The only real solution to our American education system is to figure the average amount nationwide that all schools have for their budget.
Double that number and then increase all corporate american taxes to get an amount of money equal that doubled number. (Corporations benefit from well educated workers, so should be willing to pay to get them)
I'll do you to better. Half that amount and let's build one gaint federal boarding school with prison displine and take all kids from K- associate degree age and ship them there away from their parents. Don't even bother with teachers. Just make sure they have books and that some of the older kids can teach the younger kids. It would seem like it's some what expensive, but I bet you it's actually much, much cheaper to build a boarding school and not pay huge teacher salaries. Why not let's be honest and just bill the kids for how much their "education" will cost them and have the kids actually have some say in there own education now rather than only in their kids education 20-30 years from now? Naw, that's an unAmerican concept right there.
Now one thing that should be noted at this point is that, in a town of only 80 people, there may be a good number of people who have voted for him and are unwilling to acknowledge it for fear of personal retribution (this is why we have secret votes). If everybody who voted for him had to acknowledge their vote before the box got opened, then we'd be degraded to a soviet style voting system where every vote is done in public, the implicit threat of a political officer quietly taking note of everybody who votes 'incorrectly'.
Are you kidding? We'd end up being much worse than the soviets were. Atleast with them, you knew to vote communist or just not vote. Do you know what would happen if public voting was in the US? Well, we'd have layoffs at some businesses for some employees that didn't vote what their boss wanted. I work in city government low man in my department. Just 2 weeks ago we had the state attoreny general come down and our entire department was required to attend for what was basically political purposes. Oh, the governor candiate never said vote for him; he mainly said that he supported us and that we were doing a wonderful job... But everyone knew that it was basically a poitical rally for that candiate. If we had public voting, everyone that votes against him could be on the department head's black list. The same could even apply though at higher levels. City managers could try to get every one in the city to vote for the mayor candiate. And let's not forget church groups trying to make sure their members vote for their candiate or political parties verifying that you vote your party. Political Officers are when you have one party control. I'm not worried about PO. I'm worried about bosses or leaders of various other organizations that would act as their own PO.
Am I the only person who hates advertisements? I don't want to see ads while I browse the internet. I don't want to see ads while I'm watching movies or TV. I don't want to hear ads on the radio. And I sure as hell don't want ads on my cell phone.
Charge me for your product or service, then leave me alone.
Done right, I'm not against it. I'm not against 2-3 ads on a web page. (I really hate those sites that spread 2 paragraphs across serval pages with ads scattered on each little page.) In movies, I don't mind product placement and the pre-movie ads at the movie theatre. On DVD, hate that you can't just skip to the menu or play the movie rather than watch some ads every time you watch the DVD. I actually watch the ads and extra features of most of our DVDs just to see what's out. I don't like them constantly done my throat. TV/cable has always had adds. PBS is the closest in the US without them, but they have pledge drives every so often, which to my way of thinking, was that they just store all their "ads" up for a once in awhile thing. The movie channels like HBO and Show Time used to not have many ads. The last time that I watched either channel, they didn't interrupt a movie, but between movies or shows they had what I'd consider selfe promotional ads. Um, every radio station that I've ever listened to has had ads. I hear things like XM Radio don't have as many, but you are paying what $10-11 a month for that service vs. free ad supported radio. Actually, I don't mind the ads on radio so much as the DJs and radio shows. I'd rather listen to music than talk. If I wan't to listen to talk, I'd turn to AM.
How would I do cell phone ads without being annoying? Well, it should be pretty simple. Nearly every cell phone as a LCD display. Each time you flick that thing up you either repeat the same ad for about a day or so, but it would just be a static image and once a button is pressed the normal menu is displayed. You could have the ad as background image behing your menu, but then you'd run into reading problems with both the ad and the menu. I'd carry a nice simple cell phone that flashed a few simple ads without any problem if it was "free" in every other respect.
This sounds too much like a joke. In theory, this is supposed to be impossible. In the USA, and one would presume Japan as well, bars/nightclubs are responsible for paying fees to composer societies (this includes ASCAP and BMI in the USA) to cover exactly this sort of thing - a performer performing copywritten material. In the USA I've heard of ASCAP and BMI going after bars and nightclubs who didn't pay them money, but never performers. Again, I can't speak for Japanese law, but in the USA it is clear that it is the owner of the performance venue, not the artist, who has to pay this fee.
Maybe they wanted money from the bar and performers?
Eugeneticists may use this information to claim the superiority of Europeans, a counterpoint can be made that these people can't be superior because were having sex with sub-humans.
I've always thought of eugentics as genetics without the tech or knowledge of genetics.;) We don't think highly of eugeneticists because of the Nazis and Racists. I tend to think that the field could have been developed much more if politics had ever mixed into it. Let's face it we breed livestock and other animals for traits that we want. The same theory should hold for humans except its much harder to get humans to go along with selective breeding programs. In some points, I think that we've been breeding for better soliders. Some families stay in the military. The same could be said of those families that all go into politics or lawyering or become doctors, teachers or police. Selective breeding is mainly pairing off couples with similiar traits to mate. Well, if you have couples formed from professions, do those families actually breed themselves to become better at the profession or is it just that the family custom is so strong and instilled at such a young age that no other choice is open for the youths of those families?
I think that we will see a resurge in eugenetics once we start tinkering in bio-engineering our offspring. How will we know which gene lines to pick and traits that we personally would find "better"? Before we start tinkering without ourselves, we should start to seriously study how we've been breeding outselves.
Why were there no counter requests for 1) copy of hard drives of all spammers computers 2) list of all online identities and accounts used by spammer in last year
If they make it hurt for you, hurt back.
This is an excellent idea. The lawyer could easily make it class action on behave off all the residents of that state that recieved spam from the spamer and there shouldn't be much that the spammer could do about it. If the judge had half a brain, he'd smile and nod and force the spammers to turn over a copy of all their spamming lists and spams sent to those addresses.;) You have the criminal and they are providing their own proof. If the law states that its $500 per message recieved, damn, even if the lawyer or his firm took half, or 2/3 that could be alot of money.
The other defense is anarchy. Tens of thousands of Linux developers, and tens of millions of users, all across the world, just ignoring MS patent attacks on their distros. If that works, it could also undermine the very patent weapon Microsoft and others wield to destroy SW progress. If they bit off more than they can chew, MS could very well be doing us all a big favor, by destroying itself and patent regime in which it makes its crooked living.
Isn't that the mental set that most have downloading mp3s hoping the RIAA will just ignore them? I'll admit for the most part its worked fine for the masses. I wonder on that percentage though that have gotten legal letters from a RIAA and been sued? MS or others with patents or copyrights could end up doing the same sort of thing with the BSA.
