Hm. Cell phone service on the moon vs. education for our nation's youth. Is that really a tough choice?
Btw: why is NASA solving this at all? Shouldn't it be whomever would be the cell provider for the moon, and then we can let the free market figure it out?
You saw none. Google is philosophically opposed to advertising and has not yet ever placed a paid for ad. More plainly, they don't see the need to pay to promote their products, as they believe that products that are good will market themselves.
That's true only for themselves, natch; for everyone else it's a critical piece of business marketing tools, which Google will gladly sell you. One would hope the irony escapes no one at Google.
Let's just say that in spite of the fact that you appear to be enlisted rather than an officer based on your comments, I would have done some kind of punishment detail at the very least if you had been in my command just for this very lax attitude toward state secrets.
Genius! To prevent the loss of state secrets, just make everyone that pisses you off clean the latrine with their toothbrush! I'm sure that'll secure the country immediately!
Get a grip, you power mad bitch. Take a clue when offered one. To what end does punishing this offense serve? Even if it prevented similar occurrences in the future, would it prevent any loss of important material? If you knew how to lead instead of merely command you would realize the huge favor he's doing by displaying his discontent with a fucked up policy; he's alerting you of the need to recognize a problem and fix it. It's like a suggestion box, but you're too dumb to read it.
Pray tell, would you rather that this soldier display his discontent while stealing no secrets, or channel that discontent into silent and invisible rebellion--that might include the sale of secrets to our enemies? Overt hostility is much more useful than covert hostility--but you just drove this guy underground. Nice job.
Bloggers will command respect at exactly at the same time they become popular enough to demand a sizable ad revenue. If a blogger draws readership, advertisers will respond to that. As a vendor, whether or not you consider the blogger an asshat, you run the risk of alienating a sizable chunk of your consumers if you summarily ignore them.
If you want to inspire favorable mentions with a group of people that might influence your consumers, you will start to give bloggers the same benefits that the mainstream media have access to. What, you think that pressrooms are altruistic endeavors, set up out of respect for the profession of journalism? Of course not. They're set up to make it easier for your event to have relevance to the public at large, via the media. If the public starts responding or trusting bloggers more than the traditional media, convention organizers will have to start responding to that or their events will become irrelevant.
And the reverse is true for print and mainstream media, btw. They can talk about the noble sanctity of their profession as much as they want, but if no one reads them no one will care. And they'll find that they no longer will get the benefits, like pressrooms, that they currently enjoy.
On a completely different take, this is not possible with every remote. For example, all Apple remotes have the ability to "pair" with a computer, to prevent a computer from responding to any remote besides its own This is not rocket science, and it's not new.
And yet, try walking around MacWorld next week with one of the Apple remotes--a surprising number of people don't know that you need to either turn off the IR port or pair it with the remote, and it cames "promiscuous" out of the box, or at least it did with Tiger.
I presume that Apple is smart enough to image their demo Macs with the IR port disabled, but most conference attendees aren't so savvy.
Should "Bob's Morman Supply" not be able to say something like that?
No, Bob sure as hell should not be able to say anything of the kind. It's great and all that Bob wants to pursue a lifestyle that excludes drinking, dancing, and whatever else. However, he has no right to dictate what standards I should live by--he is merely my employer. As long as I perform my job satisfactorily and legally, he has no right to tell me how else to behave. My habits have no bearing on his pursuit of spiritual enlightenment.
I mean, come on, the average precinct BARELY record 1000 votes and the biggest don't even hit 3000, yet the voting system for the average high school prom, while equally as complicated, extensive and at risk for fraud, is more secure and less prone to error. I wouldn't assume that to be true, at all.
The entire tabletop gaming industry is still almost exclusively oriented around individual purchases of rulebooks. These buying habits do not seem to provide a consistent or long term revenue stream. Quite reasonably, a gaming group can share a set of rule books and therefore spend no more than $200 every 5 years or so.
