The first couple times I smell something, that'll be really neat. Then my whole place starts to smell from the commercials pumping odors into my living room, accumulating there, and the residue accumulating on my TV and entertainment center. Then my carpet needs to be wet vac'd every other day.
I mean even if they've found a way to deal with all of that (I'd be surprised), I still don't see myself wanting various smells pumped into my living room. Even if I only watched 24x7 cooking shows.
Is that true? I've seen articles about people being harassed due to 3rd party traffic on their unsecured routers (and that's bad enough), but I can't remember seeing anyone prosecuted specifically for crimes committed by someone else.
Oh I don't doubt that at all. My understanding is that they're under constant pressure to sell product and services... which is going to result in situations like you just described.
And so, no, I'd never tell my family or friends to "just call geek squad" when something goes sideways. All I meant to say was, I think they're usually pretty capable people, and generally decent (despite the horror stories). They just have a crappy job.;)
Even as a casual reader that isn't the slightest bit familiar with the workings of a nuclear reactor, this concept does make perfect sense to me.
So I guess the real question is, are they lowering the bar on all these tests to a more practical (and still entirely safe) level, or is it a slippery slope manifested by the extreme cost and complexity of keeping these things online?
I mean, at some point, you've gone too far. I'm not sure where we're at on that... and I'm pretty sure only the people who are appropriately familiar with each and every one of these tests could tell us.
If there were a real market for clean safe energy that cost twice the amount of regular juice someone would supply the demand.
I'm sure you're right. And various technologies are coming online, bit by bit. But I don't think customers (including me) are being irrational when they reject power at twice the price.
Given the opportunity to pay the same price or a small premium, you'd see plenty of people switch. I mean, people do pay considerably more for hybrid cars and such. They like the idea of better, cleaner solutions. We just can't afford to pay massive premiums to feel good about it.
This is a little off topic, but I had hoped some of the safer, cleaner, modern and more efficient reactors would come online. That seems like a very workable solution to large power requirements. I guess it's just the extreme up-front costs and public perception that keeps it from happening. Tis unfortunate.
I have to say, if I'm calling around to various retail locations looking for anything less common and vague than "i need more GB's", "more rams sticks" or an iphone... I don't mind calling bestbuy and hitting the number for their geek squad employees. They usually understand what I'm asking for... even if BB doesn't have it or charges 900% of msrp.
It's interesting to watch, though I have no financial interest in Bitcoin.
This particular situation though is really interesting. The big win features of Bitcoin are really supposed to be the removal of central authorities that can jack up a currency, and anonymity. The downsides are really the same.
And yet, here we have what is effectively a sort of central financial institution locking down a huge bulk of the Bitcoin economy, because they were able to meaningfully identify currency that was stolen and is being used.
So as it turns out, the currency seems to operate in shades of gray... just like every other currency?
We'll call it, "THE CLOUD" because that sounds mysterious and foggy and like something you can't see through so you wouldn't know what was inside it. That'll keep 'em at the edge of their seats, yeah.
It's entirely speculation on my part, but I feel like it came from all those visio-style network diagrams you see in presentations, textbooks, etc. where the outside network is illustrated with a little cloud that has the word "internet" inside.
"Where on this map are our 'SMTPT Servers'?"
"Well, our smtp server is somewhere in this little cloud."
"So when we move our CRM it'll be in the cloud too?"
Likewise. I do like Ars for the content, though I don't spend a lot of time in the forums there. I also hit up Reddit every-so-often. They're different beasts though.
I've been pretty happy with Slashdot's user comments when using the moderation system properly to avoid the noise. I've been visiting about as long as you have, and I keep coming back... that's no small feat.
Well the article says one of the next steps is "self healing", whatever that means. I'd guess that just means bringing in new bots to replace dead ones. But hey, it's something.:)
Good question. Also, you'd have to find a well-cleaned aircraft hangar or something with enough perfectly flat, obstacle-free space for them to do anything. I don't think the idea is really about making these particular ones practical... but more about programming a whole swarm all at once and having them ready to go off and do whatever they're supposed to on their own. And managing that in a way that's cheap and effective. The article says they're looking to get up to a thousand of them and have them work out "self healing" and "collective trasport". These taks have been done individually, but baby steps towards a more impressive whole, I guess.
It doesn't. Facebook is hosting webapps designed for mobile, and the 80+ devs making the platform and initial apps are making sure they work with mobile safari.
Sensationalist bullshit, as usual. Nobody is attacking anyone, nobody is afraid that facebook is going to kill the app store, and it's very unlikely that apple would go out of their way to block Facebooks website inside the browser. It'd be pretty detrimental to their sales, not help.