If there wasn't such a huge incentive for industry to fund research that "debunks" the theory of global warming, I might be a little more willing to listen. But the fact is, you've got researchers on one side, and believe me, there's absolutely no upside to telling Americans that dumping tons of pollutants into the atmosphere is going to have a bad effect, so researchers on one side who are going where the data takes them and researchers on the other who are paid handsomely to find out that there's absolutely no problem with spewing ever-growing quantities of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.
Who you gonna believe?
Um, you forget that the entire global warming bit ever since the 1970s has caused and kept alot of Earth Scienists employed. Would NOAA be nearly as large as it is today without global warming to study? Most of those anti-industry pro-global warming scientists are paid through grants, programs, or even entire departments of the federal budget. Do we have any idea how much we are spending on scientists to research the theory of global warming? I'm still neutral about it. Lately, its been too political for me to believe either side. I'm still for global neither. The Earth will adjust in 10K-20K years and be ok. Will humans still be around in 100-200 years to enjoy it? That's an entirely different question.
C) Our measurement systems might not be precise enough to account for any differences, even if they did happen. AFAIK, a lot of the evidence comes from really old-school ice-core samples from a long time ago. Now, it's hard to prove a correlation (much less causation) with only 30 years of data, however precise. Climatologists are much more worried about (and, thus, I think, do more research about) trends spanning at least a century.
Um, anyone worrying about global warming happening on scales of less than a century is a political environmentalist that just wants their policys put into place. Global warming as I was taught pretty much doesn't happen "instantly" within 20-50 years. It takes a good 2-3 centuries for things to really change. Some of the more interesting theories were about an ice age or atleast glaciers caused by global warming. If I recall the theory currently, it was that the artic ice caps melting would change the salt concentation in the ocean and that would affect an ocean current that may have more long term effects than the jet stream. By this big warm water current being moved, there would be a rapid cooling and formation of glaciers. That's the only global warming theory that really had major effects within this century and that was supposed to be around 2040-2060 if I recall correctly. I'll need to look up and see if its even still a valid theory floating around.
* Monckton categorically states that the temperature of the oceans has decreased, without using sources. From what I know though, temperatures have increased. Can't find a bullet proof link for it (was looking for NOAA timelines, but no luck), but you can use coral-reef die-offs as a good proxy. There was also a lot of hubbub when people tried to tie the increase in surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico to the increased strength and number of Hurricanes that hit the US coast.
Um, you just did what he did though he did it in a paper.
Quite frankly, one reason I'm confident that we are in the beginning of Global Climate Change is that the only counter-arguments I see are poorly thought out, rife with personal attacks, lack data and make lots of statements without supporting data. If a group arguing for a position sounds like a bunch of idiots, I tend to take the opposite view.
Um, this is why I'm still neutral on it. Why? Because I've see a few good counter claim theories. Global Warming is worse than creationism vs evolution. It's a subject if you present an opposing view or theory all these folks come up and try to shred your theories. (That's actually part of good science when done right.) The problem is that the reverse isn't happening to those that claim global warming is happening. Why? A generation of scientists have grown up being taught global warming from junior high and high school. We expect global warming to be happening now. There has never been enough solid evidence for me one way or another. I've always fallen into the we need to just study the Earth for a bit more before we can really determine anything crowd. I really don't think that we have enough information to start making broad policy changes. (I'm not convinced that any of the changes would actually "fix" or "prevent" anything." That's just me.)
I love wikipedia and get alot of useful information from it. This morning while reading about an intel folks using a wiki for classified info, brought me the idea of wiki-rumor-pedia. I said that it's just a matter of time till some one does it. An AC posted a comment that CIC in SnowCrash would fit my description. I had to look that up since I've not read SnowCrash yet. The CIC seems a bit more evolved than what I'm thinking. It's like the 3rd or 4th big evolution after wikis.
We need an active science wiki that can do most of our present science journal things cheaper, easier and more widespread. You'd need to have every step of all our current science processes involved in this. Esp. getting writing or submitted papers, abstracts and raw data as requirements for governmental funding. It needs to be scalable so that everyone from professors, grad students, lab techs, junior high science teachers, and students from K-PH level can search active science projects, attempt to repeat a science project as part of a class assignment, areas for teacher/professor grading with comments, peer review from others of the same educational/age level. Basically make one place where those of every branch of knowledge dump and review their knowledge and for our students to review it and learn from it.
What about an ID renting business. You have poor credit, no credit or had your ID stolen? No problem, we'll loan you one of ours for a low up front price. You just need to find some folks willing to hand over their info and have your company manage their ID and credit profile. I wonder if credit scores would rise if you suddenly had 1,000-2,000 credit cards and were successfully paying them all off. The bad thing is that I really wouldn't want to try figuring out how you'd file income tax with that main credit cards and various levels of payment.
Personally, I hate daylight savings time and see no need for it. Just get up earlier or later as needed. Further, I don't see why we can't just all use GMT. So you get up at 08:00 and I get up at 21:00, big deal.
I have the same feelings towards it. I've never understood why they couldn't just shift us 30 mins one way or the other and just be done with it. So what if the days or shorter in winter and longer in summer. If I got up around sunrise and did out door work I'd notice. I work in an office building with these things called "lights." It really doesn't matter what it looks like outside as long as my work environment is properly lit.
I don't think this will be that big a deal for business. It certainly won't be a big deal to the average person. Why? Becasue the average person has to spend the two daylight savings weekends changing clocks. The only clock that I own that auto updates is my WinXP computer. All the other clocks, the alarm clocks, TVs, VCRs, stero, microwave oven, stoves, watches, and car radios. I like have clocks all over the place. I don't understand why they can't have an auto time sych for all those devices so folks would never, ever have to set or change a clock's time. Come on, it's 2006 we should be able to figure that one out. Oh well, we are spoiled even having all these mass cheap accurate clocks around everywhere.
But really, if it's so top secret, how come the whole world knows about it? Geez, now, everybody's going to want one. I can see it now, there'll be an Al' Qaedapedia next.
