One question though, isn't it about time to move up from 14,400 baud Fax transmission?!
Aside from the fact that there are already 33.6k Fax machines, I wonder how much of a difference it could really make. The major limit on the fax machine is its print speed. I think that increasing the speed of transmission beyond 33.6k or even 14.4k would make any noticable difference to the end user.
Color faxes might need an increase in speed but I have a feeling these wont become ubiquitous for a long time.
Finally, most people who need a fax machine already have one so you'll be hard pressed to even find a 33.6k machine let alone something higher.
Yes, we've all heard the arguments against cheating.
Especially the, 'you're only cheating yourself' one.
Its irrelevant because this will not affect the way we cheat so much as the way we learn and the way we write. Think about it beyond your personal experience in high school.
1. On the micro scale, an autosummerize feature like this will allow someone to take another's essay and put their facts into their own words. But I dont see how this makes any difference to the cheater other than saving him an hour. To see this tech as a problem on this level is to ignore the future.
2. On the medium scale, it will allow someone to take multiple papers, extrapolate all the facts and their sources and then string them together again with their own interpretation. This will allow the learner to come up with a new argument and possibly a fresh insight based on the available information. In this case, it saves the learner a few hours of reading, though he has to do the same amount of thinking and logical reasoning. Is it a shame that the person doesnt have to waste time reading irrelevant information? Still, looking at it on this level is not thinking very deep.
I take history in university and the essays we have to write are done by data mining books. Lots of books. We have to read large amounts of material in as short a time as possible. We have to find out what is important and what is relevant. Am I really learning how to analyze facts? I dont think so. I am learning how to write university papers and theorize based on incomplete information. I am learning how to make a lot of wasted time look like a lot of work.
3. The macro scale. What if every book ever written was replicated in full electronically and available for parsing. What if I could extrapolate every fact from every source even remotely relevant to a topic. I'm right back to where I was before : hours and hours of reading. Yet, my argument will be more solid and my information more complete then it ever could be using the outdated method of data mining: looking in the indexes of books. In this case, what am I learning? I am learning how to think. I am learning how to spot holes, inconsistancies, fallacies, and etc. In this case the technology has eliminated cheating altogether because there is no single source to copy from. And if I want to understand how all these facts are related to each other I either have to think about it or read an other authors interpretation of it. (thus I could still cheat in the classical sense)
4. But lets look at it on one more level, the very tiniest level and the most futuristic. A well constructed paragraph or sentence cant be parsed down, and wouldnt make sense if it was. The facts contained in a paragraph only become important in relation to one another. So in the end, it could just change the way we write. Enough with this puffed up crap, enough with padding your papers - either state whats important or nothing at all. A well constructed essay in the future will be one that cant be "autosummerized" without losing all its intelligability.
(Wonder if they buy their flying-saucer fuel from Halliburton?)
There are a number of people that may not get this joke. I will go ahead and explain it to them because, while being quite funny, its important that everyone know why.
Halliburton, as featured on the Jon Stewart show, has been receiving government contracts since the 1940s. A few years ago Halliburton began making massive oil export contracts with Iraq. Its important because this was during a period when Dick Cheney was at the helm. He still owns 8 million dollars worth of stock and receives undisclosed severence payments from them to the tune of 100,000 to 1 million dollars per year. While we was at the helm of the company he increased their business by a few billion dollars with the help of a few million dollar increase in federal lobby payments to important Republican congressmen.
Thats right, just before the U.S. went to war with Iraq its secretary of state was buying large quantities of oil from them. Once he got into office he left his post at Halliburton, but then offered them a contract to help "rebuild" Iraq.
Yeah, thats right, he left a corporation that was buying oil from Iraq, helped orchestrate a war on Iraq, then offered said corporation part of the contract to "rebuild" Iraq. All the while that corporation was giving money to the congressmen that would support said war.
So, as you can see, the joke is fairly dark humour that takes off on the fact that government officials often make waste (or in this case war) so their economic counterparts can make money. Very witty, and also worthy of being modded Interesting or Insightful.
btw for more information try google searches like Halliburton+Cheney, Halliburton+Iraq, Halliburton+contract, Halliburton+conspiracy, etc etc
I think the academy has just had it with the Wachowski brothers. They cut corners by filming both movies at once, they did a shoddy job on both leaving all kinds of loose ends and poorly plotted themes, and the special effects didnt even turn out that great. Things like the Smith clone battle came out looking gimmicky and contrived. These last two movies were clearly just a cash grab to build of the Matrix brand name and no one is being fooled about the amount of care and effort that went into them.
