But what if I want my children to have the chance to 'just live'? Hey, no reason to care about that, because I'm just living now. Hey, no reason to worry that the millions of gallons of toxic waste I just dumped in my local lake. I'm just living. Nevermind that I just slaughtered our local ecosystem and kicked off a water shortage because everything around me became contaminated.
While there may always be some kind of disaster, is there really a reason to carelessly bring about one upon ourselves? Are we really that stupid, as a species, that we're willing to kill ourselves off because all we want to do is 'just live'? If that's the case, then perhaps this universe is better off without us, stupid, paranoid, ignorant, and arrogant as we are.
I listened to MP3 vs Ogg. Yes, I've heard a difference in clarity at low encoding rates. Yes, I've also not noticed much of a difference at higher encoding rates (say, 160bps variable in MP3). What I have noticed is that, while I would prefer to encode my things to Ogg, the lack of HARDWARE that natively supports the Ogg format is a serious drawback.
One of the little toys on my wish list does have Ogg support, but 99% of my music has been ripped in MP3 format. Converting that to Ogg gets me nothing. Reripping it in Ogg costs me time. What do I get out of it? I can play it on a computer, and I can play it on an iRiver. I cannot burn a DVD and drop it in my stereo to play many hours of music through far better than my computer speakers. To me, that's a waste of time for only marginal improvements.
Ogg may be technically better, but until it's pushed into hardware playback devices more than it has been, it will always remain a format for audiophiles willing to put up with the incompatabilities just to listen to music.
Actually, if I recall right (and I may not, so.. whatever), the notion of selling the 'base' product at a loss is called a loss leader. You find this in many things, such as razors and razorblades, printers and print cartridges, and game consoles and games. Any place where you can sell some consumable that you need to operate a device, you can generally get away with selling something as a loss leader. The only problem is that you are counting on people to buy the secondary items. If someone comes up with another use for the base device that doesn't use those secondary items (say using an XBox as a multimedia PC, not for games), your plan could backfire.
Price gouging is more like what the RIAA did. Collaboration between the members kept prices high dispite market demand (or lack thereof). You priced it at this pay scale so everyone would assume that the price you see for new CD's (say, $18.99) is just common, even if after all costs are paid for and fair profit margin applied, it remains excessively high. You either bought it at the price they set or you didn't buy it, and you couldn't find alternatives.
No, airplanes crash because a pilot wouldn't trust his sensors, because a sensor malfunctioned, because an autopilot refused to relinquish control of the plane sensing an 'altitude too low' condition, etc.. I watched a report where they went over a plane crash with a fine tooth comb, checking altimeter, warning sensors, warning lights, etc. Turns out that the guy was flying through fog and just must not have trusted his altimeter or artificial horizon, driving his plane at 'climb' speeds into a forest.
Airplanes can and do crash due to pilot error, similar to designer/operator error in failing to turn on the second data stream. We can thank having done plane flights millions of times for having put in place a process that 98% or so flights will come up green.
Clearly, you don't go in for any of the non-mainstream Star Trek stuff. People have done 'fantasy' hardware blueprints of all manner of things, in details darn near fine enough to manufacture them.
Thing is that you probably could theorize enough of the mechanics (physics have made antimatter, have concluded that matter and antimatter releases a hell of a lot of energy, etc) that even if you're wrong, you may or may not be required to prove it works to get the patent awarded. If you've ever read some software patents that have been approved, while they go into detail, they use as general a term as they can "a computer" (includes most kinds of computational machines), "a hardware device" (god, what doesn't that include?), and so on.
You can patent a method to do something, or you can patent a thing that does something, and you just have to describe it enough in detail to get it awarded, regardless if you could actually build it or not.
Well, the idea would be that, during the patent's application being in 'Pending Prototype' status, noone else could actually file a 'completed' patent based on that exact process until the prototype time period expired. This aleviates the notion of someone beating you to the punch until you've had your chance (and if you cannot finish it before the time has elapsed, then you probably hadn't solidified the process to begin with).
It does leave open the idea that someone else could work on it in parallel and hope you failed to complete it, but that's something of a gamble. This also allows you buy yourself some time to work the prototype for your concept without anything more than 'time' pressuring you. Such a system may have allowed the phone business to actually sway a different way, considering the two individuals to attempt patents for their work filed within hours of each other.
