Notations do change, have changed, and will change again - consider for example the switch from Roman to Arabic numerals.
You are talking about a change that occurred many hundreds of years ago. It would be FAR more difficult and costly to implement a similar change today. It's simply an installed base problem. The advantages of switching have to be enormous. You'll have a hard case to make that switching to a keyboard friendly math notation would have anywhere near the level of improvement in convenience or functionality in your example. I'm not arguing that it is technically impossible, merely that the costs outweigh the benefits so much that it is absurdly unlikely to happen. Remember, we are JUST talking about note taking here which is basically drawing. We're not doing computing here. I have seen no technology for taking notes in a math class that improves on a pencil/pen/stylus because those are the best tools we have for detailed drawing. Use the right tool for the job.
I think you’ll agree that since education teaches ex nihilo, we can easily teach new learners whatever new notation we please, and it will be accepted by them as the norm.
The problem isn't new users. The problem is the old ones which is the vast majority of the population. You are simply NOT going to get people who have already learned the current math notation to switch en-masse. Even the teachers would have to switch and I'm pretty sure they won't want to without a damn good reason. Hell there is a reason no one except for engineering geeks use RPN calculators which is a relatively modest change. You think changing the entire notation is going to gain acceptance? Not bloody likely.
Open source is no more secure than closed source, for a host of reasons, but at least with closed source, you know where the code came from and can judge it based on that.
You have absolutely no idea where the code came from with closed source. Could be from anyone. Not much different from open source except for the fact that with open source you can at least theoretically examine the code itself even though in most cases that will never happen.
"I think there's an English word that describes selling American secrets to another government, and I do think it's treason,"
That's only really true if what the US government is keeping secret is morally and legally justifiable. Otherwise what Mr Snowden did is best described as heroism. All the evidence we presently have indicates that the activities of the NSA are very likely in violation of any reasonable interpretation of the 4th amendment. It's pretty hard to trust a secret and unaccountable organization especially when to every appearance they seem to be ignoring any rules they find inconvenient.
Depends on how you measure it. The EU has a higher nominal GDP but a slightly lower GDP under PPP. Both are right around $16-17 Trillion in 2013.
per-capita GNP in the EU is a bit less since we don't have quite as much raw materials production (oil, gas, coal) which inflates the figures.
As for GDP per capita, it isn't even close. The US population is around 315 milliion versus 510 million in the EU. Since the GDP is roughly the same, the US GDP per capita is about 40% higher at around $52,000 versus $34,000 for the EU. The differences in GDP are not explained by energy production. The EU is the 7th largest energy producer and 2nd largest consumer) while the US is the 3rd largest energy producer and largest consumer (with China catching up fast). Both economies have services sectors that comprise around 68-69% of the economy. Both have similar sized manufacturing sectors and agriculture sectors. Frankly the US and EU economies are remarkably similar in many ways.
Those ARE the ends. People who seek political office largely are people for whom power and influence are goal unto themselves. Financial wealth usually plays a role as well but that can be achieved pretty easily with sufficient power and influence.
What do the politicians do to justify their financial gain?
Why on earth would they justify it? Until just last year it was absolutely legal for members of Congress to engage in insider trading that would get you and me thrown in jail like Martha Stewart. It is absurdly common for politicians to leave congress FAR wealthier than they entered. This doesn't happen because they are busy serving the greater good.
I'm not cynical enough to think that politicians wake up every morning asking "How can I screw over the world for my own benefit today?".
I'm sure they have plenty of rationalizations for their actions but political corruption is hardly uncommon. If you want extreme examples look at former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. He's hardly unique but he definitely was FAR more interested in lining his own pockets than serving the electorate.
If the Surface Pro and Galaxy Note can steal thunder from iOS devices then Apple may be forced to react. But don't hold you breath; Jobs was no fan of the Newton.
Last I checked Saint Steve is no longer in charge of Apple.
Plus I think his animosity towards the Newton had more to do with it being a mediocre product that few people really wanted and also maybe the fact that it was John Sculley's baby. If the Newton had been selling like crazy Jobs would not have been likely to kill it off but it simply wasn't a sufficiently profitable product. There were things to like about the Newton but the rollout was badly flubbed, it was expensive, and it wasn't clear who it was designed for. Too small for note taking, too bulky to be a PDA, limited networking ability (and the internet wasn't really a thing for the masses yet), poor device for media consumption, useless as a PC replacement, etc. They made a lot of design tradeoffs and the result was a device that tried to be all things to all people and achieved just the opposite.
None exists to my knowledge. I honestly cannot conceive of any way you could reasonably take notes requiring fine details using your fingertips. There is a reason we use fine tip pencils instead of big bulky markers to take notes.
