> So should you go to jail for eating your own food in a theatre too?
His point is that the video camera and the food are violations of the ticket contract, but this guy isn't going to jail for violating the theater contract. There's a law specifically declaring criminal charges for recording a movie in a theater, and that's what he's getting strung on. Bringing your own food may result in ejection from the theater, but it won't result in arrest (and nobody here stated it should).
> There is a fair amount of legal opinion that unless you have access to the terms beforehand, then you're not expected to comply with them.
I'd be interested to see that body of opinion, then, because in the cases I've seen the part that allows you to ignore contract terms only lasts as long as you don't know about them (you can't be held liable for violating terms you don't know about, but even if you did violate them due to this if you later learn the terms you can't continue to violate them just because you did it before). For the most part, contracts like the one controlling your movie ticket have been held enforceable because the information about the contract is available, even if it's not printed on the ticket. Approach the box office of any movie theater and ask for the terms of contract governing tickets, and the manager will be able to provide you with the printed pile of legalese. Again, the fact that it's not spoon-fed to you doesn't invalidate it. They're not required to provide you with the complete terms unless you ask for them, and you're expected to ask for them if you're doing anything that a reasonable person would consider questionable.
> I may legally make a backup of my DVD, regardless of what the warning on the DVD itself may happen to say.
This isn't relevant to the topic, since archival copies are allowed under fair use considerations, so no contract can legally forbid it whether or not you see the terms beforehand. But a different restriction not covered by fair use (for example, the right to public presentation) would be enforceable even if you didn't find that particular term before you opened the DVD, so long as it was reasonably likely that such notice would present before the movie, like they do with the notice on-screen right before the start of the feature.
...and damn wrong. You may think that you can only subject yourself to a contract by signing something, but that's just not how contracts work. Your ticket contract isn't "implied" just because you didn't sign anything or read the back of your ticket (or the printed contract on the wall of the box office). It's still legally valid, whether you like it or not. The ticket is a contract, not a "right to occupy the room". Sure, you can do other things than watch the movie, but if you were right, they could just leave the lights up and not run the movie, and you'd have no right to ask for your money back, since they didn't lock you out of the theater.
Sorry, but your indignation, based on your lack of understanding of how contracts work, does not invalidate the contract you enter with a theater house. You can "forget it", but then don't expect them to forget it too.
> To return to your prior book example, if I sell a service to turn your pages of the most recent NYT #1 bestseller for you, and to skip pages 37 and 93 because you find the descriptions on those pages distasteful, that's okay. But Amazon cannot sell the book with those pages removed without prior consent by the rights holder, because they've changed the work itself.
Completely right, and also completely irrelevant. See, this player, and the service, do indeed equate to the page turning service. The person who buys this player must insert a proper, full copy of the movie in question. At that point, they download a pattern of blocks from Clearplay that instructs the player as to which parts of the movie not to show, based on the user's settings. At any time, the user can turn off the feature and the whole, unedited movie will run. Also, when they sell their copy, it'll be the full version. Clearplay isn't creating a derivative work, they're giving you a pattern so that your player can create the derivative work, for that one viewing, on that one player.
A particular viewer's choice to use this function does not violate your rights in any way, any more than having the list on a sheet of paper and using the player's remote to block/skip/mute in real time.
> Because, to take your argument the next step, which I will do now, if you don't like the movie as presented to you, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH IT.
But see, with this player, I don't have to take it to the next step unless I want to. I can watch it in its entirety, avoid it altogether, or watch the expurgated version, all at my preference. This device gives me one more stop along the continuum than your idea does, so what's the problem?
> Something in a PG-13 movie bothers you enough to not want to watch several scenes? Well then, if you are one of "Those people," you can simply not watch the movie and stick to G rated films.
Oh, THAT'S the problem. You think I shouldn't watch it at all if I find some parts offensive, idea be damned that it might be four words in a two hour movie that otherwise is a great viewing experience. You seem to think that every single example is G-rated or "can't do without the edits" and nothing in between. Why is that?
> But the real point is that an artist's work is meant to viewed as the artist intended. If you don't like the artist's work as it is, DON'T WATCH IT.
Oh, THAT'S why. You seem to think that movies are equivalent to gospel, and that any change, no matter what, completely ruins the viewing experience. Do you watch movies from start to finish every single time? Do you refuse to go to the theater to see a first-run because it might not be the "director's cut"? Do you ever watch a movie on TV that was originally filmed on 70mm? Then I guess you don't have much room to tell me which parts can be changed and which can't. With this device, I can choose to alter my own viewing experience, or that of my family's. Why is that your concern, or the "artist"'s concern, either? Again, this device gives me one more choice in a wide range of choices, so why is it bad? If I like the film so much that I feel I want to risk the "naughty bits" to get the whole experience, then I can do that.