However, unlike other board games, tabletop gaming requires an active community and therefore active interest from the developer of the games.
How can Hasbro maintain active development and interest in it's tabletop games indefinitely, when the revenue stream is not consistent over time? MMOs, and to a lesser extent, CCGs, demand a subscription model and thereby provide the resources for continual development. Is the best answer for tabletop economics to require a rules refresh every 5 years?
Indeed, an ex-Google "VP of Engineering", Wayne Rosling, joined the LSST project in June 05. That Google announced a joint effort with the LSST some time later is not therefore totally surprising--sometimes it's who you know.
I recently toured the Naval Air Station Tillamook and learned two surprising things related to this discussion:
The US is far and away the largest, if not the only, producer of helium; and
we'll probably be out of Helium within 10 years.
As Helium is used, it must be recovered. If it simply left to evaporate, being lighter than air it will rise to the highest level of our atmosphere and there be stripped of by the solar wind. So once it's gone, it's gone--and there appears to be a finite supply, as we have only been able to extract it from natural gas deposits that have had the further advantage of being proximate to a radiation source.
There are different estimates about how much more of it we have, and the Moon is a possible supply. But I sure wouldn't want to attempt to build an airship industry around it. By the time airships became feasible again, we may well be out of Helium by then (or in enough cheap abundance to make it the lift medium infeasible).
Since PC retailing gross margins are normally 10% or less, Apple would have to sell $12 million a year per store to pay for the space.
Not to mention, he didn't even get the facts available to him right. At the time, Apple was averaging approximately 30% margin on their computers. So he didn't do basic business research, before coming to his conclusion, but instead used lazy assumptions and then wonders why his predictions are wrong? Amazing he's in business journalism.
Portability, I guess, but I don't really need to take 50 books with me.
Also that they (should be) searchable. Those are the killer factors. I don't yet have an eBook reader for all of the other reasons that you mention.
The eBook reader format that Oreilly adopts is likely to be my next favorite device, however. How would you like to search every instance of a function across their entire library, at once, on the plane?
I deal with it by asking the person who they thought created the Internet, if not Gore. I generally get an answer along the lines of Gates/Microsoft.
It's sad, really, that everyone knows who Alexander Graham Bell was and what he did, but the common layperson can't name the founders of the internet--which has almost as much impact in their lives.
Big Co. pays more attention to potential customers who actually have money to spend with them. Also, some products are out of reach of small companies.
Wah. If you don't know that a 17 year old, dressed scruffily, who hasn't shaved for 5 days, will receive less attention at a Mercedes dealership than the nattily dressed 40-ish man, you just don't live in the real world. Sure: the 17 year old could be Bill freaking Gates, or a rockstar. Or might become one some day, but will have been so soured on the treatment received that they vow never to buy a Mercedes.
But frankly, almost all of the time, talking to the 17 year old is a waste of time at best, and at worst you lose the customer that is really ready and willing to spend money with you because you've ignored them.
Y, it sucks. So it goes. You might argue that one of the ways that Microsoft got as popular as they did with CIO types is because everyone uses them at home, so 17 year olds that get their start troubleshooting home computers go on to CIO jobs and stick with Microsoft because they know it. But, frankly, if that was all of the answer Apple would rule the world--everyone in a certain generation used them at school, but it did not help their adoption in enterprise.
btw: can we stop linking to CIO mag, please? It has the absolute worst S/N ratio of any online mag out there, and the article content generally isn't that good either.
The conventional terms used for erratum, however, are usually "error" or "bug".
Not quite true. An erratum refers specifically to the document that describes the bug or error, not the bug itself. For instance, in conversation you might say you had a bug in your program; you wouldn't say that you had an erratum. Once you wrote down a description of the bug and published it, you could refer to that document as the erratum--and at that point "erratum" is synonymous with the bug itself (as it's described in the document) and the document.
