AFAIK NetBSD is derived from the original UNIX-Sources as any BSD is. That makes NetBSD not "UNIX_Like", but a proper UNIX, or at the very least a "UNIX derivative"
Know your BSD history:
After Net/1, BSD developer Keith Bostic proposed that more non-AT&T sections of the BSD system be released under the same license as Net/1. To this end, he started a project to reimplement most of the standard Unix utilities without using the AT&T code. For example, vi, which had been based on the original Unix version of ed, was rewritten as nvi (new vi). Within eighteen months, all the AT&T utilities had been replaced, and it was determined that only a few AT&T files remained in the kernel. These files were removed, and the result was the June 1991 release of Networking Release 2 (Net/2), a nearly complete operating system that was freely distributable.
Net/2 was the basis for two separate ports of BSD to the Intel 80386 architecture: the free 386BSD by William Jolitz and the proprietary BSD/386 (later renamed BSD/OS) by Berkeley Software Design (BSDi). 386BSD itself was short-lived, but became the initial code base of the NetBSD and FreeBSD projects that were started shortly thereafter.
The whole purpose of this was to make a functionally UNIX type system, but not UNIX (and there for free). This is why for legal reasons it is UNIX-Like, Linux on the other hand is is not as UNIX-like (if you like) because it's not trying to be.
More precisely he was referring to adoption rate, not market share... In which case he is correct.
A more relevant statistic in reply to your comment on market share is that the WebKit rendering engine by most measurements has a higher market share than IE's trident. This is mostly down to mobile safari, but also chrome and the default android browser.
What will be interesting is how that all changes post the chrome WebKit fork (blink) and the adoption of mobile chrome as the default android browser.
Personally I feel that chrome will only increase (proportionally) in its market share given its position on the web (google) its speed and generally good security. For all its flaws they are made temporary by the concepts driving it, automatic updates regardless of platform is a must for any modern browser, for both the good of the developer and the user.
As in, the government will ask about what the people think and then prettend to listen... Of course then they will do whatever the hell they want anyway.
I'd rather not be asked in the fucking first place, it's like teasing a child with a cookie it can never have, all they do is piss people off AND ignore the majority view.
This is true, but i wouldn't say it's pathetic, it's only just made it to mass production, in this first stage most new types of technology are going to be lagging way behind well established types. The question is how fast will it catch up to competitive capacities and price points now it's reached this stage... Do you remember how expensive the first USB flash drives used to be? and how small they were? I can imagine they can still compete in the market today as a more reliable and fast form of storage, that is there USP, but in the future they will catch up in price and capacity, it's just a matter of production scale.
Seems like stating the obvious, but i feel this statistic is being misinterpreted...
Hypothetically; you can have a number of people with say... iPhones, who buy a new one on average every 4 years. Then have a same number of people with say... Android phones, who buy a new one on average every year (50/50 users). Now those buying cycles would make Android have a 3/4 (75%) market share in yearly sales, but only a 1/2 the market share of users.
An extreme example perhaps but it illustrates my point, also it loops back into sales because the product that gets bought every 4 years is obviously going to be more expensive, the shortcut for comparison on a yearly basis there would be to look at the gross profit of those devices regardless of units sold. Now if you consider the fact that iPhones have been around quite a bit longer than Android phones, and the recent availability of substantially cheaper Android phones, one could speculate that this is an untapped market, not a market entirely in competition with iPhones. It's difficult to precisely measure the market share of users but given the history of iPhone sales id give a guess that's it's not far of 50/50.
I'm on no ones side here, i just don't like people misinterpreting statistics. Lets keep things real, for the record i have an Android phone... i like both platforms but am not wealthy enough to justify the price of an iPhone for what i use it for.
However, while the article summary blathers about "from hard drives to main memory", this is not a competitor to modern DDR SDRAM. Assuming the quoted 500X faster than NAND is accurate, MRAM latency should be on the order of 100 nanoseconds for a random read. (NAND read latency is on the order of 50 microseconds.) DDR SDRAM random read latency is on the order of 22 nanoseconds.