It's a wiki. I can't get excited by them any more. I think it's a good idea and will be useful for those that need to access it for intel. The first thing that I thought of when you said that everyone will want one is that they'll make wiki-rumor-pedia. Forget the standards of wikipedia, if its a rumor or you just want to do a community blog stick your latest rumors in wiki-rumor-pedia. If you dislike some one stick that it. If you notice some one having an affair, or cheating on other girl/boy friend, stick it in. If you are into gossip of all sorts, put all of it in. Forget references, this wouldn't be an encyclopedia. This is just rumor mogering on a huge scale. If you've hear of a job opening, post it. If you hear of something that needs whistle blowing, slip it in there. If you want to put in church meetings, political rally info or KKK meetings go ahead. The goal of wiki-rumor-pedia would be for the public to spy and gossip on each other and easily search though all that rumor info for dirt on folks. Met some one from out of town, search them just to see if anyone has entered any dirt on them. Now, I just need to wait for about an hour for some other slashdotter to post a link to a site that's doing that. It'll happen.
The average person assumes data they download will not be able to infect their computer. What kind of an idiot would design a computer such that it lets a random codec someone downloads run as an executable and have access to read their e-mail addresses, capture keystrokes, etc., especially in this day of malware. MS should have fixed this long ago. It looks like Apple has ported MAC from TrustedBSD and will be solving this in OS X 10.5. Maybe t is time you stopped blaming the user for making reasonable assumptions and started looking at just how badly designed most OS's are these days.
I agree with you. This is a tech problem rather than a user problem. I remember back in college browsing for porn or warez the only big things to beware of were the porn dailer.exe that wanted your computer to dail out to a 900 number for porn and also the sites that would open 10 windows or the warez sites that made you read the porn site to find their warez site password (that was some times pretty fun.) Now, a day with spy ware, malware, adware and these porn codecs it has just gotten annoying. I downloaded a.avi porn file the other day. I tried to play it. I use either media player or videolan player. Those tso programs should play most of what I download. When an avi that I got off of some random P2P search requires a porn codec to run, I've given up. There is just too much garabe and traps out there. I don't know why I even bother to hunt more porn when I already have GBs of it already.
Um, I couldn't name a single band in a any game. I like the FF music, but couldn't tell you who did the music. If a band is wanting to increase exposure through video games, they need to hit the gamers over the head a bit more.
In any case "everyone else was pricefixing too" (or whatever the charges, if any, turn out to be) is hardly likely to make the damage of this story go away. We've got ridiculous PS3 prices, the whole Sony DRM fiasco, the exploding laptop batteries, and now this. Even if this was an industry-wide problem, it's not like Cypress Semiconductor Corp has exactly had front-page news of any kind recently. This is like strike 4 for Sony, strike 1 for everyone else. The fact of the matter is that Sony is far, far more vulnerable to this press than another company due to both previous bad press and the vulnerable financial position they're in running up to the launch of the PS3.
Yeah, but you got to think another 2-3 or 6-7 big headline news stories like this and how long will it take for people to just ignore most news about Sony? The sad thing is you'd have people still buying Sony products or ask just before they make the purchase, "Sony hasn't been in the news because of this product, have they?" before buying it.
The cost of a shuttle mission, from Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org] is between $60M and $1.5B.
Let's just outsource it to India or China. No wonder we haven't been getting anywhere. What's really sad is that the US could fund a global version of NASA and have 4 groups with 4 Billion a Russian, Chinese, Indian, and US group and they'd get the most bang for their bucks from the others. Maybe that would be an idea for obtaining a voting blocks in those countries, by sponsoring a man power intensive space program in each country for only a few billion a year. When it concerns getting our species space bound, we really need to think globally and not just nationally anyway.
O.k. It maybe time that we rethink this whole retirement thing. (Esp. so my generation won't have to pay for those baby boombers.) Let's just give them all a Wii and call it a day.
When I was in college I worked on a medical imaging research project. That was just about the time PS2 was coming out. At the time, I thought it would be great if the PS4 or PS5 could run our medical software on a daily basis monitoring the daily health of gamers. Everyone is excited by the more physical input of Wii. Well, all 3 systems have some form of on-line connection. What would it take for PS3, 360, or Wii to have a health monitoring pack as well? The really exciting part is if you could record and upload your health and have your doctor view it. Another idea would be tie it in with a service similiar to e-doc.
Two other areas that we could see actual cross platform "games" is online politics, online dating games, or just online social gatherings. The online politics would try to use the on-line and mass market features of the next gen systems for organizing "grass roots" customized politic parties. The online dating game would just be what it sounds like. Throw in a character creation tool and something that looks similiar to the Sims except the goal would be finding similiar people with simliar interests and arranging real life or virtual meetings. On-line social gatherings happen in every MMORPG. What about one designed for people wanting to use it to organize church meetings, PTA events, or school events? What will happen when people that don't really use computers can use a game console to organize their entire social life? The more that I think about it, the more it sounds that we are ready for these ideas in our "next-generation" game consoles.
If you read the very last paragraph in the article, it states that the phone isn't going to be available in the US unless someone will carry it (and it doesn't have a way for Verizon et al to nickel and dime you to death with photos, ringtones etc, so good luck getting them to do it) or it's sold in drugstores alongside no-name brands, and I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola makes up some BS excuse about how it's beneath Moto to sell that way.
So for now, those who want just a simple phone (like my mom) are out of luck. Even text messaging and other bells and whistles go unused on her phone.
On the upside, she got the phone for free with her plan and just doesn't use the features she doesn't want, but she's continually asking me if she gets charged for text messages (not unless it's someone other than T-Mobile who sends them and nobody sends her anything, so I don't see why she worries).
Motorola is much worse than MS at tie-ins and trying to kill the competition. This phone will never come to the US by Motorola. It would be a trend killer. The trend of adding tons of unused features would die a quick death when people like me would much rather have these basic cell phones. My wife would have rather had a basic cell phone, but they gave her a "free" one with tons of un-needed options. I'm sorry, but as an IT guy, I refuse to use a device that wants to charge an arm and a leg for "text messaging," changing and downloading additional ringtones, and all the other ways they try to leech money out of you.
the money spent on preventing global warming is a waste.... If global warming provides us with an opportunity to implement renewable energy, it would provide economic stability for future generations. Thus, the money would not be wasted. Instead, it should be considered as an insurance policy.
Um, sound like you want money to be spent on renewables to fix global warming. I think that we need a whole switch to nuclear. http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/14/6/2 This was around 2001, but asks do we really need nuclear? This is what that article had:
"Estimates suggest that, at current extraction rates, we have over 200 years' supply of oil, 450 for natural gas and over 1500 for coal, the weighted average being nearly 700 years (see Rogner in further reading). Even this is an understatement, since it excludes natural-gas hydrates in the permafrost and under the ocean floors, and other sources that together are thought to amount to five times these values."