You're right, on this forum it's a bit "brave" to post that link as representing your opinion on a person's right to die. One of my parents is pretty religious, so I understand that believing in things like sin and divine mandates are blanket arguments that can't be debated in the realm of reason. And so I'll try to respect your opinions on the matter.
I do, however, have to take issue with this bit: "If we adopt a law holding that a person has the right to kill himself, soon we will also adopt euthanasia; because if the individual has the right to say when his life is no longer worth living, soon society will claim this right as well."
This is silly in two ways. First, society often decides who is entitled to life anywhere that has a death penalty or ever sends soldiers to war. So there's nothing to lose in the way of conceptual high-ground. Second, this supposition that we'll begin euthanising our own, law-abiding citizens, against their will when they become sick has no supporting argument. The article simply assumes that to be true, for no apparent reason. It then goes on to blame these supposed future events on other, unrelated topics like abortion and socialized health care. Again, without any real correlative arguments... just flat assumptions. I won't list the more combative things it says about those of us that disagree on the topic... but they're pretty nasty.
So in the end you're left with, "it's wrong because god said so". It's fine for you to believe that, and I understand that it makes it your moral obligation to try to change minds on the subject. But that's hardly an effective argument for the rest of us to consider without any rational, non-religious arguments... right?
When a geek friend has their first kid, they get the Audio/DVD version of Here Comes Science. The kids love the videos and the friends love the songs themselves. Non-awful kids music is a rare thing.:)
IIRC, Illinois State used a Cisco solution that had similar problems. Worked great for windows machines... not so much for the rare linux user. That was some time ago though.
I know it's a little unfair to lay it out like this, but it sounds like: Customers hate and distrust sales people. Customers like and trust tech people. So we want to turn the people they like into the people they don't like."
This seems like a dangerous direction for your company.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd guess nobody.
The first couple times I smell something, that'll be really neat. Then my whole place starts to smell from the commercials pumping odors into my living room, accumulating there, and the residue accumulating on my TV and entertainment center. Then my carpet needs to be wet vac'd every other day.
I mean even if they've found a way to deal with all of that (I'd be surprised), I still don't see myself wanting various smells pumped into my living room. Even if I only watched 24x7 cooking shows.
Is that true? I've seen articles about people being harassed due to 3rd party traffic on their unsecured routers (and that's bad enough), but I can't remember seeing anyone prosecuted specifically for crimes committed by someone else.
I know it's tacky, but is there a source on that?
There are various good arguments for "cloud storage", but this service exemplifies none of them.
Oh I don't doubt that at all. My understanding is that they're under constant pressure to sell product and services... which is going to result in situations like you just described.
;)
And so, no, I'd never tell my family or friends to "just call geek squad" when something goes sideways. All I meant to say was, I think they're usually pretty capable people, and generally decent (despite the horror stories). They just have a crappy job.
Even as a casual reader that isn't the slightest bit familiar with the workings of a nuclear reactor, this concept does make perfect sense to me.
So I guess the real question is, are they lowering the bar on all these tests to a more practical (and still entirely safe) level, or is it a slippery slope manifested by the extreme cost and complexity of keeping these things online?
I mean, at some point, you've gone too far. I'm not sure where we're at on that... and I'm pretty sure only the people who are appropriately familiar with each and every one of these tests could tell us.
If there were a real market for clean safe energy that cost twice the amount of regular juice someone would supply the demand.
I'm sure you're right. And various technologies are coming online, bit by bit. But I don't think customers (including me) are being irrational when they reject power at twice the price.
Given the opportunity to pay the same price or a small premium, you'd see plenty of people switch. I mean, people do pay considerably more for hybrid cars and such. They like the idea of better, cleaner solutions. We just can't afford to pay massive premiums to feel good about it.
This is a little off topic, but I had hoped some of the safer, cleaner, modern and more efficient reactors would come online. That seems like a very workable solution to large power requirements. I guess it's just the extreme up-front costs and public perception that keeps it from happening. Tis unfortunate.
I have to say, if I'm calling around to various retail locations looking for anything less common and vague than "i need more GB's", "more rams sticks" or an iphone... I don't mind calling bestbuy and hitting the number for their geek squad employees. They usually understand what I'm asking for... even if BB doesn't have it or charges 900% of msrp.
It's interesting to watch, though I have no financial interest in Bitcoin.
This particular situation though is really interesting. The big win features of Bitcoin are really supposed to be the removal of central authorities that can jack up a currency, and anonymity. The downsides are really the same.