The MyScript Calculator app (just google it) does a decent job, for example.
Utterly useless for note taking. That is an app for processing a single equation, and not even especially bulky ones at that. Furthermore it actually is a calculator which misses the point entirely. When you are taking notes or working through a calculation you are not trying to have the computer solve the problem for you. You need to essentially make a very detailed drawing, nothing more. (an equation is simply a drawing) The best tool for this is a pen or stylus due to the standard math notation in use.
That makes you very unusual. While I applaud your flexibility on the matter, it is not nearly so easy a matter to get the entire global population on a new mathematical notation. Frankly I have zero interest in using a different notation when doing so provides me no additional value. Putting a stylus on to a tablet is a MUCH easier solution for note taking than trying to retrain everyone on some new notation. Those who have a specialized need for different notation (such as yourself) are not hindered in any way by providing technology to utilize the standard notation.
Mathematica even has photoshop-style palettes if you wish to choose familiar notations.
VERY awkward for note taking which needs to happen quickly. You need a notation that can be done with a pencil and paper and which does not change.
Don’t confuse mathematics with mathematics notation. The latter is totally arbitrary and can easily be replaced
I'm not confusing them a bit. We have a standard mathematical notation already which works just fine. Yes it is arbitrary and no it cannot be "easily" replaced. You are seriously proposing that we suddenly have everyone throw out the math notation we have been using for centuries just because it doesn't easily work on a keyboard? The economic cost alone makes this a prohibitively bad idea. Do you have any concept of the amount of retraining that would be required? Providing a stylus and some decent note taking software is a MUCH cheaper and simpler and better solution than trying to retrain everyone to some new keyboard friendly notation. Look up what Richard Feynman had to say about changing notations when he tried to invent one.
Politicians don't stay in politics unless they believe their country has the potential to be great.
You seriously believe politicians don't stay in politics because of a desire for power, influence and financial gain? Wow. Don't know where you live but your description doesn't sound like many politicians I've ever run across.
Tablets for school make a lot less sense if you cannot write equations or draw detailed diagrams with them. A fingertip is simply too blunt an instrument to be used for writing equations or drawing - for that you need a stylus. I would dearly have loved to have a tablet for note taking when I was in school but not if I had to do it with my fingers. A keyboard is fine for taking notes if you are in something like an english class and a finger based touch interface is fine for navigation and reading. But to take notes in math class (or any class that uses equations or drawings) you absolutely have to have a stylus. I'm not sure how they are going to reconcile this problem in the current generation of tablets. They simply were not designed with a stylus in mind.
Note that not having a stylus isn't entirely a bad thing. Software developers have a terrible habit of mistaking a stylus for a mouse. A stylus should not be used for navigation. The sole purpose of stylus should be for drawing (diagrams, equations etc) which requires detail greater than can easily be achieved with a mouse or fingertip. While a stylus can be used for navigation, it does a pretty poor job of it.
I love how the NYT and BBC reports on this story completely neglect to mention that the stuck ship is full of climate scientists out to gather global warming evidence.
Just like you are vaguely hinting that locally colder than usual weather somehow is evidence that the climate is not changing. Do you have any conception of the difference between climate and weather?
But only if the money is sent through that subsidiary.
That's the argument that Google (and Apple and others) will make but that argument is disingenuous at best and outright fraud at worst.
Since all Google's money flows throw Ireland and then one of the carribean islands, nothing is ever sold *IN FRANCE* - so nothing to tax.
Wrongo there buddy. If a company incorporated in France advertises through Google to French customers (which they do) then there is a sale that happens in France. Google can try to duck and weave all they want but if the French taxation authorities decide to play hardball Google will lose sooner or later. The sales contracts are written in French, handled by a French sales staff, and the money originates in France and typically benefits a French company. If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Yes they are. I guarantee you that Google (who owns YouTube) is incorporated in France and can be taxed there. The fact that the parent company is in the US is not important here. France absolutely can tax the French subsidiary of Google. There probably are taxation angles via the EU as well.
The idea that any country in the world can levy a tax on you if you're an internet company, would be crippling.
It would be if they could collect the revenue. If you don't actually do any business in France they cannot tax you even if they pass laws which try. They simply cannot collect the money.
No, it has to carry around a very heavy engine instead. Diesels are great and I'm a big fan of diesels but hybrids (can) have demonstrably lower emissions, are capable of better fuel economy per horsepower, can be designed to use zero oil based fuels for commuting 10-40 miles, have even better torque characteristics than the already impressive diesels, and have other advantages besides. While I would happily buy a diesel, the long term prospects for hybrids are much brighter.
