I think it's a case of letting the market that can pay for it pay for it, but still getting something rather than nothing out of the other markets. The average wages in HK is much lower, they aren't going to pay the same prices.
It's usually harder to prove something doesn't exist than it is to prove something does exist.
Some Christians do understand this in a way, but use it to (IMO) argue themselves into a corner when they say that God can only be disproven through exhaustion. Proof by exhaustion is not a realistic demand, this is why the burden of proof is generally supposed to be on the people that try to claim the affirmative. They try to duck any request to prove the existence of any deity at all, other than maybe trying to say that proof of God's signature is everywhere in nature, which really isn't a proof at all as far as I understand it.
Both sides of the argument are too often prone to argument by ridicule though, and that's irritating.
I think it is a mistake to buy something based on the features it might have.
I don't think it makes sense to ask for wireless syncing, I just don't see that as a feature worth developing. You are eventually going to have to recharge the thing anyway, and the wireless connection sucks down considerable power to boot. Wireless transfer of a lot of files is very slow anyway. Transferring using USB 2 is going to be about 10x faster, WiFi is closer to USB 1.1's highest speed speed than it is of USB 2.0's highest speed.
The problem is that Microsoft has to cater to the music industry and soon, maybe the movie & TV industry with respect to the limitations they put on "squirting". Why they didn't also have some means of accessing a store or the web through the control, I really don't know.
My idea of video on demand is that you click and it plays right now. Bittorrent is more like video after you've downloaded the entire file, given that BT doesn't guarantee that you get the first parts of the file first, there's no chance, and it still depends on your peers having good upload speeds to get acceptable download times to finish it. In other words, it's much slower than "on demand", though usually not Netflix-laggy unless you have very bad luck.
Oil isn't getting near all used up, but there is a concern about how quickly it can be pulled out of the ground and at what cost oil will become as demand increases.
There are plenty of sources for oil, but it's a question of access, cost to get it and how quickly it can be produced. There is supposedly a lot of oil sand and oil shale, but recovering it can be a very messy and dirty process, it basically has to be "cooked" out of the rock or sand.
The problem is that the companies that make GM foods have been a little sloppy in many cases, genes that shouldn't have gotten out have and so on, I've heard of grain exports being rejected because a certain gene was found in shipments, and that gene had not been approved for food use. I don't think GM companies have every really been honest about the side effects that do pop up.
It's kind of like nuclear energy, it sure sounds nice, but given how sloppily it's being treated to this day, with sloppy or corrupt power generation companies and wholly lackluster enforcement, where it takes a safety accident to find that a plant has violated over a hundred regulations. In the TMI case, technicians in the plant weren't honest about what had happened, saying certain pumps were always on when they weren't.
I'd say that there is some cause for concern, and that the burden of proof is on those that are trying to promote the positive. There have been too many cases where problems were initially solutions.
If you want it done for free or dirt cheap, then it definitely has to be something that people are interested in. Even if it's for something that people are interested in, it doesn't always net good results. I think the Decemberists had a contest where you would win a camcorder and a computer. The problem is, if you were any good at video work, you probably had a better camcorder and a better computer already. I've seen a couple videos mocking them as being cheap bastards.
I don't really buy the "it's good advertisement" for the person that makes the video. It's may be another avenue to try but probably only for those that suck at self-promotion.
27kg of expended material to generate 4kg of hydrogen doesn't sound like a good idea. What makes it worse is that it is a food component. I am not fond of this idea of creating a fuel/food dichotomy.
I guess it was a hit job which blindsided Telestream's Flip4Mac, Panic's Transmit, Colloquy's Colloquy, Unsanity's Application Enhancer, and the open sourced VLC as innocent bystanders in their vendetta against Apple, so at least six non-Apple branded programs were thrown in to fill out the month. Day 31 has a "filler", meaning that it's just over three weeks' worth of Apple Bugs.
There may be some legitimacy to the complaints that Apple was unresponsive, but I agree, to bring in flaws in third party products to the mix is beyond irresponsible.
Then it's pretty ambiguous. For all we know, it might still have taken until 2007 for the cost of the materials & technology to go down far enough to be affordable for this use.
