If it's a technology person, that's a red flag. I'd expect them to at least have their own domain name. It doesn't cost THAT much and looks far more professional.
What about reliability? If I wanted the most stable address, it wouldn't be on a domain I purchased. Far more important is the ability to reliably communicate the address to someone verbally. That means it must be short, unambiguous, and preferably use a common domain, like gmail.com.
Biggest problem with pneumatic tube communication: The bandwidth sucks.
How do you figure? How much information is coded in a blood sample, for instance, if you count all the DNA/RNA sequencing? For that matter, how much information can you send if you load up a 16-Gb USB drive (or a few) and send them off in a tube?
No, the bandwidth here is just fine.
There has never been a more appropriate time for this response: WHOOSH! (as the parcel goes by in the tube)
But but how are we going to run the vast library of malware written for x86? That's just a killer app waiting to happen on smartphones, and what's holding them back from becoming truely mainstream. I'm excited about this latest development. Oh, that and the ability to synergistically leverage all the x86 compiler expertise built up over the years.
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
I think we could put this to the test in the real world. We could gather various entities, some of which are known to have a very low concentration of information, like marketing people and bureaucrats, and see whether they cause a local reduction in gravity.
For work issues, I don't even answer email immediately, because I have no intention of serving as a brain trust for people who will not think. I let them age. The more I get from a single source the more I let them age.
I like this model, and I can't help but thinking of the password entry screens that work like this. Mistyped your password the first time? OK, wait a couple of seconds and you can try again. Mistyped again?!? Wait a minute. Not this again, wait an hour luser.
As opposed to plugging a power adaptor into the wall, which powers an inductive mat that emits an alternating electromagnetic field, some of which is picked up by a phone's matching coil a couple of feet away, which converts it back to power, which is then converted into a voltage to charge the battery of the phone. As opposed to plugging a power adaptor into the wall, plugging it into the phone, and charging the battery.
No problem! We'll just have an adaptor/receiver that you plug into your old adaptor. This will receive wireless power, convert it back to 120/240V AC, then power your old wired adaptor.
It's been shown in several studies that car kits are not much less unsafe than using a moblie phone while driving.
Ugh, let me run that through my negation eliminator.... OK, if we change "unsafe" to "safe", we're negating the meaning. So what's the meaning with the word "safe"? That car kits are about as safe as using a mobile phone. Therefore this means that they are much less safe thatn using a mobile phone.
If you want to save lives, how about a campaign to DRIVE SLOWER
Does that actually save lives, ignoring the obvious saving when people drive at say 5 MPH all the time? Let's say you reduced the limit from 65 to 40. People would go slower, but they'd be on the road for longer. And even if this did save lives on the roads, it would literally waste thousands of man-years in increased transporation time. I'm not saying this wouldn't be an overall benefit, just questioning the "oh, it would obviously be a net benefit" notion.
These things have been out for years. Check out all the pictures people have taken of their laptops with transparent displays! Most are 100% transparency as well.
They may be independently testable, but they have not been independently verified. Given the distrust people have these days for those in authority, it takes more than someone in authority stating something before one is apt to believe it. Hence, more trust is put in one's own observations.
Isn't this about the support contract, not use of the software itself? They are verifying the number of machines you have, to prevent you from say buying support for 10 even though you have 100, and thus getting their suppot services for one tenth their advertised rate.
It'll be interesting to thaw these mirrors 50 or 100 years into the future and see what they have to say about the past. Maybe then we'll have the technology to their cracks and heal them. Wait, what we were talking about again?
How it really works? Imagine that you already identified several suspects. If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene, you can still conclude that given your knowledge, with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene.
No, you can conclude with high probability that the DNA sample you're identifying is that suspect's, not that the suspect was there. It could have been planted, after all.
He didn't say he took witness testimony at face value; he said he looks at inconsistencies, etc. And his suspicion of evidence requiring an expect to interpret wasn't because he couldn't understand it per se, it was because he couldn't fully trust those who claimed to understand it, and couldn't fully trust that it wasn't planted. In other words, he values things he can directly perceive over those he must take at face value.
I have experienced hotels in Denmark, England and Spain that charge for internet access. But on the other hand it is not uncommon for hostels (that are cheaper and where one would expect a lesser degree of service) to have free wifi.
Market segmentation perhaps? People with more money stay in hotels, thus hotels know they can afford extra for WiFi. People in hostels probably don't have money to spare for WiFi, yet could benefit from it, and it's cheap to provide for free anyway.
I'm not following how we'll run out. IP addresses are sort of like gold; they never get consumed, just used for a while, then perhaps sold to someone else. Even if the current allocator of IP addresses runs empty, there will still be the owners of the 4.3 billion addresses out there. I'm also guessing that the current seller has some sort of fixed price, which tends to suppress the natural market signal of a higher price that tells others that they're scarce and not to buy them unless they are really needed. No matter, though, once they "run out" and others start selling, the price will rise to an appropriate level.
I couldn't get past the idiotic headline. I figure, if the author thinks he has a captive audience for his exaggeratted wittiness, it's probably not worth even looking at the article/summary.
