physical experiments to show how much insulation those gases provide at a given ratio. We can simulate the environment to some degree of certainty showing how those gas ratios effect thermal retention. We have several environmental facts that agree with both the models and the lab experiments. While the ultimate cause might not be the same as the hypothesis any replacement would still need to match those facts.