> If you are not comfortable showing T3 to your kids unless many scenes are removed, maybe you all shouldn't watch T3 altogether.
If you're not comfortable not concerning yourself with what movies I show my kids and how I choose to do it, maybe you shouldn't comment altogether.
I watched a documentary about the Galapogos Islands the other day that ran through this, and all I saw were blue feet with pixelated blotches above them. No boobies at all.
Humph.
Virg
Re:i don't care what you want, it's still wrong.
on
Auto-Censoring DVD Player
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> It makes about as much sense as listening to a synth version of a song because you don't like the instrument the original was played on...
And your reason for thinking I shouldn't be allowed to do this if I want, or caring whether I do it or not, is what, exactly?
Last I checked, nobody was required to buy this thing. No movie is required to be run through this filter. If it does a bad job at filtering, then only those who use it will be affected adversely. Perhaps it is a dumb idea, but then what reason do you have for caring? I think that vegetable juicers are a dumb idea. I think if you can't just eat a stick of celery, you shouldn't do it half-assed by liquefying it. But then, I realize that it's none of my business how others enjoy their veggies, and they're not liquefying my veggies.
If you don't want to watch bowlderized movies, get a different DVD player. Then, stop bitching that others are doing something you don't agree with. Get it?
> The outdated notion that conservationism means shivering in the dark is pure FUD.
Of course it is. But then, so is the idea that the changes that you describe are both simple and cheaper in all things. See below.
> I was born in an earth-sheltered, passive solar home. We had electric heat and hot water, and our yearly energy bills (in the 80s) was around $300. Instead of building a house that presented four big sides to the cold of winter
and heat of summer, three sides of the house were buried in the ground, meaning it stayed 50 degrees in most of the rooms without heat or A/C!
You decribe a very interesting house. There's one part you left out, though. Such a house has to be custom designed, doesn't work if you don't have a hill to set it into, and is only available to folks who are willing and able to build their own houses. This makes it a limited-use design, so suggesting that it's "the thing to do" can be woefully inaccurate (for example, if you built such a house in Arizona or Florida, you might just as well make your base floor a swimming pool). For most people, it's simply not feasible to consider such a design, notwithstanding the aesthetic considerations.
> Why not drive a hybrid, or a TDI burning veggie?
You'll notice that the Prius and other hybrids are rather small cars. I have a very fuel-efficient minivan, because I need the room to move stuff around, and there's not a single hybrid on the market that has the space and sufficient power to do that. And veggie burners? How many people do you think will go for that? Stopping to collect and process fuel in the middle of your trip is a curious thought.
> Why not switch to TFTs and turn your damn computer off at night?
Because the amount of electricity I'd save by using a TFT over my CRT for the span of time I use it would be so little that I'd never make up the cost of the TFT screen, and to add to that my old CRT would then be heading for a landfill or at best be partly recycled, and the bulk of it still cast off. I fail to see how that would be efficient. And I set my computer to hibernate at night, so I might just as well be turning it off already.
> These things, while they cost a lot in the beginning, save money in the long run, or cost the same as shelling out $40K for an SUV and then whining when gas goes up to $3/gallon.
The idea that people who don't drive hybrids or veggiediesels are all driving $40k SUVs is pure FUD. See how easy it is to fall into that trap?
> If more people bought environmentally responsible products, the cost would go down.
You say this, but I have trouble seeing the logic in it. The only way I can see this being true is if economies of scale kicked in due to widespread acceptance, but considering that the options you presented are cost-intensive, it'd have to be a long time done before it'd really be competitive. Besides, nobody yet knows how well hybrids will hold up in the long run, and custom houses will always be more expensive than tract houses.
> What valid reasons are there for not improving efficiency even though we can?
Cost and cross-efficiency come to mind. There are costs associated with improving efficiency, and sometimes the extra savings in power consumption don't make up for that cost. A high-efficiency furnace, for example, is not very much more expensive compared to a regular one, and the energy savings are big over time, so it's an easy sell. High-efficiency electrical devices, on the other hand, often cost significantly more than regular ones with only limited increases in efficiency, so the cost to move is much higher. If I already have a toaster, moving to a higher efficiency one will require a significant savings to make up for my having to buy a new toaster.
