Indeed, your ISP is counting on it. Cloud-based ownership and access means that their child can be charged for each viewing, tracked for each viewing, and have customized banner ads sent to each device.
From TFA: "For the majority of consumers, however, they will come to fully trust the cloud and believe in subscription pricing for everything.
That's pretty bloody scary. But what makes it even more scary is we know that it's very realistic because we've already gone far along that road.
Those currently in control of media (all kinds, including software) are leading us into a trap where content is the bait and information about us is the cage. We all know that. But it's not merely "knowledge is power", but it's also control over that knowledge. We're looking at a type of power that has never existed before. And once it's established, no threats to it will be allowed. I think that's the concept most people have not yet grasped.
Once we're there, how can we ever break free? It's a trap that I see no way to avoid walking into nor escaping from. But I suppose nothing lasts forever, I hope...
Jokes aside. I was wondering the same thing. As an object that's built to exclude water, I would've thought that flat surfaces would also be a weakness without some really strong supports inside. (If you allow the water in, with its pressure, you won't need to keep the pressure out, which is how deep sea life copes with the pressure.)
If it's composed of thick rounded pieces, then I think the pressure could be used to hold the thing together, but that would look totally different from the artists impression.
As for energy shields in Star Wars, I seem to remember from one Star Wars book there being a character who had designed storm trooper armour. The chanracter mentions that advanced storm trooper armour did have shielding, but that heat dissipation was a problem, especially when hit with blaster fire, so the shielding was quite weak, but better than nothing.
Religion is only about Faith. There is nothing more to it than belief, and not only is there no way to systematically test what is taught, but it is discouraged as indicative of too little Faith.
Not all religions are against people exploring the truth for themselves. Some religions actively encourage people to explore the truth.
You're thinking about Abrahamic religions. But other religions such as Buddhism, Shamanism and Gnosticism specifially say that you should not take the "preacher's" words for granted, but that you should explore the ideas for yourself. Then they provide methods to help you explore for yourself. (I'm not arguing that any of those religions are any more true, nor that one should have much faith in those methods. Excuse the pun;)
Science is all about that very exploration.
I believe that without Abrahamic religions preaching blind faith, then we would not have the polarity that we now have.
Simple GUI's for simple jobs, and CLI's for more detailed jobs.
That's what Apple does with its servers, and it does it fairly well (still a way to go, but it's going in the right direction).
By the way, it's interesting to see how the slashdot tune changes. Two months ago there was an article about limiting access to violent games, and the overall response was ridicule over the idea that violent games mights have negative impacts. Now that research shows that there may be a connection (but no-one is suggesting limiting your access) then the overall response is one of understanding.
Can we just fucking legalise and tax drugs, rather than let murderous druglords make billions off the black market?
Totally agree. The sooner we undermine the black market in drugs, the sooner businesses based on that market will be out of business.
It 's a choice of two evils, but at least the corporations will pay tax.
Actually, there's a third option... (I don't like the idea of drugs being profitable for anyone.)
I prefer to have tax payer funded (ie. no profitablilty at all) drug dens where drugs are made by trained professionals, administered by trained professionals, users can get therapy by trained professionals... for free and completely legally. Any dealing in drugs outside these drug dens would be very punishable.
The effects being that addicts don't need to commit any crimes for their next hit. Also, those wanting to try out drugs can do so safely but will also see the effects that drugs have on long term users, and hopefully that will scare many newbies off. As with the Swiss system, such a program would help long term users find and hold jobs and provide both drug therapy and psycological therapy.
How would this be financed? The social and monetary cost savings from reduced crime, and as a consequence reduced need for a police, courts and jails would, I think, eventually make such programs the cheapest option.
And you'd be singing a different tune if you were an innocent bystander who got hit with a bullet for "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" (that is, if you'd be singing at all).
As you can see on the news daily, live ammunition is also used as a tool for repressing dissent, not for maintaining legitimate law and order.
Okay, so technically speaking pads are halfway between laptop and PDA.
But practically speaking, they're a different tool.
I've already seen iPads used in a variety of ways that neither laptops nor PDA's are suitable for. And this is just the beginning.
I understand your disbelief. I really do. And that's our problem. (I've met other people who describe very similar experiences to mine.)
Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.
And how am I supposed to provide that evidence?
