Is satellite not an option? Or is it not an option because you aren't interested in paying for it?
Anyway, I'm in what is pretty much a rural area(I'm several miles from the nearest 'city', which is really more of a town, there is a village that is closer, but it is still several miles away). I'm about 2 miles from a broadcast tower. So this solves the problem for me and my neighbors.
First of all, the article talks about the monkey using the same neurons to open and close its hand as it does to manipulate a pair of pliers by opening and closing its hand. I'm not sure this should have surprised them, but it might just be bad journalism(i.e., if the neurons that fired when it opened and closed its hand fired when it used both hands to manipulate a pair of pliers, well, that is interesting).
It seems just as likely that the monkey is used to interacting with his environment with his hands and integrates the pliers into his environment.
Tool use requires either abstract thought (I can use that stick to fish termites out of that dirt) or training/observation (hey, that monkey is fishing termites out of that dirt with a stick, I like termites!, I should fish termites out of the dirt with a stick). It might require keen observation to get the method right, but it is something that can be learned without understanding. Tool improvement requires abstract thought (a smaller stick would work better in these small holes) or training/observation (hey, when I use smaller sticks, they have more termites on them, I like termites!). Creating a tool for a very specific purpose (throwing some highly evolved monkeys at the moon) pretty much requires abstract thought, I don't think you could get there by observation or training.
There probably are things that are leaps forward, that have to be made in their entirety or not at all, but they are things like zero, or levers, so we don't notice them.
Or just require patent holders to pay an escalating fee to maintain the patent after some period.
Another change that could probably be introduced incrementally would be several classes of patents, with some having longer terms than others, based on just how innovative they are. It has the potential to loosen up the system without turning it on its head.
Overall I wasn't trying to be terribly accurate with the numbers.
I think the other posters point was that this is roughly equivalent to "making things up" when you are talking about something that presumably has a maximum cost of $0.10.
Yes, most things are only useful once they become useful. Up until then, they are often 'neat ideas' that people get excited about, because they imagine them being useful.
If you really want this, you need to start developing a binary platform. That isn't clear. What I mean is, closed source application developers are not going to be willing to depend on customer compilation to make sure that their software knows where libraries are, and(especially on the high end) they aren't going to be making releases for several different distros, they are going to tell you to set up a machine with the distro they compile against. If somebody out there were providing a stable set of libraries that cottoned over the aesthetic differences between various distros, they could link against it and people could use it wherever. The libraries could still be patched, but each release would maintain binary compatibility over its lifetime(which would be whatever made sense, but several years at least). Perhaps it isn't practical to hide the differences, I don't really know, but things like LSB don't work because they still present a moving target, something those closed source application developers are going to be reluctant to deal with.
It isn't surprising that linux and other Free/Open Source software developers have different priorities than application vendors, but the stable target that Windows and Mac provide is a big reason there is so much commercial software on those platforms, it fits that business model much better.
Apparently treatment is somewhat dependent on how quickly you get the antibiotics to the person, and upon rather large doses. The biggest in treating a few hundred thousand people would be finding the antibiotics to do it. This stuff might be easier or cheaper to make, have a longer shelf life, work against more advanced infections, etc.
It's OK. The next step is to go crazy. Then, you need to find a way to take down the internet. After that, simply shoot the part of your brain making you crazy out of your head(making sure to survive a gunshot wound to the brain).
Bundled sales aren't necessarily profitable at all; they are however, essentially free revenue(their incremental revenue is whatever they get paid per license, the incremental cost is close to zero, someone else does the work in installing it and selling it; sunk costs could be higher than the revenues).
Anyway, they took in about $4.3 billion in operating system revenues in the last three months and called about $3.3 billion of it income, see the 'client' numbers at the bottom of this page:
That includes XP and whatnot, but it was larger than the previous number. Depending on just how much they spent on Vista(not all of which would be wasted right, as long as it is useful somewhere later...) and how much they eventually take in, the numbers could be pretty OK. Considering that they probably already wrote down most of the costs of developing Vista, that $3.3 billion in income is pretty nice.