This tends to be one of those days that I'm thankful that my parents are not nearly as wired into the Internet as I am. They still pay their bills by check, buy just about everything at stores, and much of their information hardly ever reaches the Internet.
How weird to be saying "Thank You mom and dad for being averse to technology" as a geek and actually be praising them.
Hell, even if you don't, you have enough time at 500 years to change careers at least 2 or 3 times, if not more. Get bored with computers? Take up music. Get bored of that? Go teach. Etc.
In it's normal shape, it has the potential to be used to jimmy a car's lock open.
Point I'm getting at is that there are many items that have perfectly innocent uses which can also be used for nefarious purposes.
At any rate, if you own the item in question (car, CD, etc), it is (or should be) your right to do whatever you want to with it. The only exception to that is if you take it out into a common public area, that it must be deemed safe to those around you. However, you could turn your car into a watermill motor, a DC generator, or whatever, because it's YOUR CAR. If you wanted to smash it with a hammer, break into it with a rock, so long as you own it, exactally what right does anyone have to say what you can or cannot do with it?
I think building a prototype should be a requirement for finalizing a patent, in any system. Ok, so you have a concept. Apply for the patent, pending proof that it actually works. Get it to work, and your patent is then approved. Fail to get it to work within a given time period and you lose that patent application and have to start it again. I can think up thousands of ideas a day (exadurated, but you get the point), but if I never produce anything and just get patents for what I come up with, I violate the spirit of the patent system.
I mean, seriously, what's to stop someone from patenting a 'Star Trek' style starship drive? Transporter? Perhaps some metalurgical process noone's heard of yet? At the present, I'm not sure there is, even if the technology just isn't capable of producing a proof of concept.
Then they're going to lose. I won't buy things 50 times on different formats unless it happened to be an oddity I'm bringing up into new standards (have tape, want CD) or it is something I really loved and the new format offered signifigant bonuses (VHS->DVD). I will not upgrade an entire collection just because the technology has advanced, and they can KMA if they think I should. I don't have the money, and I don't have the time to do such a stupid thing.
I mean, seriously, would they (as a company) do such a stupid thing if they were in a similar position? If they wouldn't, then why would they ever expect us to do that, other than being blind or hopeful?
Don't like it? Support free AV programs like AVG. They just released a "new" free version just this January, their 7.0 (paid version is 8.0, I believe). Get all the updates np, doesn't cost you a dime unless you're a business.
The more that you use their service, the more you cost them. They don't actually sell you a dedicated 4 meg down/256k up on cable. If everyone were to use their connection to the maximum, depending on how many users were in your area, your maximum is far below the maximum they set.
They basically oversell their bandwidth, saying it's 4meg down. Sure it is! They cap it out at 4 meg down, but if everyone tried to get 4 meg at once, they couldn't, because their backbone and distribution net can't handle it. They want you to use as little as possible so that they can sell this grand "4M down/256k up" service to everyone without them realizing it's crap.
It's all about the bother it takes to close you down. Run a low key web server(webmail)/email server and I have yet to be visited by the Comcast Police. Not like I could hog a lot of bandwidth as it is, with a whopping 256k upstream.
Til it costs them more to leave you alone than it does to close you down, it isn't worth their time.
You have something I want (money) and may have something I need (your product), except you always want what I have regardless if I want what you're selling.
Preview like 15 times, and still this line gets through. It should read...
You want something that I have (money) and may have something I want (your product),...
In order for a company to sell to me, they had better present a product that:
- Does what it says. I cannot tell you how pissed I am at products that claim to be able to do something, or imply their capabilities because they do not list the limitations (upconverting video signals from Composite to Component, as a recent example for me) that actually fail to deliver. I suppose this is a geek/informed person mentality, but if the product doesn't deliver the end you tell me it does, then it is a waste of my time.
- Has no major glaring holes. This carries a caviat that since we know it will carry glaring holes (as in, these days, it seems impossible to actually provide a software product without a bug) that those bugs be fixed FREE OF CHARGE. I don't frankly give a damn about this whole "limited liability" "we take no responsibility" bullshit that software makers seem to dole out to their customers. They made the product, and while it may not be certified for life and death situations, if it cannot even run properly because it crashes or gets hijacked within 30 seconds of being online, your company needs to pony up and fix it or lose my business. Other industries can take this mentality as well, and should be ready to respond appropriately.