What I would like to see is large trucks using diesel-electric hybrids similar to those used in locomotives. I think that would be a huge win for fuel economy and pollution reduction.
No one hauls a half ton of cinder bocks in a land rover.
Nor do most people who own F150s. Most merely like to imagine themselves hauling stuff even though most demonstrably do not.
The F150 is for work.
Even Ford knows that isn't true. Most pickups are never taken off road, rarely if ever tow anything, and most aren't used to haul anything that couldn't be transported in an SUV of similar size. Most F150s are sold as primary transportation to people who really don't need them for that purpose.
We are protecting them from themselves AND we are protecting ourselves from them. We restrict availability of certain drugs because used improperly they are dangerous to the individual taking them AND because people who are cognitively impaired by drugs and/or addicted to drugs tend to affect other people in negative ways. Do I really need to explain that someone addicted to cocaine is pretty likely to make all sorts of bad decisions that will not only affect themselves but will probably hurt people around them too? Yes, sometimes people do need to be protected from themselves and sometimes we need to be protected from others. Flawed thought they may be, many of our laws are made with exactly this in mind.
The point I'm making is; at this time, these things are illegal, but we have a system that doesn't really look out for us with bad meds, bad lead painted toys, bad spinach, bad banks, crooks with nice suites, and it spies on us all the time but never stops these activities that cause us harm.
The systems we have in place demonstrably do prevent most of the problems you mention from getting out of hand most of the time. Where your argument is confused is in that you seem to thing that somehow we can achieve perfect safety in any of those things. Each and every problem you mention would be much worse if there were no restrictions in place. Imperfect though our society might be, it is not nearly the hell hole you are making it out to be.
Ulbricht isn't claiming that the government violated the constitution. He is claiming Bitcoins aren't property and thus can't be seized under federal law.
An argument which is a non-sequitur. If they aren't property then he can't very well claim they are his. You can't own something that isn't property. If they are an asset (which they are since they can be used to purchase useful goods and services) then they are by definition property and can be seized.
Because money is important for reasons that should be self evident and having more of it can make your life a lot easier.
Why is it, that unless somebody's making fat bank off a thing, the thing is considered to not be worth doing?
Because the amount of money you can charge for something is a pretty useful proxy for how much it is valued by society once you take scarcity (real or artificial) into account. Furthermore if people are willing to pay a lot for something that means there are potential opportunities to earn a living providing that something. Since we all have to earn a living it is probably in our interest to pay attention to what is likely to be profitable and what is not.
Yeah, Microsoft should have to support XP for all of eternity. Pay $100 once, get 10,000,000,000 years of support. Get $100 ever!
I think you ought to read what I wrote again because you will find nothing that states Microsoft should never charge support.
From Microsoft's position, supporting XP is not only costing money in the form of programmer time, but it is taking away programmer time from new projects.
So charge for the programmer's time. If Microsoft were to charge, say $5 per license per month for ongoing security updates to XP, I'm pretty sure they would get a lot of takers and easily cover the cost. But they have elected to force my company to "upgrade" to a completely different version of their software with new bugs and no needed features while incurring lots of cost for new hardware, data migration, training and software updates. There is no technological reason why security updates cannot continue to be provided. Their "solution" is not an economical one and frankly it makes me more likely to look for ways to move us away from Microsoft's platform towards other options like Linux.
No, people are idiots for believing that security isn't a feature that is needed.
No one is arguing that security isn't necessary. HOWEVER, security updates are a correction of a defect in the product. They are necessary in the same sense that insurance is necessary. Security updates could be provided for XP by Microsoft for a (reasonable) fee but that is not an option Microsoft has put on the table. There is no technological reason why I need to "upgrade" to Windows 8.
People are also idiots for believing that a for profit company (like Microsoft) is obligated to provide free updates to a product forever.
Microsoft can do whatever they want. However what they are accomplishing isn't to make me want to upgrade to their latest products. If anything it makes me want to use their systems less. I can get linux security updates for free so Microsoft needs to add more value if they want my continued business. They don't have to make security updates free but that isn't what they chose to do. They want me to buy an entirely new product with new and different defects, additional hardware, software migration and training costs. This instead of merely offering to continue security updates for a nominal fee for the system I already have which I already know works. I'm guessing you've never run a business because only an idiot spends money to change something that is working just fine when the change is not actually necessary.
You appear to be saying that there is nothing in post-XP versions of Windows that is necessary for your company.
That is correct. There is no new feature in any more recent version of Windows that will add to the bottom line of my company. Other companies situations may be different but I do know for a fact that thousands of companies and individuals are in the same situation as I am.