700 years of known fossil fuel reserves. I was trying to find some info on the amount of nuclear reserves. The information was kinda surprising. Nuclear is uneconomical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power At current cost levels, we have about 50 years of nuclear reserves. Sounds dangerously low. Well, that's at the current price. If the price of uranium doubled, the nuclear reserves jump to a life span of hundreds of years. (That doesn't even take into using the Thorium cycle rather that uranium. That'll give us thousands of years.) I like renewables, but after actually looking into it, I'm not worried about running out of fuels any time soon. Heck, I'm more worried about environmentalists getting laws put into place that say you can't use any form of non-renewable energy source. Humanity is stupid enough to put really harmful restrictions on our energy use.
I just finished reading this book http://www.amazon.com/Family-Tree-Sheri-S-Tepper/d p/0380791978 last night. I got pissed that the author is animals have more right to live on the planet than humanity and let's have small religious minitoriy that makes up less than.01% of the population be the heros and create a disease that kills off all the rest of humanity and lets room for sentient animals. It was an o.k. story, but the more that I read of the eco political slant and let's bio-engineer animals to be as intelligent as we are and then say humanity is using up too much room... well pissed me off big time. I like sci-fi, I like fantasy. I don't like any eco folks saying that I or others are using up too much resources just because they don't like humanity. I think we could house 90-100 billion humans easily on this globe. If we have to remove some un-needed wasted wild life to make it happen, so be it. Humanity is natural wild life. Nature was meant to be for us to bend to our will, not for us to bend over and take it just because we don't have the ability to do anything about it. Hurricanes, earth quakes, torandos, floods, and thunderstorms are annoying, but they don't slow us down for long. We can beat this planet. Don't under estimate humanity. Remove our current energy methods and just make us have renewables and we'd figure a way to make it work. It'd be annoying, but we could do it.
Startup costs? Well, all one does is dig a hole and drop the seedling tree in. It's possible for one person to plant more than 300 trees an hour with the right equipment. How much does that cost, maybe 20 cents per tree? The land needs to be acquired as well. There's plenty of waste land that can be used, like the land near freeways. It will require a lot of land, but that's the only major resource that would be required. When compared to the billions of dollars of farm subsidies that the US already pays to agriculture producers, a subsidy for growing trees would be small by comparison.
There won't be maintenance costs, except for possible subsidies to private growers. The costs when the tree needs to be replaced won't be great either.
I think that you are missing one little part of the equation: water. You assume that these trees that you plant will all grow up and be healthy trees. I'd have to look up stats on that, but wouldn't be surprised if 10-30% of them don't make it for whatever reason. Another thing that you may want to think about are fast growing grasses. I think you have a good basic idea, but haven't thought out all the little details. Trees change the environment and if left alone for awhile will change rainfall patterns. You are assuming that upkeep for this sort of project would be low. I'm mixed about that one. IF you plant near highways you'll have to make sure road crews are always doing tree triming or mowing grass. (It's more of a safty thing that those things are done. You really don't want to go off the highway and ram into a group of trees at 60+ mph.)
What do you refer as "waste land?" There are buildings around town that I'd love to be leveled and a nice field of grass or some trees put there. I don't own that land and the city can't just go around leveling vacant lots. Heck, New Orleans would fit "waste land" by my standards and should mainly be leveled. Would we ever do that? Nope. Personally, I'm into walls. I think that we need to use oak or some other nice solid wood for your tree project and cut them down every few years and stack them up into nice sized walls. I think that we should try building 30 foot tall by about 40-50 ft wide wooden walls on the borders of every state so when folks view the US from space the states would be outlined as a terrain feature. Has anyone figured out how much wood volume wise that we'd need to store all that carbon in?
The whole "Why shouldn't my computer take three nanoseconds to turn on, read my mind, and then never ever have errors!!!?!?one1" thing is a very amateur approach to the problem, if you ask me. Sure, it would be nice, but I'm absolutely sure it's technically impossible.
I think that we could do or try for 1 - 10 second boot times, but it would involve "cheating." It would have to be a suspend state with something like a flash boot drive just so computer instant ons to it's previous state. You need to give the guy some slack. He isn't an IT person. He is a person that is telling the hardware folks how most people believe that IT devices should behave. The guy doesn't mean the same thing as we do when he refers to a fast boot time. IT folks think of all the little hardware and software things that an OS does and then the start up apps and services that are started before the system is usable. That's not what this guy means. He just means he wants to press power and get to the state the computer was in when he hit power before. I bet you he also wants an "instant off" rather than the hold power for 15 seconds for a power off. He doesn't know that what he really needs is an nicer faster loading suspend state, but that's what he needed.
What's really, really bad, is for most users a full complete OS shutdown and boot up process needs to be part of the "safe mode" boot or how some users think of it as the techy boot.
I'm not sure what you or he refer to as "read my mind." That's never worked with people trying it on other people, or IT folks assuming what their users will want to do. Remember Clippy? They thought that was a good idea and on the road for the computer to read your mind. Give us 200-300 years and we'll learn to fake it much better than we do now.
It's the "never ever have errors" that really gets me. Its just in the IT mindset that "errors" are unavoidable and force your userbase to live with them rather than fix them. It seems every vendor that I've submitted bug reports to would rather ignore the problem than actually resolve them. This is actually the one area that I feel that IT could improve the most or atleast see the most immediate improvements on. The trouble is near perfect code isn't economical to write and test, currently. We need better compilers and also QA software. We need software to make it economical to properly test software before releasing it. Of course it varies on what you mean by "test" the software. I'm typically thinking of compile time errors and run time errors due to "weird" or unexpected input. This guy may be thinking of no business case logic errors. That's much, much more difficult to debug. We need to revise our attitude that thinks are impossible to they are merely difficult, but expensive.
We remember Leonardo AND the Medicis. We remember Macarthur AND Roosevelt. We remember Neil Armstrong AND Kennedy. We remember Dr. King AND Johnson.
See a pattern?
We can remeber Cerf AND Gore.
Um, We know Leonardo as a brillant ancient inventor/painter. Who was Medicis again? MacArthur was a general or admiral during WWII that left his men behind. We don't remember him kindly. Roosevelt tends to bring back vague memories of the New Deal. Neil Armstrong got sent to the moon, Kennedy was the second President shoot and the first shoot during the era of highspeed communication of TV and Radio. Dr. King was a black civil rights leader that had a dream. Johnson was President after Kennedy got shot.
Yes, we can remember the things that you mention, but I don't remember the politicans for being responsible for any of the other people. I'm sorry my memory isn't perfect and I couldn't tell you what happened during FDRs term as president though I should be able to. We remember differen things about those people. I don't remember those politicans with those other people.
Slashdot Mirror
The only real solution to our American education system is to figure the average amount nationwide that all schools have for their budget.