The other issue is cross-efficiency. Fuel cells need fuel, and producing that fuel can make operating the cell more costly than running off the grid. Wind power is nice for those who live in areas where the wind is steady enough for this to be reliable, but most homes (and even communities) can't really consider this on a large scale. The same holds true for solar power. In short, adding to efficiency, if it's not to involve costs in switching to higher efficiency stuff, requires either a change in consumption habits or power from other local sources, and those sources often cost far more than grid power.
So, in closing, there are a number of costs associated with increasing efficiency, and you must consider these costs before you suggest as you have that it's illogical not to improve efficiency.
> 1.) How names work alphabetically? What if you son/daughter publishes a book. I bet the Library of Congress will have a shit-fit trying to index it by author's name.
The LoC already handles this quite well. It's their job, y'know?
> 2.) How the hell is it supposed to be pronounced? Brad? Brfourd? B-R-Four-D?
I'd say "Brad", but heck, he could pronounce it "Chuck" if he really wanted to.
> 3.) Your son/daughter will become a geek like you. You're a geek. You posted on/. on April 1st. Your children being geeks will be enough torture through grade school. Why make it worse?
To prepare them for the tribulation of making more money than their former classmates, of course.
> 4.) I waant to be there when your son/daughter enlists in the military and the Drill Instructor goes Ape-Shit on your kid.
If you'd ever been near the military, you'd know that DIs don't use first names. Ever.
> I laugh every time I hear the name Dick Trickle, how messed up were that guys parents.
Why do you think his parents were messed up? He's an adult, and it's reasonable to assume his full first name is Richard, so why does he allow himself to be called Dick Trickle when Rick Trickle or Rich Trickle would be more innocuous? By this time, it's his own damn fault if he doesn't like it.
> If that were truly the case why don't they broadcast nothing but test patterns for 24 hours a day? They're cheap and since they don't care about customers or viewers then what's the problem right?
Because advertisers won't pay to run ads during test patterns. The point is that, if the viewers say they want something, and advertisers say something different, the bias is towards the advertisers, only limited by the possibility of losing viewership, which is more of an arcane science that you suspect. If the advertisers want something that's slightly different than the viewers want, then usually the content creators will go where the money is.
Besides, it seems reasonable to take the word of a television actor over an anonymous coward in matters of how television works. He has credentials. What are yours?
Sorry, but I still beg to differ, on the same basis that such a tag doesn't require anything from me to work. I'd still never allow such a device, because there are already a number of uniquely indetifying parts of my body attached, without the need for an RFID tag. Thumbprints don't require them, nor retinal scans, and both can reasonably only happen with my knowledge, and neither can realistically be stolen from me, especially if both require a passcode of some kind at the same time. Also, the problem with identity theft is that it won't be grisly, it'll be silent and unnoticeable. All I'd need to do is get a hand held tramsceiver and stand next to you on the bus. I'd capture your code on it, and walk away without you ever knowing I had your code. Then I'd embed it on my own RFID tag and walk through the checkout lane, and since it still doesn't challenge me to prove I'm authorized to use the code, you'd be billed for my purchases.
Still love that RFID tag that doesn't care who's actually carrying it?
> I have a dongle on my keychain that lets me buy gas with very little pain. It can also be used inside the store. I use it all the time, despite the potential privacy concerns.
Now what happens when the dongle gets lifted? In fact, I've watched someone get robbed blind by this by someone who took a defunct Speedpass, switched it with a coworker's good pass, and bought stuff on their dime for weeks. When the person who had the bad dongle tried it and it wouldn't work, she took it in and they sent it for replacement, and apparently did nothing to notify the system that it was out of circulation. In the time she spent waiting for the new one the thief ran up about $120 in charges for stuff.
Still love that dongle that doesn't care who's actually holding it?
>...but what if you had a desk fan or larger blowing against the open case? Would that be more efficient than leaving the case closed with the case/psu fans?
Not as effective as the CPU fan, but for all the rest, it'd work just fine. The reason most people don't do it is noise, airflow (your case fans don't move papers on your desk, generally) and power efficiency, which is lower for the desk fan idea because smaller fans doing directed work need less power for the same airflow.
br.
Virg
Don't be daft. Nobody runs WormMaker 2002 any more. The upgrades are free, remember? Sheesh.
Seriously, though, I wouldn't revel in an OSX outbreak. It'd be a big pain in the butt. Still, the fact that there's not one in the wild yet doesn't particularly impress me, or surprise me. OSX is still a solidly based OS, so finding a hole would be a lot of work, and frankly, there aren't as many black hats with high end skills as there were in days gone by.