Do you really believe that security of your systems is not necessary?
Wrong question. Of course security is necessary but security updates are nothing more than corrections of a product defect. Security is nothing more than a cost to me. It is like insurance - necessary but it does not ever add a penny to the bottom line. I have zero interest in throwing out a working production system just because it does not add to Microsoft's bottom line.
Do you really believe that Microsoft should spend the money (in either direct or opportunity costs) to provide those updates to you for free forever?
I never said anything about how they should provide updates or whether they should charge for them. Frankly if Microsoft were to charge a modest fee (and I do mean modest) to continue security updates for XP, I'd consider paying it. I have very good reasons why our company still uses XP based machines, not the least of which is that we have some critical software that CANNOT be ported. (not my fault - some idiot before me bought it) While I will fix that in due time, it isn't going to happen in the next 6 months and the expense is considerably larger than a new PC with Windows 8 on it.
Your company doesn’t consider security updates necessary?
Security updates are not features. While (unfortunately) necessary they are fundamentally a correction of a defect in their product. You are looking at it backwards. What you are saying is that I'm supposed to pay endlessly for Microsoft for their defective product.
Now in realistic terms if they wanted to charge a modest (emphasis on modest) fee for security updates to those who want to keep XP in place after a decade of use, I don't really have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with a pointless upgrade treadmill that gives me no additional capabilities for my needs over what I already have.
I don't think that Microsoft actually considers these people "customers."
And consider why that might be. My company uses XP on most of the computers in the office. Microsoft has provided not provided a single new feature in Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8 that we actually need or want. Why would we spend money on products that do not add value?
All of Microsoft's customers should have followed its exhortations over the last five years to spend a few bucks and upgrade dump their now-13-year-old OS.
Again, why? They aren't providing anything new to us so why should we spend money on their new products?
People who are still using XP day-to-day are idiots and Microsoft shouldn't encourage them.
Really? People are idiots for not spending money on new equipment that adds precisely zero additional feature that they need? We should be forced to upgrade to Microsoft's latest software because not upgrading doesn't add to Microsoft's profits? My company uses XP on the majority of our computers and there is nothing whatsoever in Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8 that is necessary for us. So we're idiots for not spending money needlessly? Thank $diety we don't let you make our purchasing decisions.
There is almost no scenario where continuing to use XP as your main desktop makes sense
Except for the millions of people whose actual computing needs are perfectly adequately filled by XP.
You're missing the point. Yes hauling them back is useless. They would be used in space.
For what exactly? By who? And with what technology? All I'm seeing is a bunch of ill informed hand waving about the economics and technology involved. You're just assuming everything would make economic sense and that the technology will somehow be viable. Yes, getting out of a gravity well is expensive. However it is not the only economic issue in play here.
How do you propose the person doing it get an economic return if they return no product to Earth? Even if you somehow do manage to mine and process materials in space (which is a HUGE if) you still need to return *something* to Earth in order to make it economically attractive unless you are actually engaged in a colonization project with a completely independent economy.
Getting materials to orbit is incredibly expensive.
Sure, it is expensive to get materials out of a gravity well but it is not remotely clear that it would be any cheaper to process them in space especially since essentially 100% of the technology to mine and manufacture materials in space is, for all practical purposes, science fiction. While our scientists and engineers are pretty damn clever, this is a MUCH harder problem than most people realize. Seldom do people think about the supply chains that are required for all products. You have to have mining, refining, processing, transport, engineering, assembly, and quality controls for every single product and repeat it all for every material and every subcomponent in the item being made. You don't just have to send up a single device, you have to send up an entire supply chain to make space manufacturing technologically viable.
You've missed the actual core problem, which is a deeper matter of client-customer relations in the banking industry.
I didn't miss the core problem because I didn't address it at all. I merely compared the relative merits of debit cards versus credit cards when it comes to recovering from fraudulent transactions the way things stand now. You will get no argument from me that the current fraud "prevention" setup is more than a little absurd.
Personally I don't really understand why anyone would use a debit card if they do not have to. I'm not saying they don't have their uses but I think the risk versus reward for them is not favorable. Use a credit card, pay cash, or even write a check. With my bank I don't even have a debit card. I just have a card that lets me get cash from an ATM and I use a credit card for everything else. For me there is really no upside to a debit card.
Slashdot Mirror
Notations do change, have changed, and will change again - consider for example the switch from Roman to Arabic numerals.