Double that number and then increase all corporate american taxes to get an amount of money equal that doubled number. (Corporations benefit from well educated workers, so should be willing to pay to get them)
I'll do you to better. Half that amount and let's build one gaint federal boarding school with prison displine and take all kids from K- associate degree age and ship them there away from their parents. Don't even bother with teachers. Just make sure they have books and that some of the older kids can teach the younger kids. It would seem like it's some what expensive, but I bet you it's actually much, much cheaper to build a boarding school and not pay huge teacher salaries. Why not let's be honest and just bill the kids for how much their "education" will cost them and have the kids actually have some say in there own education now rather than only in their kids education 20-30 years from now? Naw, that's an unAmerican concept right there.
Now one thing that should be noted at this point is that, in a town of only 80 people, there may be a good number of people who have voted for him and are unwilling to acknowledge it for fear of personal retribution (this is why we have secret votes). If everybody who voted for him had to acknowledge their vote before the box got opened, then we'd be degraded to a soviet style voting system where every vote is done in public, the implicit threat of a political officer quietly taking note of everybody who votes 'incorrectly'.
Are you kidding? We'd end up being much worse than the soviets were. Atleast with them, you knew to vote communist or just not vote. Do you know what would happen if public voting was in the US? Well, we'd have layoffs at some businesses for some employees that didn't vote what their boss wanted. I work in city government low man in my department. Just 2 weeks ago we had the state attoreny general come down and our entire department was required to attend for what was basically political purposes. Oh, the governor candiate never said vote for him; he mainly said that he supported us and that we were doing a wonderful job... But everyone knew that it was basically a poitical rally for that candiate. If we had public voting, everyone that votes against him could be on the department head's black list. The same could even apply though at higher levels. City managers could try to get every one in the city to vote for the mayor candiate. And let's not forget church groups trying to make sure their members vote for their candiate or political parties verifying that you vote your party. Political Officers are when you have one party control. I'm not worried about PO. I'm worried about bosses or leaders of various other organizations that would act as their own PO.
Am I the only person who hates advertisements? I don't want to see ads while I browse the internet. I don't want to see ads while I'm watching movies or TV. I don't want to hear ads on the radio. And I sure as hell don't want ads on my cell phone.
Charge me for your product or service, then leave me alone.
Done right, I'm not against it. I'm not against 2-3 ads on a web page. (I really hate those sites that spread 2 paragraphs across serval pages with ads scattered on each little page.) In movies, I don't mind product placement and the pre-movie ads at the movie theatre. On DVD, hate that you can't just skip to the menu or play the movie rather than watch some ads every time you watch the DVD. I actually watch the ads and extra features of most of our DVDs just to see what's out. I don't like them constantly done my throat. TV/cable has always had adds. PBS is the closest in the US without them, but they have pledge drives every so often, which to my way of thinking, was that they just store all their "ads" up for a once in awhile thing. The movie channels like HBO and Show Time used to not have many ads. The last time that I watched either channel, they didn't interrupt a movie, but between movies or shows they had what I'd consider selfe promotional ads. Um, every radio station that I've ever listened to has had ads. I hear things like XM Radio don't have as many, but you are paying what $10-11 a month for that service vs. free ad supported radio. Actually, I don't mind the ads on radio so much as the DJs and radio shows. I'd rather listen to music than talk. If I wan't to listen to talk, I'd turn to AM.
How would I do cell phone ads without being annoying? Well, it should be pretty simple. Nearly every cell phone as a LCD display. Each time you flick that thing up you either repeat the same ad for about a day or so, but it would just be a static image and once a button is pressed the normal menu is displayed. You could have the ad as background image behing your menu, but then you'd run into reading problems with both the ad and the menu. I'd carry a nice simple cell phone that flashed a few simple ads without any problem if it was "free" in every other respect.
This sounds too much like a joke. In theory, this is supposed to be impossible. In the USA, and one would presume Japan as well, bars/nightclubs are responsible for paying fees to composer societies (this includes ASCAP and BMI in the USA) to cover exactly this sort of thing - a performer performing copywritten material. In the USA I've heard of ASCAP and BMI going after bars and nightclubs who didn't pay them money, but never performers. Again, I can't speak for Japanese law, but in the USA it is clear that it is the owner of the performance venue, not the artist, who has to pay this fee.
Maybe they wanted money from the bar and performers?
Eugeneticists may use this information to claim the superiority of Europeans, a counterpoint can be made that these people can't be superior because were having sex with sub-humans.
;) We don't think highly of eugeneticists because of the Nazis and Racists. I tend to think that the field could have been developed much more if politics had ever mixed into it. Let's face it we breed livestock and other animals for traits that we want. The same theory should hold for humans except its much harder to get humans to go along with selective breeding programs. In some points, I think that we've been breeding for better soliders. Some families stay in the military. The same could be said of those families that all go into politics or lawyering or become doctors, teachers or police. Selective breeding is mainly pairing off couples with similiar traits to mate. Well, if you have couples formed from professions, do those families actually breed themselves to become better at the profession or is it just that the family custom is so strong and instilled at such a young age that no other choice is open for the youths of those families?
I've always thought of eugentics as genetics without the tech or knowledge of genetics.
I think that we will see a resurge in eugenetics once we start tinkering in bio-engineering our offspring. How will we know which gene lines to pick and traits that we personally would find "better"? Before we start tinkering without ourselves, we should start to seriously study how we've been breeding outselves.
Why were there no counter requests for
;) You have the criminal and they are providing their own proof. If the law states that its $500 per message recieved, damn, even if the lawyer or his firm took half, or 2/3 that could be alot of money.
1) copy of hard drives of all spammers computers
2) list of all online identities and accounts used by spammer in last year
If they make it hurt for you, hurt back.
This is an excellent idea. The lawyer could easily make it class action on behave off all the residents of that state that recieved spam from the spamer and there shouldn't be much that the spammer could do about it. If the judge had half a brain, he'd smile and nod and force the spammers to turn over a copy of all their spamming lists and spams sent to those addresses.
The other defense is anarchy. Tens of thousands of Linux developers, and tens of millions of users, all across the world, just ignoring MS patent attacks on their distros. If that works, it could also undermine the very patent weapon Microsoft and others wield to destroy SW progress. If they bit off more than they can chew, MS could very well be doing us all a big favor, by destroying itself and patent regime in which it makes its crooked living.
Isn't that the mental set that most have downloading mp3s hoping the RIAA will just ignore them? I'll admit for the most part its worked fine for the masses. I wonder on that percentage though that have gotten legal letters from a RIAA and been sued? MS or others with patents or copyrights could end up doing the same sort of thing with the BSA.