Why not just visit website of the people who actually make the thing rather than guessing... it's 35ns that's pretty damn close for a just to market technology (how long has SDRAM been around?
I agree that the correlation of climate change statistics is anything but black and white, i really have no idea how much or little humans have affected Co2 levels, directly or more likely indirectly as a catalyst...
This isn't just because the data isn't black and white but because the subject has attracted too many "strong believer types" and for the most part these are everyday regular people who are fed bits and pieces of inconclusive out of context research. Because regardless of these inconclusive and murky statistics (when considered as a whole), we like to choose, we don't like to say "i don't know" we like hard numbers, so almost by choice we've decided as the people of the world that we are doing something wrong, and those that weren't so quick to judge are guilted into thinking the same by those that have chosen a result. The horrible result of this is that rather than this being a rational question with an inconclusive answer it's become a religion.
However, one thing we can conclude from both a combination of empirical and historical evidence is that the climate is heating up... so rather than debate why which hasn't resulted in any solid answer, why don't we look at what we should do. Yes you'd think that the reaction should be strongly related to the cause of the effect, but even if the cause were human's Co2 contributions or simply a temperature cycle over a vast period of time, does it really matter? if it's us we can't realistically reverse what we have done by stopping and we can't make a significan't difference by trying to stop or 'reduce' ether. If it's just some sort of vast natural cycle then we also can't modify the cause... So why only look at definitive solutions, take a look at the problem like any other, think of it as some random asteroid that's about to hit earth if you like... get creative:
One idea is to suspend tiny particles in the upper atmosphere to reflect excess radiation outwards, then control their suspension chemically like a thermostat. Of course there are certain behavioural problems that any definitive solution provides, which is thinking it's ok to continue relying upon fossil fuels, even if they aren't a factor in climate change, they are something that needs to be changed, just not so quick that the economy self destructs.
Perhaps this will result in alternative search engines having niche uses. An Open Google if you will... focused purely on providing an unbiased, unaltered, unfiltered search engine of the web that is as useful as google without the prospect of monetising it.
Rather than running backed by a profitable company, this could be an engine focused on minimal running cost, with distribution of both resources and data among it's users for financial feasibility and decentralisation making it less susceptible to potential moderating forces such as government and copyright holders.
I suppose the challenge (other than making an engine as good as google's of course) would be effectively moving the majority of server side processes involved in indexing websites to a distributed network of users. Distributing a query-able database might be even more tricky. Then on top of all that for this to be really accessible it would need to be browser based... so effectively a distributed search engine that runs on javascript O_o
So i guess this is the part where their stuff gets shit again:D...
Does this mean there will be a "Third Coming"? Will Jobs return in another 10 years after setting up another tech company to create Apple's neXt operating system (lets hope it uses an exokernel or something better than mach)
Get ready to dust off that old mahogany unibody macbook classic in 2020, and log on to buy up Apple shares at their all time low just before they acquire "LatER Step" and Jobs returns in a new cybernetic clone of his body. When he saves the day... with just one more thin and shiny thing.
We can't afford to run them anymore... and they keep getting burned by pissed off drivers anyway:D, Buy our old ones... then it wont be such a waste of money when you eventually get rid of them after realising they are the most expensive and least effective measure of traffic safety.
You might find "Harry Stottle's" philosophical view of (hypothetical) aliens to be interesting.
Conversely to your assumption that in order to achieve faster than light travel we must all be highly liberal without having evolved morally (and thus being murdering bastards in the process)... His idea is that in order for any race to achieve the technological level of FTL we have to over come many hurdles of technology each that give us more power and more potential for self destructions (think H Bomb etc). In order for us to attain this ultimate goal we have to overcome these so called teething problems of self destruction and ultimately any race who does achieve this goal would probably be peaceful (for one reason or another).