I suspect that the academy feels those other movies still have lots of potential and should be promoted, whereas the Matrix has already overshot its market and everyone is feeling quite dissillussioned. No point in whipping a dead donkey, am I right?
Is it possible that the sphere of science and technology has expanded so much since the Benthamites that one actually could enjoy a healthy and creative life, full of symbolic meaning and structure, in pure science and technology? Music and literature are awesome, I wouldn't want to live on Super Technocrat Island of Technofun as proposed here, but given that humanity survived for millions of pre-historic years without music, literature, or science, it seems probable that one could survive with one of the three.
A good question, but I think you would be sorely mistaken if you ever thought there was a time in which humankind existed without a symbolic backdrop. Look at African tribes: they are millenia behind us in terms of technology and many are still living in the stone age. Yet they have some of the most rich, meaningful musical and spiritual cultures on the planet. I do not believe there was ever an age where humans did not feel the urge to express themselves in an irrational and creative fashion. Its simply our nature and a necessary part of our existence to be expressive.
Do I think that in the last 100 years things have changed so drastically that its possible to live as you have suggested? No. Facts and numbers simply cannot replace that intangible essence that defines humans. They simply cannot carry the great burden of existence that we all must bear. But I'm also not sure that we are even apt to comment on a purely scientific existence since our lives are so full of symbolism and culture.
The ritual containers that shape our lives and give them meaning have simply mutated, as they often will, yet become in many cases they've become quite perverse. The dollar is used as a measuring stick of ethics and values, including our own environment and minds. Advertising is the primary source of information and thus shapes the structures that govern our behaviour, hence rampant consumerism. If anything we need literature, music and spirituality more than ever, though not necessarily in the traditional sense.
Let me tell you a short story about a man named John Stuart Mill. His father was a Benthamite, and raised John according to Benthamite principles. He was to be the "perfect Benthamite". This ideal of child rearing is very close to the one you just mentioned. No philosophy, no literature, no poetry or creative writing. From the age of 3 he began a home-school regimen of logic, mathematics, history, geography, engineering and subjects like that.
At the age of 20, unable to handle such an emotionless and empty existence without any symbolic meaning or structure John Stuart Mill had a severe nervous breakdown. Fortunately before the depression and anxiety led to his much contemplated suicide, he happened upon the Romantic poets and their praise of life and its beauty. He credits them with having allowed him to face life and give it meaning. You will note that many religions have done the same thing for people.
People have had your wish in the past, and it has turned out to be false. Creativity, emotion and spirituality, though not rational, are important components of human existence. You may think you can live without them, but its been proven time and time again that the vast majority of people, even the most brilliant, simply cannot. You may not understand why, but your education has incorporated these things into your life and buttressed your existence.
Irrationality and chaos are fundamental aspects of life.
First off, let me say that I've been flying Ontario-Vancouver four times a year for over 5 years. I could be dubbed an "expert" at flying this important cross-country route. It is also important to note that we are talking about Canadian dollars, and that may be where the confusion comes from.
We all know how the rates change depending on the time of year. A 450 dollar return flight is easy to get in Jan., Feb., March, October, Novemeber, and some summer months etc etc. But still, and I have a feeling that the 450 dollar ticket is only one way.
The reason why I had to pay 800 this year (the actual figure after taxes, etc comes out to 950) is because I booked it only three weeks in advance. Therein lies my major complaint with the current state of transportation. I can walk down to the train station right now and get a ticket for the same price it wouldve cost me 3 weeks ago.
Regardless advertised prices are never what they seem. Theres always hundreds of dollars in surcharges and taxes when you actually go to buyt the ticket.
Finally, the Ontario-B.C. flight is never less than 4 hours, and is usually 5. The B.C.-Ontario flight is never less than 5 hours and can be up to 6 depending on winds and turbulance. But even so, dont fool yourself by leaving out the hours upon hours spent checking in, waiting for take off, and getting baggage (which may or may not have been lost. Its happened to me SO many times)
I would much rather take an overnight, 12 hour trip to Vancouver in a train equiped with a dining car, lounge, and plenty of leg room, as compared to the awful experiences I have yearly on the aeroplane. =)
A high speed train from Calgary to Edmonton would really be great.. it would boost the economy and open up the province. But its the same dream as the bridge to Vancouver Island that many Vancouverites want : we all know it'll never happen.
In Ontario and Quebec the train is the best way to travel. Its the fast and comfortable, and its only slightly more expensive than the bus.
You cite evidence concerning a cross-country trip from Toronto to Edmonton in rebuttal to my argument that concerns only transportation within provinces. Your post even quotes me as saying that. =)
It happens, but its a reminder for you to read more carefully.