If there wasn't such a huge incentive for industry to fund research that "debunks" the theory of global warming, I might be a little more willing to listen. But the fact is, you've got researchers on one side, and believe me, there's absolutely no upside to telling Americans that dumping tons of pollutants into the atmosphere is going to have a bad effect, so researchers on one side who are going where the data takes them and researchers on the other who are paid handsomely to find out that there's absolutely no problem with spewing ever-growing quantities of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.
Who you gonna believe?
Um, you forget that the entire global warming bit ever since the 1970s has caused and kept alot of Earth Scienists employed. Would NOAA be nearly as large as it is today without global warming to study? Most of those anti-industry pro-global warming scientists are paid through grants, programs, or even entire departments of the federal budget. Do we have any idea how much we are spending on scientists to research the theory of global warming? I'm still neutral about it. Lately, its been too political for me to believe either side. I'm still for global neither. The Earth will adjust in 10K-20K years and be ok. Will humans still be around in 100-200 years to enjoy it? That's an entirely different question.
C) Our measurement systems might not be precise enough to account for any differences, even if they did happen. AFAIK, a lot of the evidence comes from really old-school ice-core samples from a long time ago. Now, it's hard to prove a correlation (much less causation) with only 30 years of data, however precise. Climatologists are much more worried about (and, thus, I think, do more research about) trends spanning at least a century.
Um, anyone worrying about global warming happening on scales of less than a century is a political environmentalist that just wants their policys put into place. Global warming as I was taught pretty much doesn't happen "instantly" within 20-50 years. It takes a good 2-3 centuries for things to really change. Some of the more interesting theories were about an ice age or atleast glaciers caused by global warming. If I recall the theory currently, it was that the artic ice caps melting would change the salt concentation in the ocean and that would affect an ocean current that may have more long term effects than the jet stream. By this big warm water current being moved, there would be a rapid cooling and formation of glaciers. That's the only global warming theory that really had major effects within this century and that was supposed to be around 2040-2060 if I recall correctly. I'll need to look up and see if its even still a valid theory floating around.
* Monckton categorically states that the temperature of the oceans has decreased, without using sources. From what I know though, temperatures have increased. Can't find a bullet proof link for it (was looking for NOAA timelines, but no luck), but you can use coral-reef die-offs as a good proxy. There was also a lot of hubbub when people tried to tie the increase in surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico to the increased strength and number of Hurricanes that hit the US coast.
Um, you just did what he did though he did it in a paper.
Quite frankly, one reason I'm confident that we are in the beginning of Global Climate Change is that the only counter-arguments I see are poorly thought out, rife with personal attacks, lack data and make lots of statements without supporting data. If a group arguing for a position sounds like a bunch of idiots, I tend to take the opposite view.
Um, this is why I'm still neutral on it. Why? Because I've see a few good counter claim theories. Global Warming is worse than creationism vs evolution. It's a subject if you present an opposing view or theory all these folks come up and try to shred your theories. (That's actually part of good science when done right.) The problem is that the reverse isn't happening to those that claim global warming is happening. Why? A generation of scientists have grown up being taught global warming from junior high and high school. We expect global warming to be happening now. There has never been enough solid evidence for me one way or another. I've always fallen into the we need to just study the Earth for a bit more before we can really determine anything crowd. I really don't think that we have enough information to start making broad policy changes. (I'm not convinced that any of the changes would actually "fix" or "prevent" anything." That's just me.)
I love wikipedia and get alot of useful information from it. This morning while reading about an intel folks using a wiki for classified info, brought me the idea of wiki-rumor-pedia. I said that it's just a matter of time till some one does it. An AC posted a comment that CIC in SnowCrash would fit my description. I had to look that up since I've not read SnowCrash yet. The CIC seems a bit more evolved than what I'm thinking. It's like the 3rd or 4th big evolution after wikis.
We need an active science wiki that can do most of our present science journal things cheaper, easier and more widespread. You'd need to have every step of all our current science processes involved in this. Esp. getting writing or submitted papers, abstracts and raw data as requirements for governmental funding. It needs to be scalable so that everyone from professors, grad students, lab techs, junior high science teachers, and students from K-PH level can search active science projects, attempt to repeat a science project as part of a class assignment, areas for teacher/professor grading with comments, peer review from others of the same educational/age level. Basically make one place where those of every branch of knowledge dump and review their knowledge and for our students to review it and learn from it.
This is great PR for Comedy Central. I wonder if their ratings will go up.
You steal someone else's identity, of course.
What about an ID renting business. You have poor credit, no credit or had your ID stolen? No problem, we'll loan you one of ours for a low up front price. You just need to find some folks willing to hand over their info and have your company manage their ID and credit profile. I wonder if credit scores would rise if you suddenly had 1,000-2,000 credit cards and were successfully paying them all off. The bad thing is that I really wouldn't want to try figuring out how you'd file income tax with that main credit cards and various levels of payment.
Personally, I hate daylight savings time and see no need for it. Just get up earlier or later as needed. Further, I don't see why we can't just all use GMT. So you get up at 08:00 and I get up at 21:00, big deal.
I have the same feelings towards it. I've never understood why they couldn't just shift us 30 mins one way or the other and just be done with it. So what if the days or shorter in winter and longer in summer. If I got up around sunrise and did out door work I'd notice. I work in an office building with these things called "lights." It really doesn't matter what it looks like outside as long as my work environment is properly lit.
I don't think this will be that big a deal for business. It certainly won't be a big deal to the average person. Why? Becasue the average person has to spend the two daylight savings weekends changing clocks. The only clock that I own that auto updates is my WinXP computer. All the other clocks, the alarm clocks, TVs, VCRs, stero, microwave oven, stoves, watches, and car radios. I like have clocks all over the place. I don't understand why they can't have an auto time sych for all those devices so folks would never, ever have to set or change a clock's time. Come on, it's 2006 we should be able to figure that one out. Oh well, we are spoiled even having all these mass cheap accurate clocks around everywhere.
But really, if it's so top secret, how come the whole world knows about it?
Geez, now, everybody's going to want one. I can see it now, there'll be an Al' Qaedapedia next.
It's a wiki. I can't get excited by them any more. I think it's a good idea and will be useful for those that need to access it for intel. The first thing that I thought of when you said that everyone will want one is that they'll make wiki-rumor-pedia. Forget the standards of wikipedia, if its a rumor or you just want to do a community blog stick your latest rumors in wiki-rumor-pedia. If you dislike some one stick that it. If you notice some one having an affair, or cheating on other girl/boy friend, stick it in. If you are into gossip of all sorts, put all of it in. Forget references, this wouldn't be an encyclopedia. This is just rumor mogering on a huge scale. If you've hear of a job opening, post it. If you hear of something that needs whistle blowing, slip it in there. If you want to put in church meetings, political rally info or KKK meetings go ahead. The goal of wiki-rumor-pedia would be for the public to spy and gossip on each other and easily search though all that rumor info for dirt on folks. Met some one from out of town, search them just to see if anyone has entered any dirt on them. Now, I just need to wait for about an hour for some other slashdotter to post a link to a site that's doing that. It'll happen.