This proposition sort of elegantly restrains any destructive races from leaving their home planet because they would destroy themselves before being able to develop any technology for FTL
Then the reason such an achieved race might not want to interfere with another is simply to let other races at a younger evolutionary stage to continue naturally the same as they did until humanity reach a stage where they are mature enough for communication and interaction with other races that does not artificially help us technologically without having past these "moral tests". So regardless of weather we are killing each other or doing childish imoral things to each other it doesn't matter... they wont interfere, not because they don't care or empathise (quite the oposite) they just recognise it as a necessary part of your evolution as it was a part of there own. Interfering may ether help your currently undeserved path to FTL or hinder it... imagine if you where in their shoes, i'd leave humans alone until they were more evolved. We are harmless to anything beyond earth now due lack of technology and possibly in the future due to the process of some kind of "moral enlightenment".
I really think there aught to be a way to appropriately label news on slashdot in situations like this, where the original article is (as in this case) opinion passed off as fact or otherwise. Ether by moderation or by vote.
Otherwise slashdot acts as an amplifier of false or highly spun news... sure some readers might read the original article and realise that it's not true, but there are going to be many people who just browse over the summary, lightly accept what they read and move on... and regardless of not fully reading and judging the original article they will probably recall it assuming some level of legitimacy.
If not social networks, emails, if not emails text messages, if not then voice calls... and so on, going down this road only leads to disconnecting people and not only hindering social communication but communication critical to economy... Eventually the dark ages.
All of this is just an attempt to treat the symptoms... morally void youths. If the law in this country wasn't so soft on them and family life for the majority hadn't disintegrated into the irresponsible ignorant mess that it has become, then regardless of the economic troubles, they wouldn't be looting, terrorising shops and killing and stealing from passers by.
And i believe this may well have stemmed from the overly precautious rule making tradition of this country, as soon as one person does something stupid a whole new law has to be made because people complain... these laws usually end up hindering people more than helping them. In the case of youths it's partly the limitations imposed upon teachers. Another example is how police are increasingly scrutinised when using force upon a black person... it's ignored when they are white but when they are black it's called "racism".
This reminds me of the ganglion photoreceptors in the eyes (not rods or cones) they have a lower wavelength absorption peak of ~480nm (blueish) and they are very few compared to the other receptors. They contribute to vision slightly, but their primary role is suspected to be other things like helping to regulate circadian rhythms (i.e. body clock).
There was an interesting BBC Horizon programme recently that touched on this subject, "Do You See What I See?", which was primarily exploring colour perception in general. One specific part (where they talk about ganglion cells), they show a bar who's "Light Designer" used blue light of timed intensity to make people more lively in the evening... this is thought to be because that wavelength of light activates the ganglion cells and alters the mood and alertness of people.
I suppose this could do the same if there were the same or similar types of cells in the ears or brain, but honestly... you could probably achieve more stimulating effects by closely staring at a 20 pence 470nm LED
As others have posted it depends what they are likely to use it for... however;
It would be nice to be able to throw various OOS onto computers and imagine that anyone could pick it up and use it for whatever they want without all the problems of windows... unfortunately there just isn't one quite there yet that brings a unified desktop together allowing the cli to be only an option. OS X whether you like it or not is very close to posix systems and as you probably know has a published open source base, derivitive of parts of FreeBSD, NeXT, Mach and so on.
it has the advantages of being relatively stable and malware / virus free, but with a desktop experience that is always going to be able to carry the less technical user. And as it takes a more significant market share much more software is being released for OS X in parrallel with windows, being viewed more as a nessecity by publishers rather than an extra.
legality does come into question when doing the "hackintosh" but honestly Apple aren't likely to complain about you potentially generating new future users of Apple hardware.
I've given some old (pentium old) notebooks away before with windows XP, not because i liked or used the system but just assumed users would feel anything else was unusable to them. Only to have them returned within a month barely operable crawling along littered with malware (yes it had AV). So i put OS X on it instead, sure it didn't run lightning fast on such old hardware, but they never had any problems again, they can still pick new software to download and it doesn't massively degrade in performance... haven't had it come back since.
Win XP, might be "more user friendly" for people only used to the windows GUI, but in my experience in the hands of those same users Win XP is too fragile and breaks easily. I can leave OS X in the hands of some of the most computer ignorant and in most cases asume they wont end up completely trashing it.
Now all of you technology giants must pay up and desist your manufacture of electronics and use... i duno water or something to create your boolean logic.