- Do not force a product and shortchange the customer. I can imagine how many products and projects out there get ramrodded out the door because marketing set a release schedule that the development and testing teams were not able to meet. How often are these products delayed for their proper testing? Oh, very rarely (Sony Online Entertainment is a classic of this, releasing products to their customers that have, at times, crashed and failed to work upon release). Don't force the product, allocate sufficient time to do it right. Your customers like you more when what they get works right, the first time.
- If you're going to charge me more than the other guy, make it plain as to what I get for it. I frankly don't mind paying a little more for better quality, but I want to know I'm getting quality and not just your word it is.
- Be honest and courteous. Nothing pisses me off more than a company that lies to me, tries to get me into something that I don't want, or bothers me incessantly. So far as I am concerned, you (as a marketer) are there for my whim (as a customer). You have something I want (money) and may have something I need (your product), except you always want what I have regardless if I want what you're selling. The infrequent reminder of something you carry may be useful, but typically isn't. With advertising and marketing getting pushier and more 'in your face' out for normal individuals, people tune it out, and you lose whatever advantage you hoped to gain (like.. I may glance at the ads on Slashdot, but I won't ever click on them, and barely even register that they're there). This may not apply to one-on-one salespeople, but there are some aspects that carryover.
You may be an exception to the rule, but myself (and quite likely many others around) have learned through the actions of marketers and advertisers that you will use any technique you can in order to sell your product. That means anything not explicitly made illegal, such as failing to mention downsides unless required, associative images that do not follow, use of false but 'sounds good' logic (not illegal, but pretty close), or selling products that will cause a distructive influence (see: selling credit cards to people with a history of credit problems). Maybe you don't do this, and if not, congratulations, you just may be the next Mesiah. Experience tells us marketers are not to be trusted and rank up with lawyers with their desired explusion from the human race, even if they serve a marginally useful purpose.
This has nothing to do with jealousy. It has to with revulsion. People with even a grain of critical thinking skills should be able to see through the shams that are out there (sorta like a Chapter 7 and 13 "debt reduction plan", without telling you
As to the DVD ripping, again, you can rip all the DVD's you want in Windows,...
Ya, I know I can rip DVD's using DVDShrink. However, would that have been possible if someone hadn't cracked the CSS on the disks? Do you think that the authors of the DVDShrink program recieved a license from the controlling organization of that system in order to distribute, for free, a program that lets you rip movies from an encrypted disk? Do you think the movie industry wants to let you backup your disks, or do you think they'd rather have you destroy/rebuy the movie every time something bad happens?
Perhaps I'm not thinking of the program you're refering to. Maybe we're talking about the Movie Maker program in XP? Didn't think that one would let you sample a DVD for inclusion in another presentation, but I haven't tried. How about something else?
For what it's worth, it's my belief that such programs as DVDShrink violate the DMCA as they break the encryption that is intended to protect the content. Frankly, I don't care as I see the DMCA as an overreaching law that forbids fair use and blocks content that is encrypted from ever being brought into the public domain (how can you get it out if cracking the encryption is a crime?). That's another argument, though.
No, Microsoft didn't tell the member of the MPAA that they needed to use CSS encoded DVDs to distribute such movies as Shrek. However, they did their part in implimenting that standard. As I understand, they are also seeking to encourage the music industry right now that the WMA format with it's DRM (a feature available before the content is encoded in it) is a secure way to distribute their content. Know what that means? Microsoft is leading that push, not the content creators.
Microsoft certainly cannot encourage companies that it's implimentation of DRM is safe and effective if they provide programs that enable fair use (which they don't). It sure would be nice if they would, but I won't hold my breath waiting for the computer industry and the content industry to come to an agreement regarding the proper implimentation of the conflicting notions of software-enforced copyright protection and fair use.
I think the biggest problem people have with any 'unresolved aspects of evolution' is when you talk about macroevolution. That is evolution of new species from old, or diversification of species from a common root. I have a feeling few contest microevolution, which is the adaptation of a single species to changing environmental conditions.