And yet, here we have what is effectively a sort of central financial institution locking down a huge bulk of the Bitcoin economy, because they were able to meaningfully identify currency that was stolen and is being used.
So as it turns out, the currency seems to operate in shades of gray... just like every other currency?
Don't they make a regular sugar version now anyway?
We'll call it, "THE CLOUD" because that sounds mysterious and foggy and like something you can't see through so you wouldn't know what was inside it. That'll keep 'em at the edge of their seats, yeah.
It's entirely speculation on my part, but I feel like it came from all those visio-style network diagrams you see in presentations, textbooks, etc. where the outside network is illustrated with a little cloud that has the word "internet" inside.
"Where on this map are our 'SMTPT Servers'?"
"Well, our smtp server is somewhere in this little cloud."
"So when we move our CRM it'll be in the cloud too?"
"Uh, well yeah."
"Excellent. I like things being in the cloud."
Likewise. I do like Ars for the content, though I don't spend a lot of time in the forums there. I also hit up Reddit every-so-often. They're different beasts though.
I've been pretty happy with Slashdot's user comments when using the moderation system properly to avoid the noise. I've been visiting about as long as you have, and I keep coming back... that's no small feat.
Well the article says one of the next steps is "self healing", whatever that means. I'd guess that just means bringing in new bots to replace dead ones. But hey, it's something. :)
Good question. Also, you'd have to find a well-cleaned aircraft hangar or something with enough perfectly flat, obstacle-free space for them to do anything. I don't think the idea is really about making these particular ones practical... but more about programming a whole swarm all at once and having them ready to go off and do whatever they're supposed to on their own. And managing that in a way that's cheap and effective. The article says they're looking to get up to a thousand of them and have them work out "self healing" and "collective trasport". These taks have been done individually, but baby steps towards a more impressive whole, I guess.
Fair enough. It's not mine either. :)
Well, not exactly a crap-shoot...
http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_2.htm
It doesn't. Facebook is hosting webapps designed for mobile, and the 80+ devs making the platform and initial apps are making sure they work with mobile safari.
Sensationalist bullshit, as usual. Nobody is attacking anyone, nobody is afraid that facebook is going to kill the app store, and it's very unlikely that apple would go out of their way to block Facebooks website inside the browser. It'd be pretty detrimental to their sales, not help.
You're right, on this forum it's a bit "brave" to post that link as representing your opinion on a person's right to die. One of my parents is pretty religious, so I understand that believing in things like sin and divine mandates are blanket arguments that can't be debated in the realm of reason. And so I'll try to respect your opinions on the matter.
I do, however, have to take issue with this bit: "If we adopt a law holding that a person has the right to kill himself, soon we will also adopt euthanasia; because if the individual has the right to say when his life is no longer worth living, soon society will claim this right as well."
This is silly in two ways. First, society often decides who is entitled to life anywhere that has a death penalty or ever sends soldiers to war. So there's nothing to lose in the way of conceptual high-ground. Second, this supposition that we'll begin euthanising our own, law-abiding citizens, against their will when they become sick has no supporting argument. The article simply assumes that to be true, for no apparent reason. It then goes on to blame these supposed future events on other, unrelated topics like abortion and socialized health care. Again, without any real correlative arguments... just flat assumptions. I won't list the more combative things it says about those of us that disagree on the topic... but they're pretty nasty.
So in the end you're left with, "it's wrong because god said so". It's fine for you to believe that, and I understand that it makes it your moral obligation to try to change minds on the subject. But that's hardly an effective argument for the rest of us to consider without any rational, non-religious arguments... right?
Between senate.gov and the Fed... I foresee the NSA's Red Team being temporarily re-purposed. This could be bad news for a few folks.
You're right, but it's still reasonable to be afraid of a good whippin. Particularly if no good came of it.
Fair enough.
Can I still link to barely-relevant xkcd comics?
When a geek friend has their first kid, they get the Audio/DVD version of Here Comes Science. The kids love the videos and the friends love the songs themselves. Non-awful kids music is a rare thing. :)
IIRC, Illinois State used a Cisco solution that had similar problems. Worked great for windows machines... not so much for the rare linux user. That was some time ago though.
...and the videos coming out are pretty awful.
http://mashable.com/2011/06/04/syrian-internet-restored/
You've been warned.
Yeah, Tank Man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man
Though it appears that at least some folks went by way of tank track (graphic):
http://pbh2.blogspot.com/2009/06/tiananmen-square-massacre-in-pictures.html
I know it's a little unfair to lay it out like this, but it sounds like:
Customers hate and distrust sales people. Customers like and trust tech people. So we want to turn the people they like into the people they don't like."
This seems like a dangerous direction for your company.