When a service is "free," it really means they're making money off of you and your information.
That is the nature of most free services... it's also the nature of most successful and innovative services. If this was so wrong then useful things like advanced search engines would never have come about.
Services that are free to use have the advantage of being highly accessible, and if they are useful or fun then it can also make them popular, that popularity generates revenue one way or another and allows that service to be developed innovated and flourish into something even more useful or fun for it's end users.
People have started regarding their privacy with these free services too highly - or at least they have been persuaded that it matters for what it is currently being exploited for. All Facebook, Google or any other company use your freely submitted information for is generate better advertising, they really couldn't care less otherwise. This may come to a shock to some people but You aren't that interesting.
I remember a while ago it was revealed how facebook created a "loophole" that allowed them to use private information for 3rd party advertising... by not allowing the 3rd party to ever see the private information. Well what the hell is wrong with that ! oooh nooo i'm looking at an advert in the margin of my spacebook account and it knows that i like to eat cheatos, SpOoKy..... -_- who gives a fuck seriously.
This reminds me of another study where they quite amusingly did test with both bananas and cell phones... whether or not the subjects knew the difference i don't know:D
Anyway they found that holding a banana in close proximity to your ear or for that matter any other object be it a shoe or a gerbil, also heated your brain by roughly the same degree... the gerbil might actually heat your brain slightly more so i think they should put some warning labels on gerbils in pet shops.
I agree that it is very unlikely there is any significant link between cell phone microwave radiation and cancer.
But what i hate even more than the ignorant seeking out answers they do not understand for a conclusion they have already drawn out of fear... is people at the other end of the spectrum who while sharing the most probable answer also use bad science to argue their point. They make science look bad, if they aren't knowledgable enough in the field then they should state their opinion with some damn humility.
Also It isn't as black and white as you draw it, em radiation can interact in many ways, and classifying all non-ionising radiation as the same is quite wrong - of course - there is a reason we use the microwave frequencies for coms through walls and not visible light.
Now i'm not suggesting that a cell phone emits ionising radiation, and i'm not suggesting that it can cause dipole rotation and heat your brain. However as more is discovered about the workings of the brain, different studies could to be done that monitor possible non-cancerous affects... For instance considering how it has been found communication between neurons also takes place through electric fields: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brain-electric-field it's also known that much stronger focused fields have a definitive and immediate impact on neurons (not necessarily negative) it has actually been used for treating very specific phycological problems that can be physically targeted. However knowing that more subtle fields are also a part of the neural mechanism does raise questions as to how such close proximity to a weak microwave transmitter could interact with those fields... who knows it could have positive effects ! but keep an open mind.
Really you'd think Apple were selling inflatable notebooks.
Are there any advantages from this new method other than a seemingly useless translucency?... a battery that doesn't explode or expand would be really nice.
I really hope they implement something more trivial than a poisoned DNS cache.
Because i want this to force customers away from BT, they are such a shit ISP
And while different from zero gravity research i think it has a potentially higher wealth of research and practical uses; lunar geology, helium-3, low escape velocity, and probably lots of other interesting and useful things that you can think of...
However that all seems to come with much greater obstacles in terms of human deployment, stating the obvious perhaps but there is a huge difference between safely putting astronauts in a low earth orbit well bellow any of the radiation belts, in relative arms reach compared to the surface of the moon at roughly over 1000 times the distance of the ISS from earths surface. Deploying humans on the moon basically entails self sufficiency for the most part.
Robotic deployment seems far more feasible, and far easier compared to unmanned exploration to the distant planets where latency necessitates AI or painfully incremental instructions... at a transmission time of 1.36ms remote controlling anything on the moon can be done in real time.