> A quick trip to the Apple's online store to check will show you that a iMac G4 800MHz/256MB/60GB/Combo/E/56K/15" - Refurbished, which meets all of your listed requirements can be had for $899 direct from Apple, with a 1 year warranty.
That's great. He said...
I maintain that you cannot get anything worth running OSX on for less than about a grand ($US) as you will use it...
...and your solution prices out at $899.00. How much was the shipping again?
> That silly argument has been debunked innumerable times. Apache vs. MS ISS for example.
I'll preface my statements so that you know where I stand. I use Windows at work, because the applications I support in the field are Windows apps so I must. I'm not fond of it at all, and I don't like Microsoft apps, so I have experience working with non-MS packages to do virtually everything I do at work. My laptop runs Linux (not very well, but that's because it's a very old laptop) and I've used Macintosh systems on and off for quite a few years. I like them, but I haven't made the jump yet, mostly because of games that I like.
All that said, Apache versus IIS does not debunk the idea that the market leader gets the most viruses. Web servers are not end-user applications. Most of the people running web servers are at least tolerably computer savvy (be nice!) and it's not something that you ever expect to run right out of the box, with default settings. Most of the viruses that plague Windows users are either fault exploiters or social engineers. They either munge a default somewhere or trick the end user into doing something to allow it access. Web server administrators do not usually fall into either of these categories, so it's a bad analogy. The simple fact is still that Apple users don't suffer from viruses nearly as much as Windows users because there are more Windows computers to attack. Every mass-mailing buffer plow relies on the fact that at least a few of the many machines it attacks will be unpatched or misconfigured or otherwise vulnerable to invasion. Every "click me to check your system!" email bomb relies on a portion of its recipients not being technical enough to delete it. As people make the switch to Macs, some of those people will be non-techies or lazy or gullible. When the number of Macs gets high enough, then the number of machines that are open to attack because the owner has never heard the term "firewall" gets high enough that such an attack would become effective. By the same token, this segment will continue happily clicking open those attachments, which will begin to contain a Mac-usable payload when there are enough Macs around.
As the saying at the help desk goes, your system may work, but will your mom's system work? How about the people who don't have a technical kid to call?
> An Ipod mini is not a $250 piece of gear, okay? And a 40 GB Ipod is *really* not a $500 piece.
This is one of the points that the article is considering. Low margin means that the sale price is not much higher than the price to market, and price to market includes a lot more than the cost of manufacturing. How much do those snazzy commercials take from the budget? How many dollars disappear to get the ITunes concept going? These sunk, hidden costs are part of the equation, and they can cut profitability on a product line faster than you can say "betamax", especially since Apple was banking on Ipods driving people to buy more Macintosh computers, and it really hasn't happened.
If you lit a fine stream, and it maintained a visible flame, then there are a few things I can guess at, although I can't say for sure if any are correct.
1.) The O2 was mislabeled.
2.) The O2 was not pure. In the presence of pure oxygen, even miniscule amounts of impurity can cause visible burning, so it wouldn't take much.
3.) The valve itself was producing plasma on the edge of the flow. Did the tank have a metal valve and spout? If so, try it with a ceramic spout, since if you light a flame near the lip of a metal spout, a pure oxygen flow can actually cause the top of the valve to "burn" (usually it'll just glow, but perhaps it could produce visible flame).
I'd have to stretch to come up with others, so I'll stick by these for now. As I said, oxygen all by itself doesn't burn in the absence of other fuels, although it can cause runaway burning in stuff that doesn't normally burn in atmosphere (in pure oxygen, you can light a steel wool pad on fire, where it won't hold a flame in regular air). The reason it's considered so dangerous around flame is the runaway oxidizing properties, such that smoking a cigarette in a hospital near an oxygen supply can cause the cigarette to flare up or even pop. But without fuel, oxygen isn't flammable, it's merely an oxidizer. Take note that other chemicals like gaseous chlorine can do this too, so sometimes you'll see chlorine marked "oxidizer" in bottles, even though there's no oxygen involved. Again, not flammable by itself, but it accelerates burning fast.
Slashdot Mirror
> So should you go to jail for eating your own food in a theatre too?
His point is that the video camera and the food are violations of the ticket contract, but this guy isn't going to jail for violating the theater contract. There's a law specifically declaring criminal charges for recording a movie in a theater, and that's what he's getting strung on. Bringing your own food may result in ejection from the theater, but it won't result in arrest (and nobody here stated it should).