FYI- I am taking a flight to Vancouver from Ottawa in a week and its costing me 900 dollars return, for the ticket alone! I think thats totally outrageous, but it is Christmas so the prices are much higher than usual. Still, I can fly anywhere in Europe or Asia for that price, yet all I want to do is go home to see my family...
I don't care if they are old-fashioned, MagLev, or what. Just like busses, trains are having issues because no one wants to use them. Both Greyhound and Amtrak are unpopular forms of transportation now--no coincidence.
Here in Canada, buses and trains are the only mode of transportation within provinces (which are very large) unless you own a car (and want to pay 50-100 dollars in gas... which is the price of a bus ticket) or can pay enourmous fees for the airplane. They are VERY popular, and wont be losing any popularity as long as people still want to see their friends and families.
To cross the country the only viable method of transportation is airplane. Maglev could offer a great alternative to the 6 hour, 800 dollar flight from Toronto to Vancouver. Your shallow argument against using trains for long distance (magLev would be great long distance, but again, planes are still more popular and don't take up real estate on the ground.) is downright stupid. In case you are unaware of your own history and geography, trains have been around for 200 years, and the cross-country tracks that they built for them still exist. Personally I'll take a high speed train over a high-priced plane any day of the week, and the lack of high-speed cross-country trains more than accounts for the popularity of the only other practical mode of cross-country transportation.
But I guess you've never been to Europe, or travelled Asia either. In those densely populated areas trains are by far the best way to travel. Jumping on the Chunnel train is far easier than getting to Heathrow three hours early so the security check can lose your baggage. With the chunnel train someone can live in London and go to work in Calais or Paris. Now just imagine if cross-country, or even inter-province (or inter-state) travel within North America was that cost-effective and convinient. A tourist to Europe will always get a Train pass unless they are not planning on leaving the city they start in. There is literally no other practical way for a tourist to travel within Europe. Too bad the world's biggest industry (tourism) did not cross your mind when you were evaluating trains.
Well how about just some way I can find my keys and television remote control.. That alone would make this technology the best thing since sliced silicon.
For any of those who think this whole story is offtopic, just rememeber that for many this is basically the only place they get news, and someone had to let them know.
This comment has been moderated as "Funny", but I dont see why. Its an astute observation.
I fail to see what other alternatives are out there for me.
First of all, I dont order the newspaper to my house, however even if I did, its sunday.
Secondly, I do not trust any news sources like CNN, NBC, and ABC, and unfortunately these are the only televised news broadcasts in North America (I wonder why?). I would never "watch" the news on television. I take offence to the manipulative, thinnly vieled attempts to frame stories according to a few certain principles, which the U.S. Government has endorsed. To be oblivious to their alterior motives and hidden intentions is far, far below my level of intelligence. These news broadcasts (online or on television) are insulting and socially degenerative.
Finally, Slashdot.com is my homepage, and its one of the first things I see in the morning, after I'm done booting up. I'm sure many others are the same way.
So laugh away guys, but at least I'm not having my brain washed by "the powers that be".
We have a method of payment that can subtract electronic mone from your account, with no input from you, and without your card ever leaving your wallet? Yeah, thats a great idea....
I see a great number of redundant posts all throughout stating this same idea.
I think you guys are being more than just a little shortsighted. You read something about a RFID credit card and jump to a horrendous number of conclusions about how this technology will be used. Give it a little thought:
The most likely candidate for a technology to be paired with this is Biometrics. We're all quite familiar with this technology, and its easy to see how it would be coupled with RFID CCs.
But we can come up with something a little less "futuristic". I belong to a tennis club that uses RFID encoded cards for entry in to the building, but they are also used for purchasing food. What happens? You swipe your wallet (containing the card), and the computer in front of the salesperson (yes we have those nowadays) brings up a picture of me and all my personal information. If anything seems fishy, they ask for a signiture.
Now considering that this technology is not going to be immediately implemented, and will not be forced upon the general public, I think we can give at the very least a few more years before it becomes ubiquitous. In that case, use your imagination (I know its hard since tech evolves so quickly) to come up with some solutions to the pedantic and generally trivial questions just like this one that everyone is posing.
+4 on that post? Wow. You have singled out an author for a quote that comes in many different shapes and forms. The motivation for doing so is hard for me to comprehend, but I'd like to show you some other forms of it, including the original:
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. - Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS
heres some more variations:
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of magtapes.";
"the highest bandwidth transatlantic data channel was a freighter fully-loaded with punch cards."