All that said, i still think the ISS was a necessary small step, I think if you get to ambitious with research and exploration in space then you run into too many new problems at once... slightly smaller steps are less of a gamble and increase the chance of success.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK NetBSD is derived from the original UNIX-Sources as any BSD is. That makes NetBSD not "UNIX_Like", but a proper UNIX, or at the very least a "UNIX derivative"
Know your BSD history:
After Net/1, BSD developer Keith Bostic proposed that more non-AT&T sections of the BSD system be released under the same license as Net/1. To this end, he started a project to reimplement most of the standard Unix utilities without using the AT&T code. For example, vi, which had been based on the original Unix version of ed, was rewritten as nvi (new vi). Within eighteen months, all the AT&T utilities had been replaced, and it was determined that only a few AT&T files remained in the kernel. These files were removed, and the result was the June 1991 release of Networking Release 2 (Net/2), a nearly complete operating system that was freely distributable. Net/2 was the basis for two separate ports of BSD to the Intel 80386 architecture: the free 386BSD by William Jolitz and the proprietary BSD/386 (later renamed BSD/OS) by Berkeley Software Design (BSDi). 386BSD itself was short-lived, but became the initial code base of the NetBSD and FreeBSD projects that were started shortly thereafter.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution#Net.2F2_and_legal_troubles
The whole purpose of this was to make a functionally UNIX type system, but not UNIX (and there for free). This is why for legal reasons it is UNIX-Like, Linux on the other hand is is not as UNIX-like (if you like) because it's not trying to be.
More precisely he was referring to adoption rate, not market share... In which case he is correct. A more relevant statistic in reply to your comment on market share is that the WebKit rendering engine by most measurements has a higher market share than IE's trident. This is mostly down to mobile safari, but also chrome and the default android browser. What will be interesting is how that all changes post the chrome WebKit fork (blink) and the adoption of mobile chrome as the default android browser. Personally I feel that chrome will only increase (proportionally) in its market share given its position on the web (google) its speed and generally good security. For all its flaws they are made temporary by the concepts driving it, automatic updates regardless of platform is a must for any modern browser, for both the good of the developer and the user.
As in, the government will ask about what the people think and then prettend to listen... Of course then they will do whatever the hell they want anyway.
I'd rather not be asked in the fucking first place, it's like teasing a child with a cookie it can never have, all they do is piss people off AND ignore the majority view.
This is true, but i wouldn't say it's pathetic, it's only just made it to mass production, in this first stage most new types of technology are going to be lagging way behind well established types. The question is how fast will it catch up to competitive capacities and price points now it's reached this stage... Do you remember how expensive the first USB flash drives used to be? and how small they were? I can imagine they can still compete in the market today as a more reliable and fast form of storage, that is there USP, but in the future they will catch up in price and capacity, it's just a matter of production scale.
Seems like stating the obvious, but i feel this statistic is being misinterpreted...
Hypothetically; you can have a number of people with say... iPhones, who buy a new one on average every 4 years. Then have a same number of people with say... Android phones, who buy a new one on average every year (50/50 users). Now those buying cycles would make Android have a 3/4 (75%) market share in yearly sales, but only a 1/2 the market share of users.
An extreme example perhaps but it illustrates my point, also it loops back into sales because the product that gets bought every 4 years is obviously going to be more expensive, the shortcut for comparison on a yearly basis there would be to look at the gross profit of those devices regardless of units sold. Now if you consider the fact that iPhones have been around quite a bit longer than Android phones, and the recent availability of substantially cheaper Android phones, one could speculate that this is an untapped market, not a market entirely in competition with iPhones. It's difficult to precisely measure the market share of users but given the history of iPhone sales id give a guess that's it's not far of 50/50.
I'm on no ones side here, i just don't like people misinterpreting statistics. Lets keep things real, for the record i have an Android phone... i like both platforms but am not wealthy enough to justify the price of an iPhone for what i use it for.
However, while the article summary blathers about "from hard drives to main memory", this is not a competitor to modern DDR SDRAM. Assuming the quoted 500X faster than NAND is accurate, MRAM latency should be on the order of 100 nanoseconds for a random read. (NAND read latency is on the order of 50 microseconds.) DDR SDRAM random read latency is on the order of 22 nanoseconds.