(If the bug changes character later, then "erratum" would refer only to the bug as it's described in the doc, not as the bug's new behavior--until it's described in an addendum to the erratum)
Wow, thats pedantic. But in CPU failure analysis, it matters;)
Close. I rather suspect they're going to use this as an argument against Net Neutrality, as in "if we're not free to extort websites for connection to their customers, well gee, there's just no reason to pour money into building out the infrastructure necessary to satisfy future demand."
And odder still that so many people seem to crave a unitary executive.
Even our Founding Fathers preferred a "benevolent dictator", probably because a single individual is just that much more effective and efficient at getting shit done. The problem is that unless you can guarantee the first part, you can't suffer the first.
And given enough generations of relatively benign government, the populace may eventually forget the risks of a dictator and the necessity that "benevolence" needs to be assured through power of law backed by force, that's it's not an intrinsic trait of those that wish to lead.
They should not be given amnesty, so the courts can determine the extent of their liability.
I think you forgot to add: and when they are found to liable to the tune of several billions of dollars, they'll be damn sure to be acting within the law in the future, and not just acting on the whim of any single legislator.
And that'll go for any other organization too, that decides that a permission slip signed by the President himself is good enough. It's not. In fact, that's why we got rid of the King in the first place, and replaced him with a three part government, each of which can check the other.
Seriously? It's about retroactive immunity. Since the telcos did it when it was illegal, and have since been caught at it, the question is should they be immunized for the past crimes they committed. In fact, they are being sued by the EFF over these (past) actions, and the court has basically suspended the case until it's determined if the Congress will give the telcos retroactive immunity--which would make the suit moot.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm. Cell phone service on the moon vs. education for our nation's youth. Is that really a tough choice?
Btw: why is NASA solving this at all? Shouldn't it be whomever would be the cell provider for the moon, and then we can let the free market figure it out?
I'd be interested in talking to you more about your theories of efficient data center design, and how Google might be able to take advantage of them.
Email me at my public (scrambled) email address.
how many ads for Google I saw
You saw none. Google is philosophically opposed to advertising and has not yet ever placed a paid for ad. More plainly, they don't see the need to pay to promote their products, as they believe that products that are good will market themselves.
That's true only for themselves, natch; for everyone else it's a critical piece of business marketing tools, which Google will gladly sell you. One would hope the irony escapes no one at Google.
When all HD content becomes available only on Blu-Ray, downloading will be stalled for a good while.
That's already not true: you can purchase and rent HD movies from iTunes, and get them via download.
Therefore, Blu-Ray stands little chance of being the only HD delivery media. In fact, it may be quickly obsoleted by downloads.
Posting as an AC just shows that you fear your own words.
Ignorance on Slashdot? Could it possibly be true?
http://loews.bipnet.com/reelmoms/
http://www.rookiemoms.com/watch-new-movies/
Let's just say that in spite of the fact that you appear to be enlisted rather than an officer based on your comments, I would have done some kind of punishment detail at the very least if you had been in my command just for this very lax attitude toward state secrets.
Genius! To prevent the loss of state secrets, just make everyone that pisses you off clean the latrine with their toothbrush! I'm sure that'll secure the country immediately!
Get a grip, you power mad bitch. Take a clue when offered one. To what end does punishing this offense serve? Even if it prevented similar occurrences in the future, would it prevent any loss of important material? If you knew how to lead instead of merely command you would realize the huge favor he's doing by displaying his discontent with a fucked up policy; he's alerting you of the need to recognize a problem and fix it. It's like a suggestion box, but you're too dumb to read it.
Pray tell, would you rather that this soldier display his discontent while stealing no secrets, or channel that discontent into silent and invisible rebellion--that might include the sale of secrets to our enemies? Overt hostility is much more useful than covert hostility--but you just drove this guy underground. Nice job.
Bloggers will command respect at exactly at the same time they become popular enough to demand a sizable ad revenue. If a blogger draws readership, advertisers will respond to that. As a vendor, whether or not you consider the blogger an asshat, you run the risk of alienating a sizable chunk of your consumers if you summarily ignore them.