"the bandwidth of magtape and a pickup truck." (c. 1973, DEC, Maynard MA);
and,
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a kid on a moped with a backpack full of CDs.";
finally,
Dai Davies, director of Dante, which provides high-speed networks to Europe's research institutes, said that before now the highest data transfer speed was achieved by putting the tapes in a van and driving them to where they need to be analysed.
Delivery vans can carry lots of tapes at the same time which means that Europe's roads have a relatively high bandwidth. "You can send a few hundred megabytes per second through DHL," he said. - BBC News, 16 September 2003.;
Now I thank you for finding one of the many people who have spoken a permutation of the quote, but really it is quite a superfluous and trivial effort. Especially considering we all have the same access to Google that you do. =\ Tanenbaum's version appeared in 1988, but as you can see the line was spoken as early as 1973.
In conclusion, singling out a person who might have spoken the sentance is pointless. And adds little to the conversation.
Re:Yeah, like we haven't fucked up the planet enou
on
The Year In Ideas
·
· Score: 5, Informative
That article you posted says that fuck can only be used as an adjective, which u clearly did not do. I fail to see why you would bother citing evidence that doesnt even support your position.
I'm very wary of importing fish etc because what seems like a harmless thing can end up in your rivers as a self reproducing curse... but that's almost another issue.
Not at all, that is the entire issue - BALANCE.
Our ecosystem has evolved to the point where it is very much in balance at all times. If you want an example of one that is not in balance, have a look at the Middle East. Many thousands of years ago it was the most habitible place on Earth. If you think some cosmic event like the ice age made it into a desert you would be wrong. Deforestation did. How did the forests get deforested? Humans.
Now that said, its very important for us to maintain the balance of our current ecosystem or we risk turning our homes into inhostible places. Genetically modified plants and animals present the opportunity for the balance to be thrown of by spurring some kind of self propagating "curse", as you call it, or alternatively by eliminating some necessary self-propagating entity. Hence the reason why this thread was created (read the title of our posts.)
Are you missing the point here? Its not the product offered that we are complaining about, its the broken contract.
You say that because you cant place a quantitative value on it, it suddenly becomes totally irrelevant?
You're arguement is that because there was no MONEY involved, I shouldnt care. Because its FREE, it means nothing. Can you think of anything free in your life that you care about it? I have already offered children as an example, but may I now suggest the ENVIRONMENT?
By your ethical standards its perfectly ok for me to make promises and lie to everyone around me as long as there is no cash riding on it. By extension, a corporation can make a promise to a community not to destroy their natural parklands, but since there was no money involved, the promise means nothing and can be broken at any time.
That is the most perverse arm-chair morality I have ever heard. (to borrow your expression.)
If someone gave me a peice of candy for free I would certainly not throw it back in their face, no matter what I thought of the object. However if later they were to say "Oh by the way about that candy, etc etc" I would induce vomit and pick it out of the spuminess. Objects mean nothing to me, but trust and honor does.
I suggest you shake your head and have a good think about whats important to you. If you really believe that money supersedes morality.... I'm not just disappointed in you, but in the whole culture that could produce such an individual.
I signed up for a service based on certain conditions. Yahoo has broken those conditions and I'm angry about it.
Sorry I dont want to make u look stupid, but the expression "take it with a a grain of salt" is such that a grain of salt by itself is worthless, so to take something with a grain of salt would be to take it as being worthless. It is not the salt itself that is worthless, but rather the quantity of it- a grain.
A truckload of salt would actually be quite valuable, and you will notice that salt is a regularly traded commodity. I am confident that you do not mean to say that Microsoft's claims are valuable, but rather that they are worthless.
People who complain about such trivial things because they have nothing better to do in their life except complain about trivial things, make me sick.
So whats "trivial" for you ? Mega-corporations making contractual promises to their clients and then later recinding them? This is trivial? Lies are barely tolerated on the micro level (between people like you and me) so why should they be tolerated on the macro level?
You may not realize it, but by voicing our opinions on this popular and well-known message board we are in fact having an impact on "public opinion" even if it is only in a most minor way : by adding to it. Furthermore, by reading and writing in the boards (which you scold us for in a most steretypical way, saying we have "nothing better to do") one can expand the range of opinions that they normally incorporate in their judgements. Its not complaining, its taking advantage of the modern discourse, and for this only those who discourage should be scolded. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go vomit some more.
Slashdot Mirror
One question though, isn't it about time to move up from 14,400 baud Fax transmission?!
Aside from the fact that there are already 33.6k Fax machines, I wonder how much of a difference it could really make. The major limit on the fax machine is its print speed. I think that increasing the speed of transmission beyond 33.6k or even 14.4k would make any noticable difference to the end user.