The average person assumes data they download will not be able to infect their computer. What kind of an idiot would design a computer such that it lets a random codec someone downloads run as an executable and have access to read their e-mail addresses, capture keystrokes, etc., especially in this day of malware. MS should have fixed this long ago. It looks like Apple has ported MAC from TrustedBSD and will be solving this in OS X 10.5. Maybe t is time you stopped blaming the user for making reasonable assumptions and started looking at just how badly designed most OS's are these days.
.avi porn file the other day. I tried to play it. I use either media player or videolan player. Those tso programs should play most of what I download. When an avi that I got off of some random P2P search requires a porn codec to run, I've given up. There is just too much garabe and traps out there. I don't know why I even bother to hunt more porn when I already have GBs of it already.
I agree with you. This is a tech problem rather than a user problem. I remember back in college browsing for porn or warez the only big things to beware of were the porn dailer.exe that wanted your computer to dail out to a 900 number for porn and also the sites that would open 10 windows or the warez sites that made you read the porn site to find their warez site password (that was some times pretty fun.) Now, a day with spy ware, malware, adware and these porn codecs it has just gotten annoying. I downloaded a
Um, I couldn't name a single band in a any game. I like the FF music, but couldn't tell you who did the music. If a band is wanting to increase exposure through video games, they need to hit the gamers over the head a bit more.
In any case "everyone else was pricefixing too" (or whatever the charges, if any, turn out to be) is hardly likely to make the damage of this story go away. We've got ridiculous PS3 prices, the whole Sony DRM fiasco, the exploding laptop batteries, and now this. Even if this was an industry-wide problem, it's not like Cypress Semiconductor Corp has exactly had front-page news of any kind recently. This is like strike 4 for Sony, strike 1 for everyone else. The fact of the matter is that Sony is far, far more vulnerable to this press than another company due to both previous bad press and the vulnerable financial position they're in running up to the launch of the PS3.
Yeah, but you got to think another 2-3 or 6-7 big headline news stories like this and how long will it take for people to just ignore most news about Sony? The sad thing is you'd have people still buying Sony products or ask just before they make the purchase, "Sony hasn't been in the news because of this product, have they?" before buying it.
The cost of a shuttle mission, from Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org] is between $60M and $1.5B.
Let's just outsource it to India or China. No wonder we haven't been getting anywhere. What's really sad is that the US could fund a global version of NASA and have 4 groups with 4 Billion a Russian, Chinese, Indian, and US group and they'd get the most bang for their bucks from the others. Maybe that would be an idea for obtaining a voting blocks in those countries, by sponsoring a man power intensive space program in each country for only a few billion a year. When it concerns getting our species space bound, we really need to think globally and not just nationally anyway.
O.k. It maybe time that we rethink this whole retirement thing. (Esp. so my generation won't have to pay for those baby boombers.) Let's just give them all a Wii and call it a day.
When I was in college I worked on a medical imaging research project. That was just about the time PS2 was coming out. At the time, I thought it would be great if the PS4 or PS5 could run our medical software on a daily basis monitoring the daily health of gamers. Everyone is excited by the more physical input of Wii. Well, all 3 systems have some form of on-line connection. What would it take for PS3, 360, or Wii to have a health monitoring pack as well? The really exciting part is if you could record and upload your health and have your doctor view it. Another idea would be tie it in with a service similiar to e-doc.
Two other areas that we could see actual cross platform "games" is online politics, online dating games, or just online social gatherings. The online politics would try to use the on-line and mass market features of the next gen systems for organizing "grass roots" customized politic parties. The online dating game would just be what it sounds like. Throw in a character creation tool and something that looks similiar to the Sims except the goal would be finding similiar people with simliar interests and arranging real life or virtual meetings. On-line social gatherings happen in every MMORPG. What about one designed for people wanting to use it to organize church meetings, PTA events, or school events? What will happen when people that don't really use computers can use a game console to organize their entire social life? The more that I think about it, the more it sounds that we are ready for these ideas in our "next-generation" game consoles.
If you read the very last paragraph in the article, it states that the phone isn't going to be available in the US unless someone will carry it (and it doesn't have a way for Verizon et al to nickel and dime you to death with photos, ringtones etc, so good luck getting them to do it) or it's sold in drugstores alongside no-name brands, and I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola makes up some BS excuse about how it's beneath Moto to sell that way.
So for now, those who want just a simple phone (like my mom) are out of luck. Even text messaging and other bells and whistles go unused on her phone.
On the upside, she got the phone for free with her plan and just doesn't use the features she doesn't want, but she's continually asking me if she gets charged for text messages (not unless it's someone other than T-Mobile who sends them and nobody sends her anything, so I don't see why she worries).
Motorola is much worse than MS at tie-ins and trying to kill the competition. This phone will never come to the US by Motorola. It would be a trend killer. The trend of adding tons of unused features would die a quick death when people like me would much rather have these basic cell phones. My wife would have rather had a basic cell phone, but they gave her a "free" one with tons of un-needed options. I'm sorry, but as an IT guy, I refuse to use a device that wants to charge an arm and a leg for "text messaging," changing and downloading additional ringtones, and all the other ways they try to leech money out of you.
the money spent on preventing global warming is a waste. ...
d p/0380791978 last night. I got pissed that the author is animals have more right to live on the planet than humanity and let's have small religious minitoriy that makes up less than .01% of the population be the heros and create a disease that kills off all the rest of humanity and lets room for sentient animals. It was an o.k. story, but the more that I read of the eco political slant and let's bio-engineer animals to be as intelligent as we are and then say humanity is using up too much room... well pissed me off big time. I like sci-fi, I like fantasy. I don't like any eco folks saying that I or others are using up too much resources just because they don't like humanity. I think we could house 90-100 billion humans easily on this globe. If we have to remove some un-needed wasted wild life to make it happen, so be it. Humanity is natural wild life. Nature was meant to be for us to bend to our will, not for us to bend over and take it just because we don't have the ability to do anything about it. Hurricanes, earth quakes, torandos, floods, and thunderstorms are annoying, but they don't slow us down for long. We can beat this planet. Don't under estimate humanity. Remove our current energy methods and just make us have renewables and we'd figure a way to make it work. It'd be annoying, but we could do it.