Virg
> There is a fair amount of legal opinion that unless you have access to the terms beforehand, then you're not expected to comply with them.
I'd be interested to see that body of opinion, then, because in the cases I've seen the part that allows you to ignore contract terms only lasts as long as you don't know about them (you can't be held liable for violating terms you don't know about, but even if you did violate them due to this if you later learn the terms you can't continue to violate them just because you did it before). For the most part, contracts like the one controlling your movie ticket have been held enforceable because the information about the contract is available, even if it's not printed on the ticket. Approach the box office of any movie theater and ask for the terms of contract governing tickets, and the manager will be able to provide you with the printed pile of legalese. Again, the fact that it's not spoon-fed to you doesn't invalidate it. They're not required to provide you with the complete terms unless you ask for them, and you're expected to ask for them if you're doing anything that a reasonable person would consider questionable.
> I may legally make a backup of my DVD, regardless of what the warning on the DVD itself may happen to say.
This isn't relevant to the topic, since archival copies are allowed under fair use considerations, so no contract can legally forbid it whether or not you see the terms beforehand. But a different restriction not covered by fair use (for example, the right to public presentation) would be enforceable even if you didn't find that particular term before you opened the DVD, so long as it was reasonably likely that such notice would present before the movie, like they do with the notice on-screen right before the start of the feature.
Virg
...and damn wrong. You may think that you can only subject yourself to a contract by signing something, but that's just not how contracts work. Your ticket contract isn't "implied" just because you didn't sign anything or read the back of your ticket (or the printed contract on the wall of the box office). It's still legally valid, whether you like it or not. The ticket is a contract, not a "right to occupy the room". Sure, you can do other things than watch the movie, but if you were right, they could just leave the lights up and not run the movie, and you'd have no right to ask for your money back, since they didn't lock you out of the theater.
Sorry, but your indignation, based on your lack of understanding of how contracts work, does not invalidate the contract you enter with a theater house. You can "forget it", but then don't expect them to forget it too.
Virg
> To return to your prior book example, if I sell a service to turn your pages of the most recent NYT #1 bestseller for you, and to skip pages 37 and 93 because you find the descriptions on those pages distasteful, that's okay. But Amazon cannot sell the book with those pages removed without prior consent by the rights holder, because they've changed the work itself.
Completely right, and also completely irrelevant. See, this player, and the service, do indeed equate to the page turning service. The person who buys this player must insert a proper, full copy of the movie in question. At that point, they download a pattern of blocks from Clearplay that instructs the player as to which parts of the movie not to show, based on the user's settings. At any time, the user can turn off the feature and the whole, unedited movie will run. Also, when they sell their copy, it'll be the full version. Clearplay isn't creating a derivative work, they're giving you a pattern so that your player can create the derivative work, for that one viewing, on that one player.
A particular viewer's choice to use this function does not violate your rights in any way, any more than having the list on a sheet of paper and using the player's remote to block/skip/mute in real time.
Virg
> Because, to take your argument the next step, which I will do now, if you don't like the movie as presented to you, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH IT.
But see, with this player, I don't have to take it to the next step unless I want to. I can watch it in its entirety, avoid it altogether, or watch the expurgated version, all at my preference. This device gives me one more stop along the continuum than your idea does, so what's the problem?
> Something in a PG-13 movie bothers you enough to not want to watch several scenes? Well then, if you are one of "Those people," you can simply not watch the movie and stick to G rated films.
Oh, THAT'S the problem. You think I shouldn't watch it at all if I find some parts offensive, idea be damned that it might be four words in a two hour movie that otherwise is a great viewing experience. You seem to think that every single example is G-rated or "can't do without the edits" and nothing in between. Why is that?
> But the real point is that an artist's work is meant to viewed as the artist intended. If you don't like the artist's work as it is, DON'T WATCH IT.
Oh, THAT'S why. You seem to think that movies are equivalent to gospel, and that any change, no matter what, completely ruins the viewing experience. Do you watch movies from start to finish every single time? Do you refuse to go to the theater to see a first-run because it might not be the "director's cut"? Do you ever watch a movie on TV that was originally filmed on 70mm? Then I guess you don't have much room to tell me which parts can be changed and which can't. With this device, I can choose to alter my own viewing experience, or that of my family's. Why is that your concern, or the "artist"'s concern, either? Again, this device gives me one more choice in a wide range of choices, so why is it bad? If I like the film so much that I feel I want to risk the "naughty bits" to get the whole experience, then I can do that.