My main point is that people at least listen to us, and take us seriously. We're not nutters, hypochondraics or "technology is evil" types of people. We're quite normal, I assure you.
Instead it would be better to at least try to work out what the real cause is (even if it does turn out to be psychosomatic, though I can tell you that that's pretty unlikely from my perspective).
pumping so much radio-frequency energy into your body that you start to cook.
My hypothesis is that you don't need enough energy to cook the whole body. But if there's enough energy to be picked up by a base station hundreds of metres away, then surely it's enough to affect things that are a few centimetres away, in some subtle way. Perhaps like old tooth fillings that could receive radio, maybe a type of molecule inside nerves recieves enough energy to irritate said nerves. It might be completely harmless, but it still hurts.
I definitely get affected by mobile phone radiation, and it’s not psychosomatic. And when pain happens, then that’s usually a signal that something is not right. And there are too many other people who claim to be affected to simply dismiss it. And, we tend to describe very similar symptoms.
So how could it happen? Perhaps one of the mobile phone frequencies just happens to tune in to some molecule using electromagnetic absorption? That's my hypothesis.
But to claim that because it doesn’t happen to everyone, then it therefore doesn’t happen to anyone, is an absurd argument. Some people are allergic to certain substances while the rest of us are not. Why? Perhaps it’s because they have a higher level of some amino acid, or because they produce a slightly different protein from the rest of us. Who knows?
Now I’m not claiming that sensitivity to microwaves is an allergy. The point I’m making is that each and every body is subtly unique, such that some people will be affected while others are not.
The truth is that we don’t know enough yet. And the research that I have read about so far has been surprisingly unimaginative.
ex.
Do mobile phones heat water? No, wrong frequency. (Didn’t even need to test for that. Could have asked someone working with spectrometry.)
Do mobile phones cause cancer? No. (Okay, worth checking.)
So now let’s move on...
Do mobile phones “tune in” to molecules other than water? Ah... considering the vast multitude of different kinds of molecules... quite possibly.
How do I know it’s not psychosomatic for me?
1. When I first started to use a mobile phone I would put it in my pocket. After ½ hour my hips would ache. I didn’t know why. But sometimes my hips were fine with the mobile in my pocket, and I’d discover that it was off (for whatever reason). The correlation seemed to be 100%, despite me not thinking of mobiles as harmful (which is why I had no issue putting it in my pocket).
2. Whenever I talk for more than 10-15 minutes with the mobile to my ear, my ear aches behind the eardrum. For more than about 45 minutes, I get a particular headache that is unlike any other (eg. from dehydration, tiredness, sickness). I do not suffer these problems when I use a wired phone or hands free.
3. I’m a kung-fu man. I don’t get sick. I don’t get flu’s, ever. I have no allergies. I’m not a hypochondriac. But mobile phones...
So what about Bluetooth and WiFi? Well, personally I’m not affected by them. Perhaps Bluetooth is too weak, even at close range. Or perhaps it’s because their frequencies are different. I dunno.
Having said all that, I still find mobile phones so damned useful that I always carry one around (yes, in a “man bag”) and I write software for them (moving into Mono). As long as I keep my mobile away from my body, I’m fine.
In conclusion, what I’m saying is that just because you’re not affected, then that’s not to say that other people aren’t affected. (I've been flamed on slashdot before for my opinion on this, and expecting it again now.). I’m not suggesting that we should stop using mobile phones. But perhaps with greater understanding we could make them even safer and less painful.
This story should be moderated flamebait and troll.
Totally agree.
I'd rather have fewer articles that are worth reading, than have a crapload of articles that are not worth reading.
After all, what's the point of visiting a site full of articles not worth reading? Better filtering please.
A group of minds working together (like a government) should be far more capable than a single mind by itself, but this seems to indicate that the opposite may be true for sufficiently large groups of minds.
To fit into a group, you usually need to be seen to agree with the groups' agenda. With paranoid groups, such as the Chinese communist party or religious groups, everyone does their very best to fit in, which only entrenches the groups' agenda (and often makes it even more paranoid, creating a vicious circle). Even if privately most members disagree, publicly they will try their best to look devout and keen. It's not just a matter of acceptance, it's about being held in esteem.
For example, in a communist party... an open minded communist probably won't get a far as a die-hard communist, whereas a devout person, who always puts the "ideal" (ie. agenda) first "is a strong person with our righteous principles and so deserves our support".