You are talking about a change that occurred many hundreds of years ago. It would be FAR more difficult and costly to implement a similar change today. It's simply an installed base problem. The advantages of switching have to be enormous. You'll have a hard case to make that switching to a keyboard friendly math notation would have anywhere near the level of improvement in convenience or functionality in your example. I'm not arguing that it is technically impossible, merely that the costs outweigh the benefits so much that it is absurdly unlikely to happen. Remember, we are JUST talking about note taking here which is basically drawing. We're not doing computing here. I have seen no technology for taking notes in a math class that improves on a pencil/pen/stylus because those are the best tools we have for detailed drawing. Use the right tool for the job.
I think you’ll agree that since education teaches ex nihilo, we can easily teach new learners whatever new notation we please, and it will be accepted by them as the norm.
The problem isn't new users. The problem is the old ones which is the vast majority of the population. You are simply NOT going to get people who have already learned the current math notation to switch en-masse. Even the teachers would have to switch and I'm pretty sure they won't want to without a damn good reason. Hell there is a reason no one except for engineering geeks use RPN calculators which is a relatively modest change. You think changing the entire notation is going to gain acceptance? Not bloody likely.
Open source is no more secure than closed source, for a host of reasons, but at least with closed source, you know where the code came from and can judge it based on that.
You have absolutely no idea where the code came from with closed source. Could be from anyone. Not much different from open source except for the fact that with open source you can at least theoretically examine the code itself even though in most cases that will never happen.
"I think there's an English word that describes selling American secrets to another government, and I do think it's treason,"
That's only really true if what the US government is keeping secret is morally and legally justifiable. Otherwise what Mr Snowden did is best described as heroism. All the evidence we presently have indicates that the activities of the NSA are very likely in violation of any reasonable interpretation of the 4th amendment. It's pretty hard to trust a secret and unaccountable organization especially when to every appearance they seem to be ignoring any rules they find inconvenient.
Actually the EU has a higher GDP than the US
Depends on how you measure it. The EU has a higher nominal GDP but a slightly lower GDP under PPP. Both are right around $16-17 Trillion in 2013.
per-capita GNP in the EU is a bit less since we don't have quite as much raw materials production (oil, gas, coal) which inflates the figures.
As for GDP per capita, it isn't even close. The US population is around 315 milliion versus 510 million in the EU. Since the GDP is roughly the same, the US GDP per capita is about 40% higher at around $52,000 versus $34,000 for the EU. The differences in GDP are not explained by energy production. The EU is the 7th largest energy producer and 2nd largest consumer) while the US is the 3rd largest energy producer and largest consumer (with China catching up fast). Both economies have services sectors that comprise around 68-69% of the economy. Both have similar sized manufacturing sectors and agriculture sectors. Frankly the US and EU economies are remarkably similar in many ways.
Power and influence to what end, though?
Those ARE the ends. People who seek political office largely are people for whom power and influence are goal unto themselves. Financial wealth usually plays a role as well but that can be achieved pretty easily with sufficient power and influence.
What do the politicians do to justify their financial gain?
Why on earth would they justify it? Until just last year it was absolutely legal for members of Congress to engage in insider trading that would get you and me thrown in jail like Martha Stewart. It is absurdly common for politicians to leave congress FAR wealthier than they entered. This doesn't happen because they are busy serving the greater good.
I'm not cynical enough to think that politicians wake up every morning asking "How can I screw over the world for my own benefit today?".
I'm sure they have plenty of rationalizations for their actions but political corruption is hardly uncommon. If you want extreme examples look at former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. He's hardly unique but he definitely was FAR more interested in lining his own pockets than serving the electorate.
If the Surface Pro and Galaxy Note can steal thunder from iOS devices then Apple may be forced to react. But don't hold you breath; Jobs was no fan of the Newton.
Last I checked Saint Steve is no longer in charge of Apple.
Plus I think his animosity towards the Newton had more to do with it being a mediocre product that few people really wanted and also maybe the fact that it was John Sculley's baby. If the Newton had been selling like crazy Jobs would not have been likely to kill it off but it simply wasn't a sufficiently profitable product. There were things to like about the Newton but the rollout was badly flubbed, it was expensive, and it wasn't clear who it was designed for. Too small for note taking, too bulky to be a PDA, limited networking ability (and the internet wasn't really a thing for the masses yet), poor device for media consumption, useless as a PC replacement, etc. They made a lot of design tradeoffs and the result was a device that tried to be all things to all people and achieved just the opposite.
You just need decent software.
None exists to my knowledge. I honestly cannot conceive of any way you could reasonably take notes requiring fine details using your fingertips. There is a reason we use fine tip pencils instead of big bulky markers to take notes.
The MyScript Calculator app (just google it) does a decent job, for example.