> If you are not comfortable showing T3 to your kids unless many scenes are removed, maybe you all shouldn't watch T3 altogether.
If you're not comfortable not concerning yourself with what movies I show my kids and how I choose to do it, maybe you shouldn't comment altogether.
Virg
I watched a documentary about the Galapogos Islands the other day that ran through this, and all I saw were blue feet with pixelated blotches above them. No boobies at all.
Humph.
Virg
> It makes about as much sense as listening to a synth version of a song because you don't like the instrument the original was played on...
And your reason for thinking I shouldn't be allowed to do this if I want, or caring whether I do it or not, is what, exactly?
Last I checked, nobody was required to buy this thing. No movie is required to be run through this filter. If it does a bad job at filtering, then only those who use it will be affected adversely. Perhaps it is a dumb idea, but then what reason do you have for caring? I think that vegetable juicers are a dumb idea. I think if you can't just eat a stick of celery, you shouldn't do it half-assed by liquefying it. But then, I realize that it's none of my business how others enjoy their veggies, and they're not liquefying my veggies.
If you don't want to watch bowlderized movies, get a different DVD player. Then, stop bitching that others are doing something you don't agree with. Get it?
Virg
> The outdated notion that conservationism means shivering in the dark is pure FUD.
Of course it is. But then, so is the idea that the changes that you describe are both simple and cheaper in all things. See below.
> I was born in an earth-sheltered, passive solar home. We had electric heat and hot water, and our yearly energy bills (in the 80s) was around $300. Instead of building a house that presented four big sides to the cold of winter and heat of summer, three sides of the house were buried in the ground, meaning it stayed 50 degrees in most of the rooms without heat or A/C!
You decribe a very interesting house. There's one part you left out, though. Such a house has to be custom designed, doesn't work if you don't have a hill to set it into, and is only available to folks who are willing and able to build their own houses. This makes it a limited-use design, so suggesting that it's "the thing to do" can be woefully inaccurate (for example, if you built such a house in Arizona or Florida, you might just as well make your base floor a swimming pool). For most people, it's simply not feasible to consider such a design, notwithstanding the aesthetic considerations.
> Why not drive a hybrid, or a TDI burning veggie?
You'll notice that the Prius and other hybrids are rather small cars. I have a very fuel-efficient minivan, because I need the room to move stuff around, and there's not a single hybrid on the market that has the space and sufficient power to do that. And veggie burners? How many people do you think will go for that? Stopping to collect and process fuel in the middle of your trip is a curious thought.
> Why not switch to TFTs and turn your damn computer off at night?
Because the amount of electricity I'd save by using a TFT over my CRT for the span of time I use it would be so little that I'd never make up the cost of the TFT screen, and to add to that my old CRT would then be heading for a landfill or at best be partly recycled, and the bulk of it still cast off. I fail to see how that would be efficient. And I set my computer to hibernate at night, so I might just as well be turning it off already.
> These things, while they cost a lot in the beginning, save money in the long run, or cost the same as shelling out $40K for an SUV and then whining when gas goes up to $3/gallon.
The idea that people who don't drive hybrids or veggiediesels are all driving $40k SUVs is pure FUD. See how easy it is to fall into that trap?
> If more people bought environmentally responsible products, the cost would go down.
You say this, but I have trouble seeing the logic in it. The only way I can see this being true is if economies of scale kicked in due to widespread acceptance, but considering that the options you presented are cost-intensive, it'd have to be a long time done before it'd really be competitive. Besides, nobody yet knows how well hybrids will hold up in the long run, and custom houses will always be more expensive than tract houses.
Virg
> What valid reasons are there for not improving efficiency even though we can?
Cost and cross-efficiency come to mind. There are costs associated with improving efficiency, and sometimes the extra savings in power consumption don't make up for that cost. A high-efficiency furnace, for example, is not very much more expensive compared to a regular one, and the energy savings are big over time, so it's an easy sell. High-efficiency electrical devices, on the other hand, often cost significantly more than regular ones with only limited increases in efficiency, so the cost to move is much higher. If I already have a toaster, moving to a higher efficiency one will require a significant savings to make up for my having to buy a new toaster.
The other issue is cross-efficiency. Fuel cells need fuel, and producing that fuel can make operating the cell more costly than running off the grid. Wind power is nice for those who live in areas where the wind is steady enough for this to be reliable, but most homes (and even communities) can't really consider this on a large scale. The same holds true for solar power. In short, adding to efficiency, if it's not to involve costs in switching to higher efficiency stuff, requires either a change in consumption habits or power from other local sources, and those sources often cost far more than grid power.