The manner in which macroevolution happens, if it happens, is in question. Is it random mutation that just happens to beat all odds and propogate as 'good' and 'desirable'? Is it geographically seperated and isolated sections of the common species placed into differing microevolutionary forces for sufficient time to cause an eventual macroevolutionary shift? It's really hard to analyse this kind of thing because of the length of time for it to occur naturally (thousands of years? more?). In order to attempt to have some 'sanity', Scientists attempt to create the baseline experiment and control the forces that go into it. Generations upon generations are required to even see if you can create a new species by evolution. Any attempt to speed this process up is generally met with a response similar to yours, that it was unduely influenced by the scientific process.
Because of the length of time an experiment of this nature would have to run, I sadly don't see this being proven any time soon.
There are many factors that go into creating the temperature of the planet. Reflectivity of the atmosphere, distance to the sun, atmospheric composition, etc. The greenhouse effect from CO2 is predictable and provable. Just because we have had global temperatures fluxuating does not disprove that CO2 is an atmospheric insulator and traps solar energy. Unless this CO2 is being drawn back out of the atmosphere (by plantlife, by carbon deposition, water absorption, or whatever else it can do), continually ramping up CO2 production into the atmsophere may cause the density to increase to the point where it becomes a problem. Thing is, once it's a problem, how long will it take to fix it, and depending on how hot it gets (10 degrees C hotter? more?) will we have time to do so before we get cooked?
While admittedly, just because we exist, we are going to change the environment around us. I fail to see the benefit in assuming that nothing that we do can or will affect the global perspective, especially when we have countries around the globe working their industrial magic. We should seek to stave off problems before they occur. In the global scale, if it takes 100 years to stabilize the temperature again, and that's a short time, it may be insufficient for us to adapt to if the temperature increases too fast.
By the way, since you're quoting data, where exactally did that come from. Care to quote the source, too?
Re:Crippling DNS? How much does DNS suck?
on
Spammers' Upend DNS
·
· Score: 1
You miss the point of what they're doing.
Spammer sends out email with a link to www.joeblowscompany.com except that domain does not yet exist.
Spam software scans the email for URL's and domain names to check against. It validates the sender as a registered domain (not forged), finds a few more URLs, but they don't exist so it cannot check to see if those domains are known spamvertisers or not.
Mail system delivers the mail, certifying it as 'not spam' as far as it can tell.
Spamvertiser registers the aforementioned domain name, putting their warez up there.
User now has a spam message that could have been caught but wasn't because the spammer knew how the filter worked, found a loophole, and used it to deliver the message.
That is the crux of the problem, not the DNS load. Most spam-detection software is already doing this level of DNS lookups, pounding on the system to validate information. Not much changes there. What does change is that now, instead of being filtered, the messages get through.
You know what? Using a laser microphone is technically not tampering with anything, as it merely uses resonances on window panes to transmit the sounds from inside. However, this ammounts to survelance that needs to be properly authorized by the court (with due cause, reasonable suspission, etc) in order to be done legally. How is this differant from adhering a magnet that doesn't damage anything, yet still allows for survelance?
My take on it: it's identical, and should be subject to the same rules and regs as anything else.
I must've missed converting minutes to seconds when I shifted the speed of light from miles/sec to miles/year. Probably a good thing I didn't go into physics as I originally planned.
Actually, if I recall seeing it right, I believe they removed the jewish 'Star of David' symbol from the wingdings font. I did a comparison once I saw it change some font on one of my two machines.
Considering the distances involved, I'm suprised we get anything distinct enough at such distances to even be recognizable as a sphere. I mean, think about it.
Light travels 184,282.4 miles/sec. This system is 225 light years away That puts this system at a physical distance of 22 trillion miles (roughly).
Close is relative. We can't yet see a quark, but it would take that same kind of magnification power in order to see the surface of another planet from here. And that's likely a best case situation. Guess what happens when you have all manner of crap in the way, such as dust clouds, micro black holes (if they exist), normal black holes, stars in close proximity to our line of sight, or other garbage we don't yet know about? It distorts the image pretty badly.