Utterly useless for note taking. That is an app for processing a single equation, and not even especially bulky ones at that. Furthermore it actually is a calculator which misses the point entirely. When you are taking notes or working through a calculation you are not trying to have the computer solve the problem for you. You need to essentially make a very detailed drawing, nothing more. (an equation is simply a drawing) The best tool for this is a pen or stylus due to the standard math notation in use.
I find text-only entry to be very comfortable.
That makes you very unusual. While I applaud your flexibility on the matter, it is not nearly so easy a matter to get the entire global population on a new mathematical notation. Frankly I have zero interest in using a different notation when doing so provides me no additional value. Putting a stylus on to a tablet is a MUCH easier solution for note taking than trying to retrain everyone on some new notation. Those who have a specialized need for different notation (such as yourself) are not hindered in any way by providing technology to utilize the standard notation.
Mathematica even has photoshop-style palettes if you wish to choose familiar notations.
VERY awkward for note taking which needs to happen quickly. You need a notation that can be done with a pencil and paper and which does not change.
Don’t confuse mathematics with mathematics notation. The latter is totally arbitrary and can easily be replaced
I'm not confusing them a bit. We have a standard mathematical notation already which works just fine. Yes it is arbitrary and no it cannot be "easily" replaced. You are seriously proposing that we suddenly have everyone throw out the math notation we have been using for centuries just because it doesn't easily work on a keyboard? The economic cost alone makes this a prohibitively bad idea. Do you have any concept of the amount of retraining that would be required? Providing a stylus and some decent note taking software is a MUCH cheaper and simpler and better solution than trying to retrain everyone to some new keyboard friendly notation. Look up what Richard Feynman had to say about changing notations when he tried to invent one.
Politicians don't stay in politics unless they believe their country has the potential to be great.
You seriously believe politicians don't stay in politics because of a desire for power, influence and financial gain? Wow. Don't know where you live but your description doesn't sound like many politicians I've ever run across.
Tablets for school make a lot less sense if you cannot write equations or draw detailed diagrams with them. A fingertip is simply too blunt an instrument to be used for writing equations or drawing - for that you need a stylus. I would dearly have loved to have a tablet for note taking when I was in school but not if I had to do it with my fingers. A keyboard is fine for taking notes if you are in something like an english class and a finger based touch interface is fine for navigation and reading. But to take notes in math class (or any class that uses equations or drawings) you absolutely have to have a stylus. I'm not sure how they are going to reconcile this problem in the current generation of tablets. They simply were not designed with a stylus in mind.
Note that not having a stylus isn't entirely a bad thing. Software developers have a terrible habit of mistaking a stylus for a mouse. A stylus should not be used for navigation. The sole purpose of stylus should be for drawing (diagrams, equations etc) which requires detail greater than can easily be achieved with a mouse or fingertip. While a stylus can be used for navigation, it does a pretty poor job of it.
I love how the NYT and BBC reports on this story completely neglect to mention that the stuck ship is full of climate scientists out to gather global warming evidence.
Just like you are vaguely hinting that locally colder than usual weather somehow is evidence that the climate is not changing. Do you have any conception of the difference between climate and weather?
But only if the money is sent through that subsidiary.
That's the argument that Google (and Apple and others) will make but that argument is disingenuous at best and outright fraud at worst.
Since all Google's money flows throw Ireland and then one of the carribean islands, nothing is ever sold *IN FRANCE* - so nothing to tax.
Wrongo there buddy. If a company incorporated in France advertises through Google to French customers (which they do) then there is a sale that happens in France. Google can try to duck and weave all they want but if the French taxation authorities decide to play hardball Google will lose sooner or later. The sales contracts are written in French, handled by a French sales staff, and the money originates in France and typically benefits a French company. If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Youtube's not a French company.
Yes they are. I guarantee you that Google (who owns YouTube) is incorporated in France and can be taxed there. The fact that the parent company is in the US is not important here. France absolutely can tax the French subsidiary of Google. There probably are taxation angles via the EU as well.
The idea that any country in the world can levy a tax on you if you're an internet company, would be crippling.
It would be if they could collect the revenue. If you don't actually do any business in France they cannot tax you even if they pass laws which try. They simply cannot collect the money.
Exactly: diesel. Fuck hybdrids. A good diesel has relatively low emissions, will produce better MPG than a Prius (e.g. http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/skoda/skoda-octavia-estate-s-1.6-tdi-cr.asp [carpages.co.uk]), and doesn't have cart around a heavy battery.