So, in closing, there are a number of costs associated with increasing efficiency, and you must consider these costs before you suggest as you have that it's illogical not to improve efficiency.
Virg
> You just put his name down, every time as Bo3b.... Really, how can they STOP you
Gonna go out on a limb on this one. Perhaps by fining you every time you do it until you decide it's too expensive?
Virg
> 1.) How names work alphabetically? What if you son/daughter publishes a book. I bet the Library of Congress will have a shit-fit trying to index it by author's name.
/. on April 1st. Your children being geeks will be enough torture through grade school. Why make it worse?
The LoC already handles this quite well. It's their job, y'know?
> 2.) How the hell is it supposed to be pronounced? Brad? Brfourd? B-R-Four-D?
I'd say "Brad", but heck, he could pronounce it "Chuck" if he really wanted to.
> 3.) Your son/daughter will become a geek like you. You're a geek. You posted on
To prepare them for the tribulation of making more money than their former classmates, of course.
> 4.) I waant to be there when your son/daughter enlists in the military and the Drill Instructor goes Ape-Shit on your kid.
If you'd ever been near the military, you'd know that DIs don't use first names. Ever.
Virg
> If it's simply the number eight, why does it have a period after it?
Perhaps because her middle name is "8." and not just "8" after all. I mean, if you can have a numeral in your middle name, why is a period so far out?
Virg
> I laugh every time I hear the name Dick Trickle, how messed up were that guys parents.
Why do you think his parents were messed up? He's an adult, and it's reasonable to assume his full first name is Richard, so why does he allow himself to be called Dick Trickle when Rick Trickle or Rich Trickle would be more innocuous? By this time, it's his own damn fault if he doesn't like it.
Virg
> It is simply another scare tactic by the powers that be (RIAA, Republicans, etc.) to keep people from abusing copyrights.
Good to see the tinfoil hats aren't susceptible to the April Fools problem.
Carry on.
Virg
> If that were truly the case why don't they broadcast nothing but test patterns for 24 hours a day? They're cheap and since they don't care about customers or viewers then what's the problem right?
Because advertisers won't pay to run ads during test patterns. The point is that, if the viewers say they want something, and advertisers say something different, the bias is towards the advertisers, only limited by the possibility of losing viewership, which is more of an arcane science that you suspect. If the advertisers want something that's slightly different than the viewers want, then usually the content creators will go where the money is.
Besides, it seems reasonable to take the word of a television actor over an anonymous coward in matters of how television works. He has credentials. What are yours?
Virg
Sorry, but I still beg to differ, on the same basis that such a tag doesn't require anything from me to work. I'd still never allow such a device, because there are already a number of uniquely indetifying parts of my body attached, without the need for an RFID tag. Thumbprints don't require them, nor retinal scans, and both can reasonably only happen with my knowledge, and neither can realistically be stolen from me, especially if both require a passcode of some kind at the same time. Also, the problem with identity theft is that it won't be grisly, it'll be silent and unnoticeable. All I'd need to do is get a hand held tramsceiver and stand next to you on the bus. I'd capture your code on it, and walk away without you ever knowing I had your code. Then I'd embed it on my own RFID tag and walk through the checkout lane, and since it still doesn't challenge me to prove I'm authorized to use the code, you'd be billed for my purchases.
Still love that RFID tag that doesn't care who's actually carrying it?
Virg
> I have a dongle on my keychain that lets me buy gas with very little pain. It can also be used inside the store. I use it all the time, despite the potential privacy concerns.
Now what happens when the dongle gets lifted? In fact, I've watched someone get robbed blind by this by someone who took a defunct Speedpass, switched it with a coworker's good pass, and bought stuff on their dime for weeks. When the person who had the bad dongle tried it and it wouldn't work, she took it in and they sent it for replacement, and apparently did nothing to notify the system that it was out of circulation. In the time she spent waiting for the new one the thief ran up about $120 in charges for stuff.
Still love that dongle that doesn't care who's actually holding it?
Virg
> ...but what if you had a desk fan or larger blowing against the open case? Would that be more efficient than leaving the case closed with the case/psu fans?
Not as effective as the CPU fan, but for all the rest, it'd work just fine. The reason most people don't do it is noise, airflow (your case fans don't move papers on your desk, generally) and power efficiency, which is lower for the desk fan idea because smaller fans doing directed work need less power for the same airflow.
br. Virg
Don't be daft. Nobody runs WormMaker 2002 any more. The upgrades are free, remember? Sheesh.