I remember from childhood church functions where Sunday church goers looked down on us who didn't go to church as not faithful enough. In return we saw them as inflexible and illogical, much like many of us see the Chinese communist party.
This type of group thinking tends to be based on an agenda, and because having an agenda tends to cloud one's thinking, the group as a whole doesn't think think straight.
It's a form of advertising that people take seriously enough to actually discuss. Better than some ad that people gloss over without a thought.
1. Compile a list that will make any business on that list look good. ("Ethical" is a good enough topic, as it's suitably nebulous.)
2. Quietly enable businesses to pay to be on that list. (They don't necessarily pay in cash. Perhaps good will or free licences will do?)
3. Ensure the list is allegedly compiled by an independent body. (The Ethisphere Institute seemed cooperative enough, or perhaps it approached Forbes, given its "forgiving nature"?)
4. Let a well known name publish it for posterity. (Forbes is big and trusted enough, right?)
Now the listing businesses (Forbes and/or Ethisphere Institute) get what they want from the listed businesses, and the listed businesses get their positive exposure. Win, win!
In most countries, isn't it illegal to not report a crime that you're aware of?
Okay, so the blogger could have been more tactful by reporting it to authorities instead of blogging about it. But still, the frauster needs to man up and take the consequences for his own actions. It's going to get out anyway, one way or another.
This business of protecting perpetrators is akin to tacitly accepting criminal behaviour. Of course, accepting != allowing, but over time on a nationwide level it alters a nations culture and brings the two concepts closer.
Slashdot Mirror
Hotter vegetation is what causes global warming! ;)
Indeed, your ISP is counting on it. Cloud-based ownership and access means that their child can be charged for each viewing, tracked for each viewing, and have customized banner ads sent to each device.
From TFA: "For the majority of consumers, however, they will come to fully trust the cloud and believe in subscription pricing for everything.
That's pretty bloody scary. But what makes it even more scary is we know that it's very realistic because we've already gone far along that road.
Those currently in control of media (all kinds, including software) are leading us into a trap where content is the bait and information about us is the cage. We all know that.
But it's not merely "knowledge is power", but it's also control over that knowledge. We're looking at a type of power that has never existed before. And once it's established, no threats to it will be allowed. I think that's the concept most people have not yet grasped.
Once we're there, how can we ever break free? It's a trap that I see no way to avoid walking into nor escaping from. But I suppose nothing lasts forever, I hope...
+5 !!! Now I wish I hadn't spent all my mod points.
Jokes aside. I was wondering the same thing. As an object that's built to exclude water, I would've thought that flat surfaces would also be a weakness without some really strong supports inside. (If you allow the water in, with its pressure, you won't need to keep the pressure out, which is how deep sea life copes with the pressure.)
If it's composed of thick rounded pieces, then I think the pressure could be used to hold the thing together, but that would look totally different from the artists impression.
As for energy shields in Star Wars, I seem to remember from one Star Wars book there being a character who had designed storm trooper armour. The chanracter mentions that advanced storm trooper armour did have shielding, but that heat dissipation was a problem, especially when hit with blaster fire, so the shielding was quite weak, but better than nothing.
The computer renderings I've seen show a large dome over the cockpit (please hold the bloody seamen jokes).
My semen's not rendered bloody... unless she's at that time of the month. Sorry, I just couldn't hold it. ;)
Sorry, I just can't help it, but you've gotta admit you asked for that one. xD
Late April Fools joke? Otherwise... http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2159#comic
Religion is only about Faith. There is nothing more to it than belief, and not only is there no way to systematically test what is taught, but it is discouraged as indicative of too little Faith.
Not all religions are against people exploring the truth for themselves. Some religions actively encourage people to explore the truth.
You're thinking about Abrahamic religions. But other religions such as Buddhism, Shamanism and Gnosticism specifially say that you should not take the "preacher's" words for granted, but that you should explore the ideas for yourself. Then they provide methods to help you explore for yourself. (I'm not arguing that any of those religions are any more true, nor that one should have much faith in those methods. Excuse the pun ;)
Science is all about that very exploration.
I believe that without Abrahamic religions preaching blind faith, then we would not have the polarity that we now have.
Simple GUI's for simple jobs, and CLI's for more detailed jobs.