On the one hand, if they tax online ads, it will hurt the MAFIAA. On the other hand, if they do, it will hurt marketers. This is a tough call. Can't we just put them both into an arena and let them fight to the death?
Yes, that's a terrible abstract. I was expecting them to summarize their experimental setup and the data they gathered. Instead it sounds like a crappy news article.:(
Slashdot Mirror
The font on your comic is slightly difficult to read, BTW. Too thin or something.
What about reliability? If I wanted the most stable address, it wouldn't be on a domain I purchased. Far more important is the ability to reliably communicate the address to someone verbally. That means it must be short, unambiguous, and preferably use a common domain, like gmail.com.
There has never been a more appropriate time for this response: WHOOSH! (as the parcel goes by in the tube)
But but how are we going to run the vast library of malware written for x86? That's just a killer app waiting to happen on smartphones, and what's holding them back from becoming truely mainstream. I'm excited about this latest development. Oh, that and the ability to synergistically leverage all the x86 compiler expertise built up over the years.
I think we could put this to the test in the real world. We could gather various entities, some of which are known to have a very low concentration of information, like marketing people and bureaucrats, and see whether they cause a local reduction in gravity.
I like this model, and I can't help but thinking of the password entry screens that work like this. Mistyped your password the first time? OK, wait a couple of seconds and you can try again. Mistyped again?!? Wait a minute. Not this again, wait an hour luser.
"How can we avoid RTFA if we don't know which is the real frikken article to avoid reading?"
There, fixed that for you.
As opposed to plugging a power adaptor into the wall, which powers an inductive mat that emits an alternating electromagnetic field, some of which is picked up by a phone's matching coil a couple of feet away, which converts it back to power, which is then converted into a voltage to charge the battery of the phone. As opposed to plugging a power adaptor into the wall, plugging it into the phone, and charging the battery.
Yes. The lack of "funny" mod tells me I dead-panned my original post too strongly. Oh well.
No problem! We'll just have an adaptor/receiver that you plug into your old adaptor. This will receive wireless power, convert it back to 120/240V AC, then power your old wired adaptor.
Ugh, let me run that through my negation eliminator.... OK, if we change "unsafe" to "safe", we're negating the meaning. So what's the meaning with the word "safe"? That car kits are about as safe as using a mobile phone. Therefore this means that they are much less safe thatn using a mobile phone.
Does that actually save lives, ignoring the obvious saving when people drive at say 5 MPH all the time? Let's say you reduced the limit from 65 to 40. People would go slower, but they'd be on the road for longer. And even if this did save lives on the roads, it would literally waste thousands of man-years in increased transporation time. I'm not saying this wouldn't be an overall benefit, just questioning the "oh, it would obviously be a net benefit" notion.
These things have been out for years. Check out all the pictures people have taken of their laptops with transparent displays! Most are 100% transparency as well.
They may be independently testable, but they have not been independently verified. Given the distrust people have these days for those in authority, it takes more than someone in authority stating something before one is apt to believe it. Hence, more trust is put in one's own observations.
Isn't this about the support contract, not use of the software itself? They are verifying the number of machines you have, to prevent you from say buying support for 10 even though you have 100, and thus getting their suppot services for one tenth their advertised rate.
It'll be interesting to thaw these mirrors 50 or 100 years into the future and see what they have to say about the past. Maybe then we'll have the technology to their cracks and heal them. Wait, what we were talking about again?
No, you can conclude with high probability that the DNA sample you're identifying is that suspect's, not that the suspect was there. It could have been planted, after all.
He didn't say he took witness testimony at face value; he said he looks at inconsistencies, etc. And his suspicion of evidence requiring an expect to interpret wasn't because he couldn't understand it per se, it was because he couldn't fully trust those who claimed to understand it, and couldn't fully trust that it wasn't planted. In other words, he values things he can directly perceive over those he must take at face value.
Well obviously a single address won't be worth much then, only large blocks. The market will sort this out in pricing.
Market segmentation perhaps? People with more money stay in hotels, thus hotels know they can afford extra for WiFi. People in hostels probably don't have money to spare for WiFi, yet could benefit from it, and it's cheap to provide for free anyway.
Hand gesture recognition? I seem to remember an early prototype of this a while back.
I'm not following how we'll run out. IP addresses are sort of like gold; they never get consumed, just used for a while, then perhaps sold to someone else. Even if the current allocator of IP addresses runs empty, there will still be the owners of the 4.3 billion addresses out there. I'm also guessing that the current seller has some sort of fixed price, which tends to suppress the natural market signal of a higher price that tells others that they're scarce and not to buy them unless they are really needed. No matter, though, once they "run out" and others start selling, the price will rise to an appropriate level.
I couldn't get past the idiotic headline. I figure, if the author thinks he has a captive audience for his exaggeratted wittiness, it's probably not worth even looking at the article/summary.
On the one hand, if they tax online ads, it will hurt the MAFIAA. On the other hand, if they do, it will hurt marketers. This is a tough call. Can't we just put them both into an arena and let them fight to the death?
Yes, that's a terrible abstract. I was expecting them to summarize their experimental setup and the data they gathered. Instead it sounds like a crappy news article. :(