The article didn't say for sure if the original company was willing to license the technology out at rates low enough to allow affordable grills, nor did it say how much they wanted for the licenses.
I would suspect that it's very possible that it was the actual construction cost and not the patent cost that was prohibitive, but it's hard for me to be swayed either way on this particular case given how little information there is.
Nice try, but that's just what the newspapers and TV stations will say when challenged. It's pretty obvious that it's a bogus line, at least sometimes.
Can you please provide some corroboration to this statement?
It's well known, for example, that Murdoch's affiliates receive "talking points" for the day showing them what stories they should promote. Affiliates who don't toe the line risk problems.
I understand this, given that he owns Fox News, but my impression is that Fox News is an outlier in this regard.
I think you have the relationship wrong. The grandparent post didn't suggest that Macs were harder or easier to program than Windows, just that GP poster prefers Linux instead.
Have you ever seen their TV shows? A lot of them spend a lot of time begging for money. Dial 1-800-GOD-BOOK to give to this ministry! In the 80's Jim Bakker and his wife had a lot of money from the "ministry" and lived extravagently. To give an example, I think their dog house was air-conditioned.
I don't know if I'd be that pessimistic about geeks (99% is high), but you are right that a lot of them don't have management skills, so they would have to make sure they have someone with management skills in their start-up. There are some pretty poignant examples, William Shockley was brilliant but he was an evil manager such that he drove away his talent shortly after he formed his own company. Thomas Edison had done some suppression of the talent that he's hired, and as such, Edison Labs died a premature death.
From what I hear, Apple Japan is mostly populated with buffoons. Macs are very easy to maintain relatively speaking in regards to computers, but I don't know how a computer-illiterate person would fix it in case you can't connect into it.
I'm not sure it will matter. That is a hypothetical observation assuming that human-descendants, whatever they are, or other form of life will be around that long. Political turmoil with respect to life right how makes it hard to plan for a hundred years from now. Then there is the potential ecological turmoil if the scientists are right about greenhouse gases and humanity doesn't curtail its ecologically destructive habits. For the moment, there is no alternative habitat. Even if Mars is terraformed, which is difficult and unlikely, there's no way to move billions there, and there's not enough gravity and other factors to keep a stable atmosphere there anyway.
I really can't say I've experienced any of that, and I've taken advantage of a lot of their specials. I skim their weekly flyer regularly. I haven't tried to buy computers there though.
We know that in essentials you both have the same closed business model. How do you think that business model is going to compete against open source in a world in which hardware is open, and open source allows an unlimited quantity of derivative works to run on it?
Right now, open source hasn't been a threat to either desktop platforms that I've seen.
BTW: I don't use MS Office and I own both Mac and Windows PCs. There are a few alternatives out there, but that doesn't mean that they are a threat to the OS platforms. I even use a lot of open source software, but the OS I use them on is closed, and frankly, I don't mind that much at the moment. I do hope to try Ubuntu some time though.
The fact that they're talking like this at all suggests they're scared about "the other choice."
I've re-read this a few times and I really don't understand how this statement can be true given the circumstances. I don't see any indication that this dialogue is about the server market, which is the main place where Linux is currently doing well. I don't know who would represent Linux in one other place where Linux is excelling, which is in smart phones. Linus has little to do with that effort except that his kernel is one cog in the mechanism.
I have never really seen the Linux desktop installed base exceed 1% of the installed base of personal computers, so I don't see how Linux on the desktop is worth noticing. Linux pre-installed on consumer computers has failed every time I've seen it tried, be it VA Linux, HP's and Dell's previous attempts, Linspire at Walmart and so on. I expect that Dell's current attempt would be cancelled in six months like the previous attempts because Linux users are better at yelling than they are about putting their money where their mouths are and actually buy one of these machines.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's a case of letting the market that can pay for it pay for it, but still getting something rather than nothing out of the other markets. The average wages in HK is much lower, they aren't going to pay the same prices.
It's usually harder to prove something doesn't exist than it is to prove something does exist.