Color faxes might need an increase in speed but I have a feeling these wont become ubiquitous for a long time.
Finally, most people who need a fax machine already have one so you'll be hard pressed to even find a 33.6k machine let alone something higher.
I did not state a single theory. I didnt even imply a conclusion. All I presented were a few facts.
What you have done is assumed the conclusion you think I would draw given the efficacy of the facts.
Dont let assumptions get in the way of good reading skills.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I am looking at your sig though, and I really hope that you dont think it applies to the comment I am responding to. Oh god.
Yes, we've all heard the arguments against cheating.
Especially the, 'you're only cheating yourself' one.
Its irrelevant because this will not affect the way we cheat so much as the way we learn and the way we write. Think about it beyond your personal experience in high school.
1. On the micro scale, an autosummerize feature like this will allow someone to take another's essay and put their facts into their own words. But I dont see how this makes any difference to the cheater other than saving him an hour. To see this tech as a problem on this level is to ignore the future.
2. On the medium scale, it will allow someone to take multiple papers, extrapolate all the facts and their sources and then string them together again with their own interpretation. This will allow the learner to come up with a new argument and possibly a fresh insight based on the available information. In this case, it saves the learner a few hours of reading, though he has to do the same amount of thinking and logical reasoning. Is it a shame that the person doesnt have to waste time reading irrelevant information? Still, looking at it on this level is not thinking very deep.
I take history in university and the essays we have to write are done by data mining books. Lots of books. We have to read large amounts of material in as short a time as possible. We have to find out what is important and what is relevant. Am I really learning how to analyze facts? I dont think so. I am learning how to write university papers and theorize based on incomplete information. I am learning how to make a lot of wasted time look like a lot of work.
3. The macro scale. What if every book ever written was replicated in full electronically and available for parsing. What if I could extrapolate every fact from every source even remotely relevant to a topic. I'm right back to where I was before : hours and hours of reading. Yet, my argument will be more solid and my information more complete then it ever could be using the outdated method of data mining: looking in the indexes of books. In this case, what am I learning? I am learning how to think. I am learning how to spot holes, inconsistancies, fallacies, and etc. In this case the technology has eliminated cheating altogether because there is no single source to copy from. And if I want to understand how all these facts are related to each other I either have to think about it or read an other authors interpretation of it. (thus I could still cheat in the classical sense)
4. But lets look at it on one more level, the very tiniest level and the most futuristic. A well constructed paragraph or sentence cant be parsed down, and wouldnt make sense if it was. The facts contained in a paragraph only become important in relation to one another. So in the end, it could just change the way we write. Enough with this puffed up crap, enough with padding your papers - either state whats important or nothing at all. A well constructed essay in the future will be one that cant be "autosummerized" without losing all its intelligability.
(Wonder if they buy their flying-saucer fuel from Halliburton?)
There are a number of people that may not get this joke. I will go ahead and explain it to them because, while being quite funny, its important that everyone know why.
Halliburton, as featured on the Jon Stewart show, has been receiving government contracts since the 1940s. A few years ago Halliburton began making massive oil export contracts with Iraq. Its important because this was during a period when Dick Cheney was at the helm. He still owns 8 million dollars worth of stock and receives undisclosed severence payments from them to the tune of 100,000 to 1 million dollars per year. While we was at the helm of the company he increased their business by a few billion dollars with the help of a few million dollar increase in federal lobby payments to important Republican congressmen.
Thats right, just before the U.S. went to war with Iraq its secretary of state was buying large quantities of oil from them. Once he got into office he left his post at Halliburton, but then offered them a contract to help "rebuild" Iraq.
Yeah, thats right, he left a corporation that was buying oil from Iraq, helped orchestrate a war on Iraq, then offered said corporation part of the contract to "rebuild" Iraq. All the while that corporation was giving money to the congressmen that would support said war.
So, as you can see, the joke is fairly dark humour that takes off on the fact that government officials often make waste (or in this case war) so their economic counterparts can make money. Very witty, and also worthy of being modded Interesting or Insightful.
btw for more information try google searches like Halliburton+Cheney, Halliburton+Iraq, Halliburton+contract, Halliburton+conspiracy, etc etc
I think the academy has just had it with the Wachowski brothers. They cut corners by filming both movies at once, they did a shoddy job on both leaving all kinds of loose ends and poorly plotted themes, and the special effects didnt even turn out that great. Things like the Smith clone battle came out looking gimmicky and contrived. These last two movies were clearly just a cash grab to build of the Matrix brand name and no one is being fooled about the amount of care and effort that went into them.