No, it has to carry around a very heavy engine instead. Diesels are great and I'm a big fan of diesels but hybrids (can) have demonstrably lower emissions, are capable of better fuel economy per horsepower, can be designed to use zero oil based fuels for commuting 10-40 miles, have even better torque characteristics than the already impressive diesels, and have other advantages besides. While I would happily buy a diesel, the long term prospects for hybrids are much brighter.
What I would like to see is large trucks using diesel-electric hybrids similar to those used in locomotives. I think that would be a huge win for fuel economy and pollution reduction.
No one hauls a half ton of cinder bocks in a land rover.
Nor do most people who own F150s. Most merely like to imagine themselves hauling stuff even though most demonstrably do not.
The F150 is for work.
Even Ford knows that isn't true. Most pickups are never taken off road, rarely if ever tow anything, and most aren't used to haul anything that couldn't be transported in an SUV of similar size. Most F150s are sold as primary transportation to people who really don't need them for that purpose.
What exactly are we protecting people from?
We are protecting them from themselves AND we are protecting ourselves from them. We restrict availability of certain drugs because used improperly they are dangerous to the individual taking them AND because people who are cognitively impaired by drugs and/or addicted to drugs tend to affect other people in negative ways. Do I really need to explain that someone addicted to cocaine is pretty likely to make all sorts of bad decisions that will not only affect themselves but will probably hurt people around them too? Yes, sometimes people do need to be protected from themselves and sometimes we need to be protected from others. Flawed thought they may be, many of our laws are made with exactly this in mind.
The point I'm making is; at this time, these things are illegal, but we have a system that doesn't really look out for us with bad meds, bad lead painted toys, bad spinach, bad banks, crooks with nice suites, and it spies on us all the time but never stops these activities that cause us harm.
The systems we have in place demonstrably do prevent most of the problems you mention from getting out of hand most of the time. Where your argument is confused is in that you seem to thing that somehow we can achieve perfect safety in any of those things. Each and every problem you mention would be much worse if there were no restrictions in place. Imperfect though our society might be, it is not nearly the hell hole you are making it out to be.
Ulbricht isn't claiming that the government violated the constitution. He is claiming Bitcoins aren't property and thus can't be seized under federal law.
An argument which is a non-sequitur. If they aren't property then he can't very well claim they are his. You can't own something that isn't property. If they are an asset (which they are since they can be used to purchase useful goods and services) then they are by definition property and can be seized.
Why the obsession with money? Seriously.
Because money is important for reasons that should be self evident and having more of it can make your life a lot easier.
Why is it, that unless somebody's making fat bank off a thing, the thing is considered to not be worth doing?
Because the amount of money you can charge for something is a pretty useful proxy for how much it is valued by society once you take scarcity (real or artificial) into account. Furthermore if people are willing to pay a lot for something that means there are potential opportunities to earn a living providing that something. Since we all have to earn a living it is probably in our interest to pay attention to what is likely to be profitable and what is not.
Yeah, Microsoft should have to support XP for all of eternity. Pay $100 once, get 10,000,000,000 years of support. Get $100 ever!
I think you ought to read what I wrote again because you will find nothing that states Microsoft should never charge support.
From Microsoft's position, supporting XP is not only costing money in the form of programmer time, but it is taking away programmer time from new projects.
So charge for the programmer's time. If Microsoft were to charge, say $5 per license per month for ongoing security updates to XP, I'm pretty sure they would get a lot of takers and easily cover the cost. But they have elected to force my company to "upgrade" to a completely different version of their software with new bugs and no needed features while incurring lots of cost for new hardware, data migration, training and software updates. There is no technological reason why security updates cannot continue to be provided. Their "solution" is not an economical one and frankly it makes me more likely to look for ways to move us away from Microsoft's platform towards other options like Linux.
No, people are idiots for believing that security isn't a feature that is needed.
No one is arguing that security isn't necessary. HOWEVER, security updates are a correction of a defect in the product. They are necessary in the same sense that insurance is necessary. Security updates could be provided for XP by Microsoft for a (reasonable) fee but that is not an option Microsoft has put on the table. There is no technological reason why I need to "upgrade" to Windows 8.
People are also idiots for believing that a for profit company (like Microsoft) is obligated to provide free updates to a product forever.
Microsoft can do whatever they want. However what they are accomplishing isn't to make me want to upgrade to their latest products. If anything it makes me want to use their systems less. I can get linux security updates for free so Microsoft needs to add more value if they want my continued business. They don't have to make security updates free but that isn't what they chose to do. They want me to buy an entirely new product with new and different defects, additional hardware, software migration and training costs. This instead of merely offering to continue security updates for a nominal fee for the system I already have which I already know works. I'm guessing you've never run a business because only an idiot spends money to change something that is working just fine when the change is not actually necessary.