If global warming provides us with an opportunity to implement renewable energy, it would provide economic stability for future generations.
Thus, the money would not be wasted. Instead, it should be considered as an insurance policy.
Um, sound like you want money to be spent on renewables to fix global warming. I think that we need a whole switch to nuclear. http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/14/6/2
This was around 2001, but asks do we really need nuclear? This is what that article had:
"Estimates suggest that, at current extraction rates, we have over 200 years' supply of oil, 450 for natural gas and over 1500 for coal, the weighted average being nearly 700 years (see Rogner in further reading). Even this is an understatement, since it excludes natural-gas hydrates in the permafrost and under the ocean floors, and other sources that together are thought to amount to five times these values."
700 years of known fossil fuel reserves. I was trying to find some info on the amount of nuclear reserves. The information was kinda surprising. Nuclear is uneconomical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power At current cost levels, we have about 50 years of nuclear reserves. Sounds dangerously low. Well, that's at the current price. If the price of uranium doubled, the nuclear reserves jump to a life span of hundreds of years. (That doesn't even take into using the Thorium cycle rather that uranium. That'll give us thousands of years.) I like renewables, but after actually looking into it, I'm not worried about running out of fuels any time soon. Heck, I'm more worried about environmentalists getting laws put into place that say you can't use any form of non-renewable energy source. Humanity is stupid enough to put really harmful restrictions on our energy use.
I just finished reading this book http://www.amazon.com/Family-Tree-Sheri-S-Tepper/
Startup costs? Well, all one does is dig a hole and drop the seedling tree in. It's possible for one person to plant more than 300 trees an hour with the right equipment. How much does that cost, maybe 20 cents per tree? The land needs to be acquired as well. There's plenty of waste land that can be used, like the land near freeways. It will require a lot of land, but that's the only major resource that would be required. When compared to the billions of dollars of farm subsidies that the US already pays to agriculture producers, a subsidy for growing trees would be small by comparison.
There won't be maintenance costs, except for possible subsidies to private growers. The costs when the tree needs to be replaced won't be great either.
I think that you are missing one little part of the equation: water. You assume that these trees that you plant will all grow up and be healthy trees. I'd have to look up stats on that, but wouldn't be surprised if 10-30% of them don't make it for whatever reason. Another thing that you may want to think about are fast growing grasses. I think you have a good basic idea, but haven't thought out all the little details. Trees change the environment and if left alone for awhile will change rainfall patterns. You are assuming that upkeep for this sort of project would be low. I'm mixed about that one. IF you plant near highways you'll have to make sure road crews are always doing tree triming or mowing grass. (It's more of a safty thing that those things are done. You really don't want to go off the highway and ram into a group of trees at 60+ mph.)
What do you refer as "waste land?" There are buildings around town that I'd love to be leveled and a nice field of grass or some trees put there. I don't own that land and the city can't just go around leveling vacant lots. Heck, New Orleans would fit "waste land" by my standards and should mainly be leveled. Would we ever do that? Nope. Personally, I'm into walls. I think that we need to use oak or some other nice solid wood for your tree project and cut them down every few years and stack them up into nice sized walls. I think that we should try building 30 foot tall by about 40-50 ft wide wooden walls on the borders of every state so when folks view the US from space the states would be outlined as a terrain feature. Has anyone figured out how much wood volume wise that we'd need to store all that carbon in?
The whole "Why shouldn't my computer take three nanoseconds to turn on, read my mind, and then never ever have errors!!!?!?one1" thing is a very amateur approach to the problem, if you ask me. Sure, it would be nice, but I'm absolutely sure it's technically impossible.
I think that we could do or try for 1 - 10 second boot times, but it would involve "cheating." It would have to be a suspend state with something like a flash boot drive just so computer instant ons to it's previous state. You need to give the guy some slack. He isn't an IT person. He is a person that is telling the hardware folks how most people believe that IT devices should behave. The guy doesn't mean the same thing as we do when he refers to a fast boot time. IT folks think of all the little hardware and software things that an OS does and then the start up apps and services that are started before the system is usable. That's not what this guy means. He just means he wants to press power and get to the state the computer was in when he hit power before. I bet you he also wants an "instant off" rather than the hold power for 15 seconds for a power off. He doesn't know that what he really needs is an nicer faster loading suspend state, but that's what he needed.
What's really, really bad, is for most users a full complete OS shutdown and boot up process needs to be part of the "safe mode" boot or how some users think of it as the techy boot.
I'm not sure what you or he refer to as "read my mind." That's never worked with people trying it on other people, or IT folks assuming what their users will want to do. Remember Clippy? They thought that was a good idea and on the road for the computer to read your mind. Give us 200-300 years and we'll learn to fake it much better than we do now.
It's the "never ever have errors" that really gets me. Its just in the IT mindset that "errors" are unavoidable and force your userbase to live with them rather than fix them. It seems every vendor that I've submitted bug reports to would rather ignore the problem than actually resolve them. This is actually the one area that I feel that IT could improve the most or atleast see the most immediate improvements on. The trouble is near perfect code isn't economical to write and test, currently. We need better compilers and also QA software. We need software to make it economical to properly test software before releasing it. Of course it varies on what you mean by "test" the software. I'm typically thinking of compile time errors and run time errors due to "weird" or unexpected input. This guy may be thinking of no business case logic errors. That's much, much more difficult to debug. We need to revise our attitude that thinks are impossible to they are merely difficult, but expensive.
We remember Leonardo AND the Medicis.
s ponse_Fund sorry, but they aren't an organization that sticks in my memory.
We remember Macarthur AND Roosevelt.
We remember Neil Armstrong AND Kennedy.
We remember Dr. King AND Johnson.
See a pattern?
We can remeber Cerf AND Gore.
Um, We know Leonardo as a brillant ancient inventor/painter. Who was Medicis again?
MacArthur was a general or admiral during WWII that left his men behind. We don't remember him kindly. Roosevelt tends to bring back vague memories of the New Deal.
Neil Armstrong got sent to the moon, Kennedy was the second President shoot and the first shoot during the era of highspeed communication of TV and Radio.
Dr. King was a black civil rights leader that had a dream. Johnson was President after Kennedy got shot.
Wiki throughs this up for Cerf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Emergency_Re
Gore was Clinton's VP and tried running for president a couple of times.
Yes, we can remember the things that you mention, but I don't remember the politicans for being responsible for any of the other people. I'm sorry my memory isn't perfect and I couldn't tell you what happened during FDRs term as president though I should be able to. We remember differen things about those people. I don't remember those politicans with those other people.