Eventually, we'll probably figure out some way to do it. For now, though, be content with solving the question of "are there really other planets out there?" (should be a 'duh' answer, but apparently it isn't to those that need proof or have blind faith we are in some way unique in this universe)
Slashdot Mirror
But what if I want my children to have the chance to 'just live'? Hey, no reason to care about that, because I'm just living now. Hey, no reason to worry that the millions of gallons of toxic waste I just dumped in my local lake. I'm just living. Nevermind that I just slaughtered our local ecosystem and kicked off a water shortage because everything around me became contaminated.
While there may always be some kind of disaster, is there really a reason to carelessly bring about one upon ourselves? Are we really that stupid, as a species, that we're willing to kill ourselves off because all we want to do is 'just live'? If that's the case, then perhaps this universe is better off without us, stupid, paranoid, ignorant, and arrogant as we are.
I listened to MP3 vs Ogg. Yes, I've heard a difference in clarity at low encoding rates. Yes, I've also not noticed much of a difference at higher encoding rates (say, 160bps variable in MP3). What I have noticed is that, while I would prefer to encode my things to Ogg, the lack of HARDWARE that natively supports the Ogg format is a serious drawback.
One of the little toys on my wish list does have Ogg support, but 99% of my music has been ripped in MP3 format. Converting that to Ogg gets me nothing. Reripping it in Ogg costs me time. What do I get out of it? I can play it on a computer, and I can play it on an iRiver. I cannot burn a DVD and drop it in my stereo to play many hours of music through far better than my computer speakers. To me, that's a waste of time for only marginal improvements.
Ogg may be technically better, but until it's pushed into hardware playback devices more than it has been, it will always remain a format for audiophiles willing to put up with the incompatabilities just to listen to music.
Actually, if I recall right (and I may not, so .. whatever), the notion of selling the 'base' product at a loss is called a loss leader. You find this in many things, such as razors and razorblades, printers and print cartridges, and game consoles and games. Any place where you can sell some consumable that you need to operate a device, you can generally get away with selling something as a loss leader. The only problem is that you are counting on people to buy the secondary items. If someone comes up with another use for the base device that doesn't use those secondary items (say using an XBox as a multimedia PC, not for games), your plan could backfire.
Price gouging is more like what the RIAA did. Collaboration between the members kept prices high dispite market demand (or lack thereof). You priced it at this pay scale so everyone would assume that the price you see for new CD's (say, $18.99) is just common, even if after all costs are paid for and fair profit margin applied, it remains excessively high. You either bought it at the price they set or you didn't buy it, and you couldn't find alternatives.
No, airplanes crash because a pilot wouldn't trust his sensors, because a sensor malfunctioned, because an autopilot refused to relinquish control of the plane sensing an 'altitude too low' condition, etc.. I watched a report where they went over a plane crash with a fine tooth comb, checking altimeter, warning sensors, warning lights, etc. Turns out that the guy was flying through fog and just must not have trusted his altimeter or artificial horizon, driving his plane at 'climb' speeds into a forest.
Airplanes can and do crash due to pilot error, similar to designer/operator error in failing to turn on the second data stream. We can thank having done plane flights millions of times for having put in place a process that 98% or so flights will come up green.
Clearly, you don't go in for any of the non-mainstream Star Trek stuff. People have done 'fantasy' hardware blueprints of all manner of things, in details darn near fine enough to manufacture them.
Thing is that you probably could theorize enough of the mechanics (physics have made antimatter, have concluded that matter and antimatter releases a hell of a lot of energy, etc) that even if you're wrong, you may or may not be required to prove it works to get the patent awarded. If you've ever read some software patents that have been approved, while they go into detail, they use as general a term as they can "a computer" (includes most kinds of computational machines), "a hardware device" (god, what doesn't that include?), and so on.
You can patent a method to do something, or you can patent a thing that does something, and you just have to describe it enough in detail to get it awarded, regardless if you could actually build it or not.
Well, the idea would be that, during the patent's application being in 'Pending Prototype' status, noone else could actually file a 'completed' patent based on that exact process until the prototype time period expired. This aleviates the notion of someone beating you to the punch until you've had your chance (and if you cannot finish it before the time has elapsed, then you probably hadn't solidified the process to begin with).