Seriously, though, I wouldn't revel in an OSX outbreak. It'd be a big pain in the butt. Still, the fact that there's not one in the wild yet doesn't particularly impress me, or surprise me. OSX is still a solidly based OS, so finding a hole would be a lot of work, and frankly, there aren't as many black hats with high end skills as there were in days gone by.
Virg
> Emacs can be had refurb for $700, pretty easily, and from apple, to boot.
Why the heck would I pay $700 for Emacs when I can download it for free for any OS off the web?
Virg
That's great. He said......and your solution prices out at $899.00. How much was the shipping again?
QED.
Virg
> By the way, did you know that Apple has less than 5% market share?
By the way, did you know that Apple is in more than one market, and so saying "five percent market share" without context is meaningless?
Virg
> That silly argument has been debunked innumerable times. Apache vs. MS ISS for example.
I'll preface my statements so that you know where I stand. I use Windows at work, because the applications I support in the field are Windows apps so I must. I'm not fond of it at all, and I don't like Microsoft apps, so I have experience working with non-MS packages to do virtually everything I do at work. My laptop runs Linux (not very well, but that's because it's a very old laptop) and I've used Macintosh systems on and off for quite a few years. I like them, but I haven't made the jump yet, mostly because of games that I like.
All that said, Apache versus IIS does not debunk the idea that the market leader gets the most viruses. Web servers are not end-user applications. Most of the people running web servers are at least tolerably computer savvy (be nice!) and it's not something that you ever expect to run right out of the box, with default settings. Most of the viruses that plague Windows users are either fault exploiters or social engineers. They either munge a default somewhere or trick the end user into doing something to allow it access. Web server administrators do not usually fall into either of these categories, so it's a bad analogy. The simple fact is still that Apple users don't suffer from viruses nearly as much as Windows users because there are more Windows computers to attack. Every mass-mailing buffer plow relies on the fact that at least a few of the many machines it attacks will be unpatched or misconfigured or otherwise vulnerable to invasion. Every "click me to check your system!" email bomb relies on a portion of its recipients not being technical enough to delete it. As people make the switch to Macs, some of those people will be non-techies or lazy or gullible. When the number of Macs gets high enough, then the number of machines that are open to attack because the owner has never heard the term "firewall" gets high enough that such an attack would become effective. By the same token, this segment will continue happily clicking open those attachments, which will begin to contain a Mac-usable payload when there are enough Macs around.
As the saying at the help desk goes, your system may work, but will your mom's system work? How about the people who don't have a technical kid to call?
Virg
> An Ipod mini is not a $250 piece of gear, okay? And a 40 GB Ipod is *really* not a $500 piece.
This is one of the points that the article is considering. Low margin means that the sale price is not much higher than the price to market, and price to market includes a lot more than the cost of manufacturing. How much do those snazzy commercials take from the budget? How many dollars disappear to get the ITunes concept going? These sunk, hidden costs are part of the equation, and they can cut profitability on a product line faster than you can say "betamax", especially since Apple was banking on Ipods driving people to buy more Macintosh computers, and it really hasn't happened.
Virg
If you lit a fine stream, and it maintained a visible flame, then there are a few things I can guess at, although I can't say for sure if any are correct.
1.) The O2 was mislabeled.
2.) The O2 was not pure. In the presence of pure oxygen, even miniscule amounts of impurity can cause visible burning, so it wouldn't take much.
3.) The valve itself was producing plasma on the edge of the flow. Did the tank have a metal valve and spout? If so, try it with a ceramic spout, since if you light a flame near the lip of a metal spout, a pure oxygen flow can actually cause the top of the valve to "burn" (usually it'll just glow, but perhaps it could produce visible flame).
I'd have to stretch to come up with others, so I'll stick by these for now. As I said, oxygen all by itself doesn't burn in the absence of other fuels, although it can cause runaway burning in stuff that doesn't normally burn in atmosphere (in pure oxygen, you can light a steel wool pad on fire, where it won't hold a flame in regular air). The reason it's considered so dangerous around flame is the runaway oxidizing properties, such that smoking a cigarette in a hospital near an oxygen supply can cause the cigarette to flare up or even pop. But without fuel, oxygen isn't flammable, it's merely an oxidizer. Take note that other chemicals like gaseous chlorine can do this too, so sometimes you'll see chlorine marked "oxidizer" in bottles, even though there's no oxygen involved. Again, not flammable by itself, but it accelerates burning fast.
Virg