If you want to inspire favorable mentions with a group of people that might influence your consumers, you will start to give bloggers the same benefits that the mainstream media have access to. What, you think that pressrooms are altruistic endeavors, set up out of respect for the profession of journalism? Of course not. They're set up to make it easier for your event to have relevance to the public at large, via the media. If the public starts responding or trusting bloggers more than the traditional media, convention organizers will have to start responding to that or their events will become irrelevant.
And the reverse is true for print and mainstream media, btw. They can talk about the noble sanctity of their profession as much as they want, but if no one reads them no one will care. And they'll find that they no longer will get the benefits, like pressrooms, that they currently enjoy.
On a completely different take, this is not possible with every remote. For example, all Apple remotes have the ability to "pair" with a computer, to prevent a computer from responding to any remote besides its own This is not rocket science, and it's not new.
And yet, try walking around MacWorld next week with one of the Apple remotes--a surprising number of people don't know that you need to either turn off the IR port or pair it with the remote, and it cames "promiscuous" out of the box, or at least it did with Tiger.
I presume that Apple is smart enough to image their demo Macs with the IR port disabled, but most conference attendees aren't so savvy.
Should "Bob's Morman Supply" not be able to say something like that?
No, Bob sure as hell should not be able to say anything of the kind. It's great and all that Bob wants to pursue a lifestyle that excludes drinking, dancing, and whatever else. However, he has no right to dictate what standards I should live by--he is merely my employer. As long as I perform my job satisfactorily and legally, he has no right to tell me how else to behave. My habits have no bearing on his pursuit of spiritual enlightenment.
I mean, come on, the average precinct BARELY record 1000 votes and the biggest don't even hit 3000, yet the voting system for the average high school prom, while equally as complicated, extensive and at risk for fraud, is more secure and less prone to error.
I wouldn't assume that to be true, at all.
The entire tabletop gaming industry is still almost exclusively oriented around individual purchases of rulebooks. These buying habits do not seem to provide a consistent or long term revenue stream. Quite reasonably, a gaming group can share a set of rule books and therefore spend no more than $200 every 5 years or so.
However, unlike other board games, tabletop gaming requires an active community and therefore active interest from the developer of the games.
How can Hasbro maintain active development and interest in it's tabletop games indefinitely, when the revenue stream is not consistent over time? MMOs, and to a lesser extent, CCGs, demand a subscription model and thereby provide the resources for continual development. Is the best answer for tabletop economics to require a rules refresh every 5 years?
The LSST and Google have also announced some degree of collaboration: http://www.lsst.org/News/google.shtml.
Indeed, an ex-Google "VP of Engineering", Wayne Rosling, joined the LSST project in June 05. That Google announced a joint effort with the LSST some time later is not therefore totally surprising--sometimes it's who you know.
- The US is far and away the largest, if not the only, producer of helium; and
- we'll probably be out of Helium within 10 years.
As Helium is used, it must be recovered. If it simply left to evaporate, being lighter than air it will rise to the highest level of our atmosphere and there be stripped of by the solar wind. So once it's gone, it's gone--and there appears to be a finite supply, as we have only been able to extract it from natural gas deposits that have had the further advantage of being proximate to a radiation source.There are different estimates about how much more of it we have, and the Moon is a possible supply. But I sure wouldn't want to attempt to build an airship industry around it. By the time airships became feasible again, we may well be out of Helium by then (or in enough cheap abundance to make it the lift medium infeasible).
5c/KWh here in Oregon, from hydro. Not only are we cheaper, we're greener ;)
Since PC retailing gross margins are normally 10% or less, Apple would have to sell $12 million a year per store to pay for the space.
Not to mention, he didn't even get the facts available to him right. At the time, Apple was averaging approximately 30% margin on their computers. So he didn't do basic business research, before coming to his conclusion, but instead used lazy assumptions and then wonders why his predictions are wrong? Amazing he's in business journalism.