I suspect that the academy feels those other movies still have lots of potential and should be promoted, whereas the Matrix has already overshot its market and everyone is feeling quite dissillussioned. No point in whipping a dead donkey, am I right?
Is it possible that the sphere of science and technology has expanded so much since the Benthamites that one actually could enjoy a healthy and creative life, full of symbolic meaning and structure, in pure science and technology? Music and literature are awesome, I wouldn't want to live on Super Technocrat Island of Technofun as proposed here, but given that humanity survived for millions of pre-historic years without music, literature, or science, it seems probable that one could survive with one of the three.
A good question, but I think you would be sorely mistaken if you ever thought there was a time in which humankind existed without a symbolic backdrop. Look at African tribes: they are millenia behind us in terms of technology and many are still living in the stone age. Yet they have some of the most rich, meaningful musical and spiritual cultures on the planet. I do not believe there was ever an age where humans did not feel the urge to express themselves in an irrational and creative fashion. Its simply our nature and a necessary part of our existence to be expressive.
Do I think that in the last 100 years things have changed so drastically that its possible to live as you have suggested? No. Facts and numbers simply cannot replace that intangible essence that defines humans. They simply cannot carry the great burden of existence that we all must bear. But I'm also not sure that we are even apt to comment on a purely scientific existence since our lives are so full of symbolism and culture.
The ritual containers that shape our lives and give them meaning have simply mutated, as they often will, yet become in many cases they've become quite perverse. The dollar is used as a measuring stick of ethics and values, including our own environment and minds. Advertising is the primary source of information and thus shapes the structures that govern our behaviour, hence rampant consumerism. If anything we need literature, music and spirituality more than ever, though not necessarily in the traditional sense.
Let me tell you a short story about a man named John Stuart Mill. His father was a Benthamite, and raised John according to Benthamite principles. He was to be the "perfect Benthamite". This ideal of child rearing is very close to the one you just mentioned. No philosophy, no literature, no poetry or creative writing. From the age of 3 he began a home-school regimen of logic, mathematics, history, geography, engineering and subjects like that.
At the age of 20, unable to handle such an emotionless and empty existence without any symbolic meaning or structure John Stuart Mill had a severe nervous breakdown. Fortunately before the depression and anxiety led to his much contemplated suicide, he happened upon the Romantic poets and their praise of life and its beauty. He credits them with having allowed him to face life and give it meaning. You will note that many religions have done the same thing for people.
People have had your wish in the past, and it has turned out to be false. Creativity, emotion and spirituality, though not rational, are important components of human existence. You may think you can live without them, but its been proven time and time again that the vast majority of people, even the most brilliant, simply cannot. You may not understand why, but your education has incorporated these things into your life and buttressed your existence.
Irrationality and chaos are fundamental aspects of life.
.
First off, let me say that I've been flying Ontario-Vancouver four times a year for over 5 years. I could be dubbed an "expert" at flying this important cross-country route. It is also important to note that we are talking about Canadian dollars, and that may be where the confusion comes from.
We all know how the rates change depending on the time of year. A 450 dollar return flight is easy to get in Jan., Feb., March, October, Novemeber, and some summer months etc etc. But still, and I have a feeling that the 450 dollar ticket is only one way.
The reason why I had to pay 800 this year (the actual figure after taxes, etc comes out to 950) is because I booked it only three weeks in advance. Therein lies my major complaint with the current state of transportation. I can walk down to the train station right now and get a ticket for the same price it wouldve cost me 3 weeks ago.
Regardless advertised prices are never what they seem. Theres always hundreds of dollars in surcharges and taxes when you actually go to buyt the ticket.
Finally, the Ontario-B.C. flight is never less than 4 hours, and is usually 5. The B.C.-Ontario flight is never less than 5 hours and can be up to 6 depending on winds and turbulance. But even so, dont fool yourself by leaving out the hours upon hours spent checking in, waiting for take off, and getting baggage (which may or may not have been lost. Its happened to me SO many times)
I would much rather take an overnight, 12 hour trip to Vancouver in a train equiped with a dining car, lounge, and plenty of leg room, as compared to the awful experiences I have yearly on the aeroplane. =)
A high speed train from Calgary to Edmonton would really be great.. it would boost the economy and open up the province. But its the same dream as the bridge to Vancouver Island that many Vancouverites want : we all know it'll never happen.
In Ontario and Quebec the train is the best way to travel. Its the fast and comfortable, and its only slightly more expensive than the bus.
You cite evidence concerning a cross-country trip from Toronto to Edmonton in rebuttal to my argument that concerns only transportation within provinces. Your post even quotes me as saying that. =)
It happens, but its a reminder for you to read more carefully.