Why not just visit website of the people who actually make the thing rather than guessing... it's 35ns that's pretty damn close for a just to market technology (how long has SDRAM been around?
source: http://www.everspin.com/products.php?hjk=16&a1f3=0
I agree that the correlation of climate change statistics is anything but black and white, i really have no idea how much or little humans have affected Co2 levels, directly or more likely indirectly as a catalyst...
This isn't just because the data isn't black and white but because the subject has attracted too many "strong believer types" and for the most part these are everyday regular people who are fed bits and pieces of inconclusive out of context research. Because regardless of these inconclusive and murky statistics (when considered as a whole), we like to choose, we don't like to say "i don't know" we like hard numbers, so almost by choice we've decided as the people of the world that we are doing something wrong, and those that weren't so quick to judge are guilted into thinking the same by those that have chosen a result. The horrible result of this is that rather than this being a rational question with an inconclusive answer it's become a religion.
However, one thing we can conclude from both a combination of empirical and historical evidence is that the climate is heating up... so rather than debate why which hasn't resulted in any solid answer, why don't we look at what we should do. Yes you'd think that the reaction should be strongly related to the cause of the effect, but even if the cause were human's Co2 contributions or simply a temperature cycle over a vast period of time, does it really matter? if it's us we can't realistically reverse what we have done by stopping and we can't make a significan't difference by trying to stop or 'reduce' ether. If it's just some sort of vast natural cycle then we also can't modify the cause... So why only look at definitive solutions, take a look at the problem like any other, think of it as some random asteroid that's about to hit earth if you like... get creative:
One idea is to suspend tiny particles in the upper atmosphere to reflect excess radiation outwards, then control their suspension chemically like a thermostat. Of course there are certain behavioural problems that any definitive solution provides, which is thinking it's ok to continue relying upon fossil fuels, even if they aren't a factor in climate change, they are something that needs to be changed, just not so quick that the economy self destructs.
Perhaps this will result in alternative search engines having niche uses. An Open Google if you will... focused purely on providing an unbiased, unaltered, unfiltered search engine of the web that is as useful as google without the prospect of monetising it.
Rather than running backed by a profitable company, this could be an engine focused on minimal running cost, with distribution of both resources and data among it's users for financial feasibility and decentralisation making it less susceptible to potential moderating forces such as government and copyright holders.
I suppose the challenge (other than making an engine as good as google's of course) would be effectively moving the majority of server side processes involved in indexing websites to a distributed network of users. Distributing a query-able database might be even more tricky. Then on top of all that for this to be really accessible it would need to be browser based... so effectively a distributed search engine that runs on javascript O_o
So i guess this is the part where their stuff gets shit again :D...
Does this mean there will be a "Third Coming"? Will Jobs return in another 10 years after setting up another tech company to create Apple's neXt operating system (lets hope it uses an exokernel or something better than mach)
Get ready to dust off that old mahogany unibody macbook classic in 2020, and log on to buy up Apple shares at their all time low just before they acquire "LatER Step" and Jobs returns in a new cybernetic clone of his body. When he saves the day... with just one more thin and shiny thing.
We can't afford to run them anymore... and they keep getting burned by pissed off drivers anyway :D, Buy our old ones... then it wont be such a waste of money when you eventually get rid of them after realising they are the most expensive and least effective measure of traffic safety.
You might find "Harry Stottle's" philosophical view of (hypothetical) aliens to be interesting.
Conversely to your assumption that in order to achieve faster than light travel we must all be highly liberal without having evolved morally (and thus being murdering bastards in the process)... His idea is that in order for any race to achieve the technological level of FTL we have to over come many hurdles of technology each that give us more power and more potential for self destructions (think H Bomb etc). In order for us to attain this ultimate goal we have to overcome these so called teething problems of self destruction and ultimately any race who does achieve this goal would probably be peaceful (for one reason or another).