It does leave open the idea that someone else could work on it in parallel and hope you failed to complete it, but that's something of a gamble. This also allows you buy yourself some time to work the prototype for your concept without anything more than 'time' pressuring you. Such a system may have allowed the phone business to actually sway a different way, considering the two individuals to attempt patents for their work filed within hours of each other.
This tends to be one of those days that I'm thankful that my parents are not nearly as wired into the Internet as I am. They still pay their bills by check, buy just about everything at stores, and much of their information hardly ever reaches the Internet.
How weird to be saying "Thank You mom and dad for being averse to technology" as a geek and actually be praising them.
Hell, even if you don't, you have enough time at 500 years to change careers at least 2 or 3 times, if not more. Get bored with computers? Take up music. Get bored of that? Go teach. Etc.
In it's normal shape, it has the potential to be used to jimmy a car's lock open.
Point I'm getting at is that there are many items that have perfectly innocent uses which can also be used for nefarious purposes.
At any rate, if you own the item in question (car, CD, etc), it is (or should be) your right to do whatever you want to with it. The only exception to that is if you take it out into a common public area, that it must be deemed safe to those around you. However, you could turn your car into a watermill motor, a DC generator, or whatever, because it's YOUR CAR. If you wanted to smash it with a hammer, break into it with a rock, so long as you own it, exactally what right does anyone have to say what you can or cannot do with it?
I think building a prototype should be a requirement for finalizing a patent, in any system. Ok, so you have a concept. Apply for the patent, pending proof that it actually works. Get it to work, and your patent is then approved. Fail to get it to work within a given time period and you lose that patent application and have to start it again. I can think up thousands of ideas a day (exadurated, but you get the point), but if I never produce anything and just get patents for what I come up with, I violate the spirit of the patent system.
I mean, seriously, what's to stop someone from patenting a 'Star Trek' style starship drive? Transporter? Perhaps some metalurgical process noone's heard of yet? At the present, I'm not sure there is, even if the technology just isn't capable of producing a proof of concept.
Then they're going to lose. I won't buy things 50 times on different formats unless it happened to be an oddity I'm bringing up into new standards (have tape, want CD) or it is something I really loved and the new format offered signifigant bonuses (VHS->DVD). I will not upgrade an entire collection just because the technology has advanced, and they can KMA if they think I should. I don't have the money, and I don't have the time to do such a stupid thing.
I mean, seriously, would they (as a company) do such a stupid thing if they were in a similar position? If they wouldn't, then why would they ever expect us to do that, other than being blind or hopeful?
A wire coathanger is an illegal tool? Ouch. Last I checked, that's all that was necessary to break into a car.
Don't like it? Support free AV programs like AVG. They just released a "new" free version just this January, their 7.0 (paid version is 8.0, I believe). Get all the updates np, doesn't cost you a dime unless you're a business.
The more that you use their service, the more you cost them. They don't actually sell you a dedicated 4 meg down/256k up on cable. If everyone were to use their connection to the maximum, depending on how many users were in your area, your maximum is far below the maximum they set.
They basically oversell their bandwidth, saying it's 4meg down. Sure it is! They cap it out at 4 meg down, but if everyone tried to get 4 meg at once, they couldn't, because their backbone and distribution net can't handle it. They want you to use as little as possible so that they can sell this grand "4M down/256k up" service to everyone without them realizing it's crap.
It's all about the bother it takes to close you down. Run a low key web server(webmail)/email server and I have yet to be visited by the Comcast Police. Not like I could hog a lot of bandwidth as it is, with a whopping 256k upstream.
Til it costs them more to leave you alone than it does to close you down, it isn't worth their time.
Preview like 15 times, and still this line gets through. It should read...
You want something that I have (money) and may have something I want (your product), ...
In order for a company to sell to me, they had better present a product that:
- Does what it says. I cannot tell you how pissed I am at products that claim to be able to do something, or imply their capabilities because they do not list the limitations (upconverting video signals from Composite to Component, as a recent example for me) that actually fail to deliver. I suppose this is a geek/informed person mentality, but if the product doesn't deliver the end you tell me it does, then it is a waste of my time.