In the end, it depends on whether you think they will eventually make up those costs; their accounting isn't going to be set up so that they have to do it in two years to call it a profit...
Say as a shipper you make mistakes about 1% of the time. Shipping 1 package, you will probably get it right. Shipping 100 packages, you will make 1 or 2 mistakes. Ship 80,000 packages and you are going to make 800 or 1000 mistakes. If you have to deal with mistakes on an individual basis and can't deal with a bunch of them the same way you scaled up your distribution, you end up with quite a problem...
The worst part of the 'unintended consequences' line of reasoning is the disproportionate way it gets applied to new risks, as if success in doing something very risky somehow removes the risk when doing it again. (stuff learned often does reduce the risk, but it doesn't remove it in the way that is often implied by people using the line of reasoning)
Most developed nations have birth rates that result in an ever decreasing population. The old people in these countries see it as a problem, as they want someone around to take care of them. People prefer to die from horrible diseases of old age, rather than horrible infections.
Also, the use of DDT in controlling malaria is not comparable to the widespread agricultural use it enjoyed before it was banned. The benefits of spot treating dwellings vastly outweigh the costs, both long and short term.
Slashdot Mirror
Is satellite not an option? Or is it not an option because you aren't interested in paying for it?
Anyway, I'm in what is pretty much a rural area(I'm several miles from the nearest 'city', which is really more of a town, there is a village that is closer, but it is still several miles away). I'm about 2 miles from a broadcast tower. So this solves the problem for me and my neighbors.
What?
First of all, the article talks about the monkey using the same neurons to open and close its hand as it does to manipulate a pair of pliers by opening and closing its hand. I'm not sure this should have surprised them, but it might just be bad journalism(i.e., if the neurons that fired when it opened and closed its hand fired when it used both hands to manipulate a pair of pliers, well, that is interesting).
It seems just as likely that the monkey is used to interacting with his environment with his hands and integrates the pliers into his environment.
Tool use requires either abstract thought (I can use that stick to fish termites out of that dirt) or training/observation (hey, that monkey is fishing termites out of that dirt with a stick, I like termites!, I should fish termites out of the dirt with a stick). It might require keen observation to get the method right, but it is something that can be learned without understanding. Tool improvement requires abstract thought (a smaller stick would work better in these small holes) or training/observation (hey, when I use smaller sticks, they have more termites on them, I like termites!). Creating a tool for a very specific purpose (throwing some highly evolved monkeys at the moon) pretty much requires abstract thought, I don't think you could get there by observation or training.
There probably are things that are leaps forward, that have to be made in their entirety or not at all, but they are things like zero, or levers, so we don't notice them.
Or did you mean something else?
Does security equal privacy? Not always, so maybe it is better to say that privacy increases security, or is one way to provide security.
Or just require patent holders to pay an escalating fee to maintain the patent after some period.
Another change that could probably be introduced incrementally would be several classes of patents, with some having longer terms than others, based on just how innovative they are. It has the potential to loosen up the system without turning it on its head.
I think the other posters point was that this is roughly equivalent to "making things up" when you are talking about something that presumably has a maximum cost of $0.10.
Somewhat surprisingly, both.
It's the military; if it doesn't fire fast enough, they add another nuclear reactor to the ship, just for the gun.
Fire will do a fine job of finding all the flash chips.
Also, do flash chips even have a memory effect?
All those IQ points, and you still aren't smart enough to keep it to yourself...
Yeah, I didn't realize how much further they had come(3.1 looks to have reasonable distro support). Note that almost no applications care yet:
https://www.linux-foundation.org/lsb-cert/productdir.php?by_lsb
Maybe in a couple more years.