That's what Apple does with its servers, and it does it fairly well (still a way to go, but it's going in the right direction).
Instead of copying the text here's a link my comment I made before.
By the way, it's interesting to see how the slashdot tune changes. Two months ago there was an article about limiting access to violent games, and the overall response was ridicule over the idea that violent games mights have negative impacts. Now that research shows that there may be a connection (but no-one is suggesting limiting your access) then the overall response is one of understanding.
A clever pseodonym given the topic.
Can we just fucking legalise and tax drugs, rather than let murderous druglords make billions off the black market?
Totally agree. The sooner we undermine the black market in drugs, the sooner businesses based on that market will be out of business.
It 's a choice of two evils, but at least the corporations will pay tax.
Actually, there's a third option...
(I don't like the idea of drugs being profitable for anyone.)
I prefer to have tax payer funded (ie. no profitablilty at all) drug dens where drugs are made by trained professionals, administered by trained professionals, users can get therapy by trained professionals... for free and completely legally.
Any dealing in drugs outside these drug dens would be very punishable.
The effects being that addicts don't need to commit any crimes for their next hit. Also, those wanting to try out drugs can do so safely but will also see the effects that drugs have on long term users, and hopefully that will scare many newbies off. As with the Swiss system, such a program would help long term users find and hold jobs and provide both drug therapy and psycological therapy.
How would this be financed? The social and monetary cost savings from reduced crime, and as a consequence reduced need for a police, courts and jails would, I think, eventually make such programs the cheapest option.
And you'd be singing a different tune if you were an innocent bystander who got hit with a bullet for "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" (that is, if you'd be singing at all).
As you can see on the news daily, live ammunition is also used as a tool for repressing dissent, not for maintaining legitimate law and order.
A fad?!? Uh, yeah, and so are mobile phones.
Okay, so technically speaking pads are halfway between laptop and PDA.
But practically speaking, they're a different tool.
I've already seen iPads used in a variety of ways that neither laptops nor PDA's are suitable for. And this is just the beginning.
Or you could get a new fruit knife.
"emacs" OK fine, but does he not know about Coda?
No, no, no... vi !!!
I understand your disbelief. I really do. And that's our problem. (I've met other people who describe very similar experiences to mine.)
Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.
And how am I supposed to provide that evidence?
My main point is that people at least listen to us, and take us seriously. We're not nutters, hypochondraics or "technology is evil" types of people. We're quite normal, I assure you.
Instead it would be better to at least try to work out what the real cause is (even if it does turn out to be psychosomatic, though I can tell you that that's pretty unlikely from my perspective).
pumping so much radio-frequency energy into your body that you start to cook.
My hypothesis is that you don't need enough energy to cook the whole body. But if there's enough energy to be picked up by a base station hundreds of metres away, then surely it's enough to affect things that are a few centimetres away, in some subtle way. Perhaps like old tooth fillings that could receive radio, maybe a type of molecule inside nerves recieves enough energy to irritate said nerves. It might be completely harmless, but it still hurts.
I definitely get affected by mobile phone radiation, and it’s not psychosomatic. And when pain happens, then that’s usually a signal that something is not right. And there are too many other people who claim to be affected to simply dismiss it. And, we tend to describe very similar symptoms.
So how could it happen? Perhaps one of the mobile phone frequencies just happens to tune in to some molecule using electromagnetic absorption? That's my hypothesis.
But to claim that because it doesn’t happen to everyone, then it therefore doesn’t happen to anyone, is an absurd argument. Some people are allergic to certain substances while the rest of us are not. Why? Perhaps it’s because they have a higher level of some amino acid, or because they produce a slightly different protein from the rest of us. Who knows?
Now I’m not claiming that sensitivity to microwaves is an allergy. The point I’m making is that each and every body is subtly unique, such that some people will be affected while others are not.
The truth is that we don’t know enough yet. And the research that I have read about so far has been surprisingly unimaginative.
ex.
Do mobile phones heat water? No, wrong frequency. (Didn’t even need to test for that. Could have asked someone working with spectrometry.)
Do mobile phones cause cancer? No. (Okay, worth checking.)
So now let’s move on...
Do mobile phones “tune in” to molecules other than water? Ah... considering the vast multitude of different kinds of molecules... quite possibly.