- Has no major glaring holes. This carries a caviat that since we know it will carry glaring holes (as in, these days, it seems impossible to actually provide a software product without a bug) that those bugs be fixed FREE OF CHARGE. I don't frankly give a damn about this whole "limited liability" "we take no responsibility" bullshit that software makers seem to dole out to their customers. They made the product, and while it may not be certified for life and death situations, if it cannot even run properly because it crashes or gets hijacked within 30 seconds of being online, your company needs to pony up and fix it or lose my business. Other industries can take this mentality as well, and should be ready to respond appropriately.
- Do not force a product and shortchange the customer. I can imagine how many products and projects out there get ramrodded out the door because marketing set a release schedule that the development and testing teams were not able to meet. How often are these products delayed for their proper testing? Oh, very rarely (Sony Online Entertainment is a classic of this, releasing products to their customers that have, at times, crashed and failed to work upon release). Don't force the product, allocate sufficient time to do it right. Your customers like you more when what they get works right, the first time.
- If you're going to charge me more than the other guy, make it plain as to what I get for it. I frankly don't mind paying a little more for better quality, but I want to know I'm getting quality and not just your word it is.
- Be honest and courteous. Nothing pisses me off more than a company that lies to me, tries to get me into something that I don't want, or bothers me incessantly. So far as I am concerned, you (as a marketer) are there for my whim (as a customer). You have something I want (money) and may have something I need (your product), except you always want what I have regardless if I want what you're selling. The infrequent reminder of something you carry may be useful, but typically isn't. With advertising and marketing getting pushier and more 'in your face' out for normal individuals, people tune it out, and you lose whatever advantage you hoped to gain (like.. I may glance at the ads on Slashdot, but I won't ever click on them, and barely even register that they're there). This may not apply to one-on-one salespeople, but there are some aspects that carryover.
You may be an exception to the rule, but myself (and quite likely many others around) have learned through the actions of marketers and advertisers that you will use any technique you can in order to sell your product. That means anything not explicitly made illegal, such as failing to mention downsides unless required, associative images that do not follow, use of false but 'sounds good' logic (not illegal, but pretty close), or selling products that will cause a distructive influence (see: selling credit cards to people with a history of credit problems). Maybe you don't do this, and if not, congratulations, you just may be the next Mesiah. Experience tells us marketers are not to be trusted and rank up with lawyers with their desired explusion from the human race, even if they serve a marginally useful purpose.
This has nothing to do with jealousy. It has to with revulsion. People with even a grain of critical thinking skills should be able to see through the shams that are out there (sorta like a Chapter 7 and 13 "debt reduction plan", without telling you
Ya, I know I can rip DVD's using DVDShrink. However, would that have been possible if someone hadn't cracked the CSS on the disks? Do you think that the authors of the DVDShrink program recieved a license from the controlling organization of that system in order to distribute, for free, a program that lets you rip movies from an encrypted disk? Do you think the movie industry wants to let you backup your disks, or do you think they'd rather have you destroy/rebuy the movie every time something bad happens?
Perhaps I'm not thinking of the program you're refering to. Maybe we're talking about the Movie Maker program in XP? Didn't think that one would let you sample a DVD for inclusion in another presentation, but I haven't tried. How about something else?
For what it's worth, it's my belief that such programs as DVDShrink violate the DMCA as they break the encryption that is intended to protect the content. Frankly, I don't care as I see the DMCA as an overreaching law that forbids fair use and blocks content that is encrypted from ever being brought into the public domain (how can you get it out if cracking the encryption is a crime?). That's another argument, though.
No, Microsoft didn't tell the member of the MPAA that they needed to use CSS encoded DVDs to distribute such movies as Shrek. However, they did their part in implimenting that standard. As I understand, they are also seeking to encourage the music industry right now that the WMA format with it's DRM (a feature available before the content is encoded in it) is a secure way to distribute their content. Know what that means? Microsoft is leading that push, not the content creators.
Microsoft certainly cannot encourage companies that it's implimentation of DRM is safe and effective if they provide programs that enable fair use (which they don't). It sure would be nice if they would, but I won't hold my breath waiting for the computer industry and the content industry to come to an agreement regarding the proper implimentation of the conflicting notions of software-enforced copyright protection and fair use.
I think the biggest problem people have with any 'unresolved aspects of evolution' is when you talk about macroevolution. That is evolution of new species from old, or diversification of species from a common root. I have a feeling few contest microevolution, which is the adaptation of a single species to changing environmental conditions.