Portability, I guess, but I don't really need to take 50 books with me.
Also that they (should be) searchable. Those are the killer factors. I don't yet have an eBook reader for all of the other reasons that you mention.
The eBook reader format that Oreilly adopts is likely to be my next favorite device, however. How would you like to search every instance of a function across their entire library, at once, on the plane?
I deal with it by asking the person who they thought created the Internet, if not Gore. I generally get an answer along the lines of Gates/Microsoft. It's sad, really, that everyone knows who Alexander Graham Bell was and what he did, but the common layperson can't name the founders of the internet--which has almost as much impact in their lives.
Big Co. pays more attention to potential customers who actually have money to spend with them. Also, some products are out of reach of small companies.
Wah. If you don't know that a 17 year old, dressed scruffily, who hasn't shaved for 5 days, will receive less attention at a Mercedes dealership than the nattily dressed 40-ish man, you just don't live in the real world. Sure: the 17 year old could be Bill freaking Gates, or a rockstar. Or might become one some day, but will have been so soured on the treatment received that they vow never to buy a Mercedes.
But frankly, almost all of the time, talking to the 17 year old is a waste of time at best, and at worst you lose the customer that is really ready and willing to spend money with you because you've ignored them.
Y, it sucks. So it goes. You might argue that one of the ways that Microsoft got as popular as they did with CIO types is because everyone uses them at home, so 17 year olds that get their start troubleshooting home computers go on to CIO jobs and stick with Microsoft because they know it. But, frankly, if that was all of the answer Apple would rule the world--everyone in a certain generation used them at school, but it did not help their adoption in enterprise.
btw: can we stop linking to CIO mag, please? It has the absolute worst S/N ratio of any online mag out there, and the article content generally isn't that good either.
The conventional terms used for erratum, however, are usually "error" or "bug".
Not quite true. An erratum refers specifically to the document that describes the bug or error, not the bug itself. For instance, in conversation you might say you had a bug in your program; you wouldn't say that you had an erratum. Once you wrote down a description of the bug and published it, you could refer to that document as the erratum--and at that point "erratum" is synonymous with the bug itself (as it's described in the document) and the document.
(If the bug changes character later, then "erratum" would refer only to the bug as it's described in the doc, not as the bug's new behavior--until it's described in an addendum to the erratum)
Wow, thats pedantic. But in CPU failure analysis, it matters
so they could go cry to congress
Close. I rather suspect they're going to use this as an argument against Net Neutrality, as in "if we're not free to extort websites for connection to their customers, well gee, there's just no reason to pour money into building out the infrastructure necessary to satisfy future demand."
And odder still that so many people seem to crave a unitary executive.
Even our Founding Fathers preferred a "benevolent dictator", probably because a single individual is just that much more effective and efficient at getting shit done. The problem is that unless you can guarantee the first part, you can't suffer the first.
And given enough generations of relatively benign government, the populace may eventually forget the risks of a dictator and the necessity that "benevolence" needs to be assured through power of law backed by force, that's it's not an intrinsic trait of those that wish to lead.
They should not be given amnesty, so the courts can determine the extent of their liability.
I think you forgot to add: and when they are found to liable to the tune of several billions of dollars, they'll be damn sure to be acting within the law in the future, and not just acting on the whim of any single legislator.
And that'll go for any other organization too, that decides that a permission slip signed by the President himself is good enough. It's not. In fact, that's why we got rid of the King in the first place, and replaced him with a three part government, each of which can check the other.
So what's the fuss about?
Seriously? It's about retroactive immunity. Since the telcos did it when it was illegal, and have since been caught at it, the question is should they be immunized for the past crimes they committed. In fact, they are being sued by the EFF over these (past) actions, and the court has basically suspended the case until it's determined if the Congress will give the telcos retroactive immunity--which would make the suit moot.