Yes, most things are only useful once they become useful. Up until then, they are often 'neat ideas' that people get excited about, because they imagine them being useful.
If you really want this, you need to start developing a binary platform. That isn't clear. What I mean is, closed source application developers are not going to be willing to depend on customer compilation to make sure that their software knows where libraries are, and(especially on the high end) they aren't going to be making releases for several different distros, they are going to tell you to set up a machine with the distro they compile against. If somebody out there were providing a stable set of libraries that cottoned over the aesthetic differences between various distros, they could link against it and people could use it wherever. The libraries could still be patched, but each release would maintain binary compatibility over its lifetime(which would be whatever made sense, but several years at least). Perhaps it isn't practical to hide the differences, I don't really know, but things like LSB don't work because they still present a moving target, something those closed source application developers are going to be reluctant to deal with.
It isn't surprising that linux and other Free/Open Source software developers have different priorities than application vendors, but the stable target that Windows and Mac provide is a big reason there is so much commercial software on those platforms, it fits that business model much better.
They allow you to pay with a money order. They do not accept cash:
https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq.php#Payment
Apparently treatment is somewhat dependent on how quickly you get the antibiotics to the person, and upon rather large doses. The biggest in treating a few hundred thousand people would be finding the antibiotics to do it. This stuff might be easier or cheaper to make, have a longer shelf life, work against more advanced infections, etc.
Who killed the electric car? Liability killed the electric car.
Next question.
(Also, your "conspiracy" will have a tough time integrating the incredible decrease in price/watt for solar, and things like that)
You may have done it wrong. I remember consuming ethanol.
I wonder how many doctors out there are updating pacemaker firmware while they wait for their popcorn to pop?
It's OK. The next step is to go crazy. Then, you need to find a way to take down the internet. After that, simply shoot the part of your brain making you crazy out of your head(making sure to survive a gunshot wound to the brain).
And then the sun exploded.
Bundled sales aren't necessarily profitable at all; they are however, essentially free revenue(their incremental revenue is whatever they get paid per license, the incremental cost is close to zero, someone else does the work in installing it and selling it; sunk costs could be higher than the revenues).
Anyway, they took in about $4.3 billion in operating system revenues in the last three months and called about $3.3 billion of it income, see the 'client' numbers at the bottom of this page:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY08/earn_rel_q2_08.mspx
That includes XP and whatnot, but it was larger than the previous number. Depending on just how much they spent on Vista(not all of which would be wasted right, as long as it is useful somewhere later...) and how much they eventually take in, the numbers could be pretty OK. Considering that they probably already wrote down most of the costs of developing Vista, that $3.3 billion in income is pretty nice.
In the end, it depends on whether you think they will eventually make up those costs; their accounting isn't going to be set up so that they have to do it in two years to call it a profit...
So how long is the foreseeable future?
Say as a shipper you make mistakes about 1% of the time. Shipping 1 package, you will probably get it right. Shipping 100 packages, you will make 1 or 2 mistakes. Ship 80,000 packages and you are going to make 800 or 1000 mistakes. If you have to deal with mistakes on an individual basis and can't deal with a bunch of them the same way you scaled up your distribution, you end up with quite a problem...
If Vista is indeed a failure, it is only a failure in context, most companies would be glad to have such a failure on their balance sheet.
The worst part of the 'unintended consequences' line of reasoning is the disproportionate way it gets applied to new risks, as if success in doing something very risky somehow removes the risk when doing it again. (stuff learned often does reduce the risk, but it doesn't remove it in the way that is often implied by people using the line of reasoning)
Most developed nations have birth rates that result in an ever decreasing population. The old people in these countries see it as a problem, as they want someone around to take care of them. People prefer to die from horrible diseases of old age, rather than horrible infections.
Also, the use of DDT in controlling malaria is not comparable to the widespread agricultural use it enjoyed before it was banned. The benefits of spot treating dwellings vastly outweigh the costs, both long and short term.