FYI- I am taking a flight to Vancouver from Ottawa in a week and its costing me 900 dollars return, for the ticket alone! I think thats totally outrageous, but it is Christmas so the prices are much higher than usual. Still, I can fly anywhere in Europe or Asia for that price, yet all I want to do is go home to see my family...
I don't care if they are old-fashioned, MagLev, or what. Just like busses, trains are having issues because no one wants to use them. Both Greyhound and Amtrak are unpopular forms of transportation now--no coincidence.
Here in Canada, buses and trains are the only mode of transportation within provinces (which are very large) unless you own a car (and want to pay 50-100 dollars in gas... which is the price of a bus ticket) or can pay enourmous fees for the airplane. They are VERY popular, and wont be losing any popularity as long as people still want to see their friends and families.
To cross the country the only viable method of transportation is airplane. Maglev could offer a great alternative to the 6 hour, 800 dollar flight from Toronto to Vancouver. Your shallow argument against using trains for long distance (magLev would be great long distance, but again, planes are still more popular and don't take up real estate on the ground.) is downright stupid. In case you are unaware of your own history and geography, trains have been around for 200 years, and the cross-country tracks that they built for them still exist. Personally I'll take a high speed train over a high-priced plane any day of the week, and the lack of high-speed cross-country trains more than accounts for the popularity of the only other practical mode of cross-country transportation.
But I guess you've never been to Europe, or travelled Asia either. In those densely populated areas trains are by far the best way to travel. Jumping on the Chunnel train is far easier than getting to Heathrow three hours early so the security check can lose your baggage. With the chunnel train someone can live in London and go to work in Calais or Paris. Now just imagine if cross-country, or even inter-province (or inter-state) travel within North America was that cost-effective and convinient. A tourist to Europe will always get a Train pass unless they are not planning on leaving the city they start in. There is literally no other practical way for a tourist to travel within Europe. Too bad the world's biggest industry (tourism) did not cross your mind when you were evaluating trains.
Dont try to pretend like you are not aware of the fact that most newspapers dont serve their papers on Sunday.
Well how about just some way I can find my keys and television remote control.. That alone would make this technology the best thing since sliced silicon.
For any of those who think this whole story is offtopic, just rememeber that for many this is basically the only place they get news, and someone had to let them know.
This comment has been moderated as "Funny", but I dont see why. Its an astute observation.
I fail to see what other alternatives are out there for me.
First of all, I dont order the newspaper to my house, however even if I did, its sunday.
Secondly, I do not trust any news sources like CNN, NBC, and ABC, and unfortunately these are the only televised news broadcasts in North America (I wonder why?). I would never "watch" the news on television. I take offence to the manipulative, thinnly vieled attempts to frame stories according to a few certain principles, which the U.S. Government has endorsed. To be oblivious to their alterior motives and hidden intentions is far, far below my level of intelligence. These news broadcasts (online or on television) are insulting and socially degenerative.
Finally, Slashdot.com is my homepage, and its one of the first things I see in the morning, after I'm done booting up. I'm sure many others are the same way.
So laugh away guys, but at least I'm not having my brain washed by "the powers that be".
LOL! As if thats never happened before? Give me a break.
We have a method of payment that can subtract electronic mone from your account, with no input from you, and without your card ever leaving your wallet? Yeah, thats a great idea....
I see a great number of redundant posts all throughout stating this same idea.
I think you guys are being more than just a little shortsighted. You read something about a RFID credit card and jump to a horrendous number of conclusions about how this technology will be used. Give it a little thought:
The most likely candidate for a technology to be paired with this is Biometrics. We're all quite familiar with this technology, and its easy to see how it would be coupled with RFID CCs.
But we can come up with something a little less "futuristic". I belong to a tennis club that uses RFID encoded cards for entry in to the building, but they are also used for purchasing food. What happens? You swipe your wallet (containing the card), and the computer in front of the salesperson (yes we have those nowadays) brings up a picture of me and all my personal information. If anything seems fishy, they ask for a signiture.
Now considering that this technology is not going to be immediately implemented, and will not be forced upon the general public, I think we can give at the very least a few more years before it becomes ubiquitous. In that case, use your imagination (I know its hard since tech evolves so quickly) to come up with some solutions to the pedantic and generally trivial questions just like this one that everyone is posing.
+4 on that post? Wow. You have singled out an author for a quote that comes in many different shapes and forms. The motivation for doing so is hard for me to comprehend, but I'd like to show you some other forms of it, including the original :
:
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station
wagon full of tapes.
- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS
heres some more variations
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of magtapes.";
"the highest bandwidth transatlantic data channel was a freighter fully-loaded with punch cards."
"the bandwidth of magtape and a pickup truck." (c. 1973, DEC, Maynard MA);
and,
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a kid on a moped with a backpack full of CDs.";
finally,
Dai Davies, director of Dante, which provides high-speed networks to Europe's research institutes, said that before now the highest data transfer speed was achieved by putting the tapes in a van and driving them to where they need to be analysed.
Delivery vans can carry lots of tapes at the same time which means that Europe's roads have a relatively high bandwidth. "You can send a few hundred megabytes per second through DHL," he said.
- BBC News, 16 September 2003.;
Now I thank you for finding one of the many people who have spoken a permutation of the quote, but really it is quite a superfluous and trivial effort. Especially considering we all have the same access to Google that you do. =\ Tanenbaum's version appeared in 1988, but as you can see the line was spoken as early as 1973.
In conclusion, singling out a person who might have spoken the sentance is pointless. And adds little to the conversation.
That article you posted says that fuck can only be used as an adjective, which u clearly did not do. I fail to see why you would bother citing evidence that doesnt even support your position.
I'm very wary of importing fish etc because what seems like a harmless thing can end up in your rivers as a self reproducing curse ... but that's almost another issue.
Not at all, that is the entire issue - BALANCE.
Our ecosystem has evolved to the point where it is very much in balance at all times. If you want an example of one that is not in balance, have a look at the Middle East. Many thousands of years ago it was the most habitible place on Earth. If you think some cosmic event like the ice age made it into a desert you would be wrong. Deforestation did. How did the forests get deforested? Humans.
Now that said, its very important for us to maintain the balance of our current ecosystem or we risk turning our homes into inhostible places. Genetically modified plants and animals present the opportunity for the balance to be thrown of by spurring some kind of self propagating "curse", as you call it, or alternatively by eliminating some necessary self-propagating entity. Hence the reason why this thread was created (read the title of our posts.)
Are you missing the point here? Its not the product offered that we are complaining about, its the broken contract.
You say that because you cant place a quantitative value on it, it suddenly becomes totally irrelevant?
You're arguement is that because there was no MONEY involved, I shouldnt care. Because its FREE, it means nothing. Can you think of anything free in your life that you care about it? I have already offered children as an example, but may I now suggest the ENVIRONMENT?
By your ethical standards its perfectly ok for me to make promises and lie to everyone around me as long as there is no cash riding on it. By extension, a corporation can make a promise to a community not to destroy their natural parklands, but since there was no money involved, the promise means nothing and can be broken at any time.
That is the most perverse arm-chair morality I have ever heard. (to borrow your expression.)
If someone gave me a peice of candy for free I would certainly not throw it back in their face, no matter what I thought of the object. However if later they were to say "Oh by the way about that candy, etc etc" I would induce vomit and pick it out of the spuminess. Objects mean nothing to me, but trust and honor does.
I suggest you shake your head and have a good think about whats important to you. If you really believe that money supersedes morality.... I'm not just disappointed in you, but in the whole culture that could produce such an individual.
I signed up for a service based on certain conditions. Yahoo has broken those conditions and I'm angry about it.
hehe! You are a funny guy =)
In all my days I've never actually seen anyone try to fake attach a sentance to their post and pretend its part of their .sig
guess theres a first time for everything... but why'd you do it?
Sorry I dont want to make u look stupid, but the expression "take it with a a grain of salt" is such that a grain of salt by itself is worthless, so to take something with a grain of salt would be to take it as being worthless. It is not the salt itself that is worthless, but rather the quantity of it- a grain.
A truckload of salt would actually be quite valuable, and you will notice that salt is a regularly traded commodity. I am confident that you do not mean to say that Microsoft's claims are valuable, but rather that they are worthless.
People who complain about such trivial things because they have nothing better to do in their life except complain about trivial things, make me sick.
So whats "trivial" for you ? Mega-corporations making contractual promises to their clients and then later recinding them? This is trivial? Lies are barely tolerated on the micro level (between people like you and me) so why should they be tolerated on the macro level?
You may not realize it, but by voicing our opinions on this popular and well-known message board we are in fact having an impact on "public opinion" even if it is only in a most minor way : by adding to it. Furthermore, by reading and writing in the boards (which you scold us for in a most steretypical way, saying we have "nothing better to do") one can expand the range of opinions that they normally incorporate in their judgements. Its not complaining, its taking advantage of the modern discourse, and for this only those who discourage should be scolded. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go vomit some more.