You appear to be saying that there is nothing in post-XP versions of Windows that is necessary for your company.
That is correct. There is no new feature in any more recent version of Windows that will add to the bottom line of my company. Other companies situations may be different but I do know for a fact that thousands of companies and individuals are in the same situation as I am.
Do you really believe that security of your systems is not necessary?
Wrong question. Of course security is necessary but security updates are nothing more than corrections of a product defect. Security is nothing more than a cost to me. It is like insurance - necessary but it does not ever add a penny to the bottom line. I have zero interest in throwing out a working production system just because it does not add to Microsoft's bottom line.
Do you really believe that Microsoft should spend the money (in either direct or opportunity costs) to provide those updates to you for free forever?
I never said anything about how they should provide updates or whether they should charge for them. Frankly if Microsoft were to charge a modest fee (and I do mean modest) to continue security updates for XP, I'd consider paying it. I have very good reasons why our company still uses XP based machines, not the least of which is that we have some critical software that CANNOT be ported. (not my fault - some idiot before me bought it) While I will fix that in due time, it isn't going to happen in the next 6 months and the expense is considerably larger than a new PC with Windows 8 on it.
Your company doesn’t consider security updates necessary?
Security updates are not features. While (unfortunately) necessary they are fundamentally a correction of a defect in their product. You are looking at it backwards. What you are saying is that I'm supposed to pay endlessly for Microsoft for their defective product.
Now in realistic terms if they wanted to charge a modest (emphasis on modest) fee for security updates to those who want to keep XP in place after a decade of use, I don't really have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with a pointless upgrade treadmill that gives me no additional capabilities for my needs over what I already have.
I don't think that Microsoft actually considers these people "customers."
And consider why that might be. My company uses XP on most of the computers in the office. Microsoft has provided not provided a single new feature in Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8 that we actually need or want. Why would we spend money on products that do not add value?
All of Microsoft's customers should have followed its exhortations over the last five years to spend a few bucks and upgrade dump their now-13-year-old OS.
Again, why? They aren't providing anything new to us so why should we spend money on their new products?
People who are still using XP day-to-day are idiots and Microsoft shouldn't encourage them.
Really? People are idiots for not spending money on new equipment that adds precisely zero additional feature that they need? We should be forced to upgrade to Microsoft's latest software because not upgrading doesn't add to Microsoft's profits? My company uses XP on the majority of our computers and there is nothing whatsoever in Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8 that is necessary for us. So we're idiots for not spending money needlessly? Thank $diety we don't let you make our purchasing decisions.
There is almost no scenario where continuing to use XP as your main desktop makes sense
Except for the millions of people whose actual computing needs are perfectly adequately filled by XP.
You're missing the point. Yes hauling them back is useless. They would be used in space.
For what exactly? By who? And with what technology? All I'm seeing is a bunch of ill informed hand waving about the economics and technology involved. You're just assuming everything would make economic sense and that the technology will somehow be viable. Yes, getting out of a gravity well is expensive. However it is not the only economic issue in play here.
How do you propose the person doing it get an economic return if they return no product to Earth? Even if you somehow do manage to mine and process materials in space (which is a HUGE if) you still need to return *something* to Earth in order to make it economically attractive unless you are actually engaged in a colonization project with a completely independent economy.
Getting materials to orbit is incredibly expensive.
Sure, it is expensive to get materials out of a gravity well but it is not remotely clear that it would be any cheaper to process them in space especially since essentially 100% of the technology to mine and manufacture materials in space is, for all practical purposes, science fiction. While our scientists and engineers are pretty damn clever, this is a MUCH harder problem than most people realize. Seldom do people think about the supply chains that are required for all products. You have to have mining, refining, processing, transport, engineering, assembly, and quality controls for every single product and repeat it all for every material and every subcomponent in the item being made. You don't just have to send up a single device, you have to send up an entire supply chain to make space manufacturing technologically viable.
You've missed the actual core problem, which is a deeper matter of client-customer relations in the banking industry.
I didn't miss the core problem because I didn't address it at all. I merely compared the relative merits of debit cards versus credit cards when it comes to recovering from fraudulent transactions the way things stand now. You will get no argument from me that the current fraud "prevention" setup is more than a little absurd.
Personally I don't really understand why anyone would use a debit card if they do not have to. I'm not saying they don't have their uses but I think the risk versus reward for them is not favorable. Use a credit card, pay cash, or even write a check. With my bank I don't even have a debit card. I just have a card that lets me get cash from an ATM and I use a credit card for everything else. For me there is really no upside to a debit card.