This proposition sort of elegantly restrains any destructive races from leaving their home planet because they would destroy themselves before being able to develop any technology for FTL
Then the reason such an achieved race might not want to interfere with another is simply to let other races at a younger evolutionary stage to continue naturally the same as they did until humanity reach a stage where they are mature enough for communication and interaction with other races that does not artificially help us technologically without having past these "moral tests". So regardless of weather we are killing each other or doing childish imoral things to each other it doesn't matter... they wont interfere, not because they don't care or empathise (quite the oposite) they just recognise it as a necessary part of your evolution as it was a part of there own. Interfering may ether help your currently undeserved path to FTL or hinder it... imagine if you where in their shoes, i'd leave humans alone until they were more evolved. We are harmless to anything beyond earth now due lack of technology and possibly in the future due to the process of some kind of "moral enlightenment".
I really think there aught to be a way to appropriately label news on slashdot in situations like this, where the original article is (as in this case) opinion passed off as fact or otherwise. Ether by moderation or by vote.
Otherwise slashdot acts as an amplifier of false or highly spun news... sure some readers might read the original article and realise that it's not true, but there are going to be many people who just browse over the summary, lightly accept what they read and move on... and regardless of not fully reading and judging the original article they will probably recall it assuming some level of legitimacy.
...I read the article and vote: Unreliable
If not social networks, emails, if not emails text messages, if not then voice calls... and so on, going down this road only leads to disconnecting people and not only hindering social communication but communication critical to economy... Eventually the dark ages.
All of this is just an attempt to treat the symptoms... morally void youths. If the law in this country wasn't so soft on them and family life for the majority hadn't disintegrated into the irresponsible ignorant mess that it has become, then regardless of the economic troubles, they wouldn't be looting, terrorising shops and killing and stealing from passers by.
And i believe this may well have stemmed from the overly precautious rule making tradition of this country, as soon as one person does something stupid a whole new law has to be made because people complain... these laws usually end up hindering people more than helping them. In the case of youths it's partly the limitations imposed upon teachers. Another example is how police are increasingly scrutinised when using force upon a black person... it's ignored when they are white but when they are black it's called "racism".
Ether that or all you're going to be lifting are some seriously heavy batteries.
This reminds me of the ganglion photoreceptors in the eyes (not rods or cones) they have a lower wavelength absorption peak of ~480nm (blueish) and they are very few compared to the other receptors. They contribute to vision slightly, but their primary role is suspected to be other things like helping to regulate circadian rhythms (i.e. body clock).
There was an interesting BBC Horizon programme recently that touched on this subject, "Do You See What I See?", which was primarily exploring colour perception in general. One specific part (where they talk about ganglion cells), they show a bar who's "Light Designer" used blue light of timed intensity to make people more lively in the evening... this is thought to be because that wavelength of light activates the ganglion cells and alters the mood and alertness of people.
I suppose this could do the same if there were the same or similar types of cells in the ears or brain, but honestly... you could probably achieve more stimulating effects by closely staring at a 20 pence 470nm LED
As others have posted it depends what they are likely to use it for... however;
It would be nice to be able to throw various OOS onto computers and imagine that anyone could pick it up and use it for whatever they want without all the problems of windows... unfortunately there just isn't one quite there yet that brings a unified desktop together allowing the cli to be only an option. OS X whether you like it or not is very close to posix systems and as you probably know has a published open source base, derivitive of parts of FreeBSD, NeXT, Mach and so on.
it has the advantages of being relatively stable and malware / virus free, but with a desktop experience that is always going to be able to carry the less technical user. And as it takes a more significant market share much more software is being released for OS X in parrallel with windows, being viewed more as a nessecity by publishers rather than an extra.
legality does come into question when doing the "hackintosh" but honestly Apple aren't likely to complain about you potentially generating new future users of Apple hardware.
I've given some old (pentium old) notebooks away before with windows XP, not because i liked or used the system but just assumed users would feel anything else was unusable to them. Only to have them returned within a month barely operable crawling along littered with malware (yes it had AV). So i put OS X on it instead, sure it didn't run lightning fast on such old hardware, but they never had any problems again, they can still pick new software to download and it doesn't massively degrade in performance... haven't had it come back since.
Win XP, might be "more user friendly" for people only used to the windows GUI, but in my experience in the hands of those same users Win XP is too fragile and breaks easily. I can leave OS X in the hands of some of the most computer ignorant and in most cases asume they wont end up completely trashing it.