Some Christians do understand this in a way, but use it to (IMO) argue themselves into a corner when they say that God can only be disproven through exhaustion. Proof by exhaustion is not a realistic demand, this is why the burden of proof is generally supposed to be on the people that try to claim the affirmative. They try to duck any request to prove the existence of any deity at all, other than maybe trying to say that proof of God's signature is everywhere in nature, which really isn't a proof at all as far as I understand it.
Both sides of the argument are too often prone to argument by ridicule though, and that's irritating.
I think it is a mistake to buy something based on the features it might have.
I don't think it makes sense to ask for wireless syncing, I just don't see that as a feature worth developing. You are eventually going to have to recharge the thing anyway, and the wireless connection sucks down considerable power to boot. Wireless transfer of a lot of files is very slow anyway. Transferring using USB 2 is going to be about 10x faster, WiFi is closer to USB 1.1's highest speed speed than it is of USB 2.0's highest speed.
The problem is that Microsoft has to cater to the music industry and soon, maybe the movie & TV industry with respect to the limitations they put on "squirting". Why they didn't also have some means of accessing a store or the web through the control, I really don't know.
My idea of video on demand is that you click and it plays right now. Bittorrent is more like video after you've downloaded the entire file, given that BT doesn't guarantee that you get the first parts of the file first, there's no chance, and it still depends on your peers having good upload speeds to get acceptable download times to finish it. In other words, it's much slower than "on demand", though usually not Netflix-laggy unless you have very bad luck.
I could have sworn that one of the earlier intended uses for DSL was for TV but I can't find any corroboration for that right now.
Oil isn't getting near all used up, but there is a concern about how quickly it can be pulled out of the ground and at what cost oil will become as demand increases.
t ion2002-2006Q2.gif
Oil production does seem to be slowing in growth, if this chart is any indicator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldOilProduc
There are plenty of sources for oil, but it's a question of access, cost to get it and how quickly it can be produced. There is supposedly a lot of oil sand and oil shale, but recovering it can be a very messy and dirty process, it basically has to be "cooked" out of the rock or sand.
Where does that chemical fertilizer coming from? It is made partly from natural gas, a lot of which is found in oil fields.
The problem is that the companies that make GM foods have been a little sloppy in many cases, genes that shouldn't have gotten out have and so on, I've heard of grain exports being rejected because a certain gene was found in shipments, and that gene had not been approved for food use. I don't think GM companies have every really been honest about the side effects that do pop up.
It's kind of like nuclear energy, it sure sounds nice, but given how sloppily it's being treated to this day, with sloppy or corrupt power generation companies and wholly lackluster enforcement, where it takes a safety accident to find that a plant has violated over a hundred regulations. In the TMI case, technicians in the plant weren't honest about what had happened, saying certain pumps were always on when they weren't.
I'd say that there is some cause for concern, and that the burden of proof is on those that are trying to promote the positive. There have been too many cases where problems were initially solutions.
If you want it done for free or dirt cheap, then it definitely has to be something that people are interested in. Even if it's for something that people are interested in, it doesn't always net good results. I think the Decemberists had a contest where you would win a camcorder and a computer. The problem is, if you were any good at video work, you probably had a better camcorder and a better computer already. I've seen a couple videos mocking them as being cheap bastards.
I don't really buy the "it's good advertisement" for the person that makes the video. It's may be another avenue to try but probably only for those that suck at self-promotion.
27kg of expended material to generate 4kg of hydrogen doesn't sound like a good idea. What makes it worse is that it is a food component. I am not fond of this idea of creating a fuel/food dichotomy.
I guess it was a hit job which blindsided Telestream's Flip4Mac, Panic's Transmit, Colloquy's Colloquy, Unsanity's Application Enhancer, and the open sourced VLC as innocent bystanders in their vendetta against Apple, so at least six non-Apple branded programs were thrown in to fill out the month. Day 31 has a "filler", meaning that it's just over three weeks' worth of Apple Bugs.
There may be some legitimacy to the complaints that Apple was unresponsive, but I agree, to bring in flaws in third party products to the mix is beyond irresponsible.