The manner in which macroevolution happens, if it happens, is in question. Is it random mutation that just happens to beat all odds and propogate as 'good' and 'desirable'? Is it geographically seperated and isolated sections of the common species placed into differing microevolutionary forces for sufficient time to cause an eventual macroevolutionary shift? It's really hard to analyse this kind of thing because of the length of time for it to occur naturally (thousands of years? more?). In order to attempt to have some 'sanity', Scientists attempt to create the baseline experiment and control the forces that go into it. Generations upon generations are required to even see if you can create a new species by evolution. Any attempt to speed this process up is generally met with a response similar to yours, that it was unduely influenced by the scientific process.
Because of the length of time an experiment of this nature would have to run, I sadly don't see this being proven any time soon.
There are many factors that go into creating the temperature of the planet. Reflectivity of the atmosphere, distance to the sun, atmospheric composition, etc. The greenhouse effect from CO2 is predictable and provable. Just because we have had global temperatures fluxuating does not disprove that CO2 is an atmospheric insulator and traps solar energy. Unless this CO2 is being drawn back out of the atmosphere (by plantlife, by carbon deposition, water absorption, or whatever else it can do), continually ramping up CO2 production into the atmsophere may cause the density to increase to the point where it becomes a problem. Thing is, once it's a problem, how long will it take to fix it, and depending on how hot it gets (10 degrees C hotter? more?) will we have time to do so before we get cooked?
While admittedly, just because we exist, we are going to change the environment around us. I fail to see the benefit in assuming that nothing that we do can or will affect the global perspective, especially when we have countries around the globe working their industrial magic. We should seek to stave off problems before they occur. In the global scale, if it takes 100 years to stabilize the temperature again, and that's a short time, it may be insufficient for us to adapt to if the temperature increases too fast.
By the way, since you're quoting data, where exactally did that come from. Care to quote the source, too?
You miss the point of what they're doing.
Spammer sends out email with a link to www.joeblowscompany.com except that domain does not yet exist.
Spam software scans the email for URL's and domain names to check against. It validates the sender as a registered domain (not forged), finds a few more URLs, but they don't exist so it cannot check to see if those domains are known spamvertisers or not.
Mail system delivers the mail, certifying it as 'not spam' as far as it can tell.
Spamvertiser registers the aforementioned domain name, putting their warez up there.
User now has a spam message that could have been caught but wasn't because the spammer knew how the filter worked, found a loophole, and used it to deliver the message.
That is the crux of the problem, not the DNS load. Most spam-detection software is already doing this level of DNS lookups, pounding on the system to validate information. Not much changes there. What does change is that now, instead of being filtered, the messages get through.
You know what? Using a laser microphone is technically not tampering with anything, as it merely uses resonances on window panes to transmit the sounds from inside. However, this ammounts to survelance that needs to be properly authorized by the court (with due cause, reasonable suspission, etc) in order to be done legally. How is this differant from adhering a magnet that doesn't damage anything, yet still allows for survelance?
My take on it: it's identical, and should be subject to the same rules and regs as anything else.
I must've missed converting minutes to seconds when I shifted the speed of light from miles/sec to miles/year. Probably a good thing I didn't go into physics as I originally planned.
Actually, if I recall seeing it right, I believe they removed the jewish 'Star of David' symbol from the wingdings font. I did a comparison once I saw it change some font on one of my two machines.
Considering the distances involved, I'm suprised we get anything distinct enough at such distances to even be recognizable as a sphere. I mean, think about it.
Light travels 184,282.4 miles/sec.
This system is 225 light years away
That puts this system at a physical distance of 22 trillion miles (roughly).
Close is relative. We can't yet see a quark, but it would take that same kind of magnification power in order to see the surface of another planet from here. And that's likely a best case situation. Guess what happens when you have all manner of crap in the way, such as dust clouds, micro black holes (if they exist), normal black holes, stars in close proximity to our line of sight, or other garbage we don't yet know about? It distorts the image pretty badly.
Eventually, we'll probably figure out some way to do it. For now, though, be content with solving the question of "are there really other planets out there?" (should be a 'duh' answer, but apparently it isn't to those that need proof or have blind faith we are in some way unique in this universe)