Now all of you technology giants must pay up and desist your manufacture of electronics and use ... i duno water or something to create your boolean logic.
For my next patent: Boolean logic.
When a service is "free," it really means they're making money off of you and your information.
That is the nature of most free services... it's also the nature of most successful and innovative services. If this was so wrong then useful things like advanced search engines would never have come about.
Services that are free to use have the advantage of being highly accessible, and if they are useful or fun then it can also make them popular, that popularity generates revenue one way or another and allows that service to be developed innovated and flourish into something even more useful or fun for it's end users.
People have started regarding their privacy with these free services too highly - or at least they have been persuaded that it matters for what it is currently being exploited for. All Facebook, Google or any other company use your freely submitted information for is generate better advertising, they really couldn't care less otherwise. This may come to a shock to some people but You aren't that interesting.
I remember a while ago it was revealed how facebook created a "loophole" that allowed them to use private information for 3rd party advertising... by not allowing the 3rd party to ever see the private information. Well what the hell is wrong with that ! oooh nooo i'm looking at an advert in the margin of my spacebook account and it knows that i like to eat cheatos, SpOoKy..... -_- who gives a fuck seriously.
This reminds me of another study where they quite amusingly did test with both bananas and cell phones... whether or not the subjects knew the difference i don't know :D
Anyway they found that holding a banana in close proximity to your ear or for that matter any other object be it a shoe or a gerbil, also heated your brain by roughly the same degree... the gerbil might actually heat your brain slightly more so i think they should put some warning labels on gerbils in pet shops.
I agree that it is very unlikely there is any significant link between cell phone microwave radiation and cancer.
But what i hate even more than the ignorant seeking out answers they do not understand for a conclusion they have already drawn out of fear... is people at the other end of the spectrum who while sharing the most probable answer also use bad science to argue their point. They make science look bad, if they aren't knowledgable enough in the field then they should state their opinion with some damn humility.
Also It isn't as black and white as you draw it, em radiation can interact in many ways, and classifying all non-ionising radiation as the same is quite wrong - of course - there is a reason we use the microwave frequencies for coms through walls and not visible light.
Now i'm not suggesting that a cell phone emits ionising radiation, and i'm not suggesting that it can cause dipole rotation and heat your brain. However as more is discovered about the workings of the brain, different studies could to be done that monitor possible non-cancerous affects... For instance considering how it has been found communication between neurons also takes place through electric fields: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brain-electric-field it's also known that much stronger focused fields have a definitive and immediate impact on neurons (not necessarily negative) it has actually been used for treating very specific phycological problems that can be physically targeted. However knowing that more subtle fields are also a part of the neural mechanism does raise questions as to how such close proximity to a weak microwave transmitter could interact with those fields... who knows it could have positive effects ! but keep an open mind.
Really you'd think Apple were selling inflatable notebooks. Are there any advantages from this new method other than a seemingly useless translucency?... a battery that doesn't explode or expand would be really nice.
Had not heard of that site before this case... I must go visit it on my OpenVPN connection on my BT ISP
I really hope they implement something more trivial than a poisoned DNS cache. Because i want this to force customers away from BT, they are such a shit ISP
Well i guess Arnie did so why not.
And while different from zero gravity research i think it has a potentially higher wealth of research and practical uses; lunar geology, helium-3, low escape velocity, and probably lots of other interesting and useful things that you can think of...
However that all seems to come with much greater obstacles in terms of human deployment, stating the obvious perhaps but there is a huge difference between safely putting astronauts in a low earth orbit well bellow any of the radiation belts, in relative arms reach compared to the surface of the moon at roughly over 1000 times the distance of the ISS from earths surface. Deploying humans on the moon basically entails self sufficiency for the most part.
Robotic deployment seems far more feasible, and far easier compared to unmanned exploration to the distant planets where latency necessitates AI or painfully incremental instructions... at a transmission time of 1.36ms remote controlling anything on the moon can be done in real time.
All that said, i still think the ISS was a necessary small step, I think if you get to ambitious with research and exploration in space then you run into too many new problems at once... slightly smaller steps are less of a gamble and increase the chance of success.