Then it's pretty ambiguous. For all we know, it might still have taken until 2007 for the cost of the materials & technology to go down far enough to be affordable for this use.
The article didn't say for sure if the original company was willing to license the technology out at rates low enough to allow affordable grills, nor did it say how much they wanted for the licenses.
I would suspect that it's very possible that it was the actual construction cost and not the patent cost that was prohibitive, but it's hard for me to be swayed either way on this particular case given how little information there is.
Nice try, but that's just what the newspapers and TV stations will say when challenged. It's pretty obvious that it's a bogus line, at least sometimes.
Can you please provide some corroboration to this statement?
It's well known, for example, that Murdoch's affiliates receive "talking points" for the day showing them what stories they should promote. Affiliates who don't toe the line risk problems.
I understand this, given that he owns Fox News, but my impression is that Fox News is an outlier in this regard.
I think you have the relationship wrong. The grandparent post didn't suggest that Macs were harder or easier to program than Windows, just that GP poster prefers Linux instead.
A proof of concept exploit seems to surface about once or twice a year. I really haven't heard of one "in the wild".
Have you ever seen their TV shows? A lot of them spend a lot of time begging for money. Dial 1-800-GOD-BOOK to give to this ministry! In the 80's Jim Bakker and his wife had a lot of money from the "ministry" and lived extravagently. To give an example, I think their dog house was air-conditioned.
I could have sworn that Belkin made a transmitter with the 1/8" plug.
I don't know if I'd be that pessimistic about geeks (99% is high), but you are right that a lot of them don't have management skills, so they would have to make sure they have someone with management skills in their start-up. There are some pretty poignant examples, William Shockley was brilliant but he was an evil manager such that he drove away his talent shortly after he formed his own company. Thomas Edison had done some suppression of the talent that he's hired, and as such, Edison Labs died a premature death.
From what I hear, Apple Japan is mostly populated with buffoons. Macs are very easy to maintain relatively speaking in regards to computers, but I don't know how a computer-illiterate person would fix it in case you can't connect into it.
I'm not sure it will matter. That is a hypothetical observation assuming that human-descendants, whatever they are, or other form of life will be around that long. Political turmoil with respect to life right how makes it hard to plan for a hundred years from now. Then there is the potential ecological turmoil if the scientists are right about greenhouse gases and humanity doesn't curtail its ecologically destructive habits. For the moment, there is no alternative habitat. Even if Mars is terraformed, which is difficult and unlikely, there's no way to move billions there, and there's not enough gravity and other factors to keep a stable atmosphere there anyway.
Your entire comment does not have to be a two line long hyperlink.
I really can't say I've experienced any of that, and I've taken advantage of a lot of their specials. I skim their weekly flyer regularly. I haven't tried to buy computers there though.
We know that in essentials you both have the same closed business model. How do you think that business model is going to compete against open source in a world in which hardware is open, and open source allows an unlimited quantity of derivative works to run on it?
Right now, open source hasn't been a threat to either desktop platforms that I've seen.
BTW: I don't use MS Office and I own both Mac and Windows PCs. There are a few alternatives out there, but that doesn't mean that they are a threat to the OS platforms. I even use a lot of open source software, but the OS I use them on is closed, and frankly, I don't mind that much at the moment. I do hope to try Ubuntu some time though.
The fact that they're talking like this at all suggests they're scared about "the other choice."
I've re-read this a few times and I really don't understand how this statement can be true given the circumstances. I don't see any indication that this dialogue is about the server market, which is the main place where Linux is currently doing well. I don't know who would represent Linux in one other place where Linux is excelling, which is in smart phones. Linus has little to do with that effort except that his kernel is one cog in the mechanism.
I have never really seen the Linux desktop installed base exceed 1% of the installed base of personal computers, so I don't see how Linux on the desktop is worth noticing. Linux pre-installed on consumer computers has failed every time I've seen it tried, be it VA Linux, HP's and Dell's previous attempts, Linspire at Walmart and so on. I expect that Dell's current attempt would be cancelled in six months like the previous attempts because Linux users are better at yelling than they are about putting their money where their mouths are and actually buy one of these machines.