How do I know it’s not psychosomatic for me?
1. When I first started to use a mobile phone I would put it in my pocket. After ½ hour my hips would ache. I didn’t know why. But sometimes my hips were fine with the mobile in my pocket, and I’d discover that it was off (for whatever reason). The correlation seemed to be 100%, despite me not thinking of mobiles as harmful (which is why I had no issue putting it in my pocket).
2. Whenever I talk for more than 10-15 minutes with the mobile to my ear, my ear aches behind the eardrum. For more than about 45 minutes, I get a particular headache that is unlike any other (eg. from dehydration, tiredness, sickness). I do not suffer these problems when I use a wired phone or hands free.
3. I’m a kung-fu man. I don’t get sick. I don’t get flu’s, ever. I have no allergies. I’m not a hypochondriac. But mobile phones...
So what about Bluetooth and WiFi? Well, personally I’m not affected by them. Perhaps Bluetooth is too weak, even at close range. Or perhaps it’s because their frequencies are different. I dunno.
Having said all that, I still find mobile phones so damned useful that I always carry one around (yes, in a “man bag”) and I write software for them (moving into Mono). As long as I keep my mobile away from my body, I’m fine.
In conclusion, what I’m saying is that just because you’re not affected, then that’s not to say that other people aren’t affected. (I've been flamed on slashdot before for my opinion on this, and expecting it again now.). I’m not suggesting that we should stop using mobile phones. But perhaps with greater understanding we could make them even safer and less painful.
Then they better put a cooling system on his head quick smart, before smoke starts coming out of his ears.
Yeah, about Christ... Apparently God knows what we think and feel. How's that for invasion of privacy?
This story should be moderated flamebait and troll.
Totally agree.
I'd rather have fewer articles that are worth reading, than have a crapload of articles that are not worth reading.
After all, what's the point of visiting a site full of articles not worth reading? Better filtering please.
If I had the choice I would go for Python, Java, C, C++ or a combination of those, simply because they are cross platform.
Ever heard of Mono? C# is the new Java.
A group of minds working together (like a government) should be far more capable than a single mind by itself, but this seems to indicate that the opposite may be true for sufficiently large groups of minds.
To fit into a group, you usually need to be seen to agree with the groups' agenda. With paranoid groups, such as the Chinese communist party or religious groups, everyone does their very best to fit in, which only entrenches the groups' agenda (and often makes it even more paranoid, creating a vicious circle). Even if privately most members disagree, publicly they will try their best to look devout and keen. It's not just a matter of acceptance, it's about being held in esteem.
For example, in a communist party... an open minded communist probably won't get a far as a die-hard communist, whereas a devout person, who always puts the "ideal" (ie. agenda) first "is a strong person with our righteous principles and so deserves our support".
I remember from childhood church functions where Sunday church goers looked down on us who didn't go to church as not faithful enough. In return we saw them as inflexible and illogical, much like many of us see the Chinese communist party.
This type of group thinking tends to be based on an agenda, and because having an agenda tends to cloud one's thinking, the group as a whole doesn't think think straight.
Think of it as an intellectual mob mentality.
Will it be blue with a red cape?
It's a form of advertising that people take seriously enough to actually discuss. Better than some ad that people gloss over without a thought.
1. Compile a list that will make any business on that list look good. ("Ethical" is a good enough topic, as it's suitably nebulous.)
2. Quietly enable businesses to pay to be on that list. (They don't necessarily pay in cash. Perhaps good will or free licences will do?)
3. Ensure the list is allegedly compiled by an independent body. (The Ethisphere Institute seemed cooperative enough, or perhaps it approached Forbes, given its "forgiving nature"?)
4. Let a well known name publish it for posterity. (Forbes is big and trusted enough, right?)
Now the listing businesses (Forbes and/or Ethisphere Institute) get what they want from the listed businesses, and the listed businesses get their positive exposure. Win, win!
In most countries, isn't it illegal to not report a crime that you're aware of?
Okay, so the blogger could have been more tactful by reporting it to authorities instead of blogging about it. But still, the frauster needs to man up and take the consequences for his own actions. It's going to get out anyway, one way or another.
This business of protecting perpetrators is akin to tacitly accepting criminal behaviour. Of course, accepting != allowing, but over time on a nationwide level it alters a nations culture and brings the two concepts closer.