Or- more likely apple are trying to put a spin on their dwindling market share to try and win consumers back by trying to pretend to the consumer that they're not the only one-off operating system.
Look at the defense budget. Now look at NASAs budget.
NASA's budget is tiny in comparison. Clearly the US sees other countries as much bigger threat than the anal-probers from outta space. Either that or they feel that a little humiliation for the drunk rednecks that spot them is acceptable.
If we had discovered aliens do you really think we'd be slashing science spending and space exploration costs?
Do you really think the US would be the only country to know about them and that all 200+ nations on earth are collaborating together to keep us in the dark.
It is ludicrous. The one way you know that aliens have been found and secretly being kept away from the public is when the government starts putting higher priority on space funding and NASA's budget starts rocketing upwards instead of getting cut further and further each year.
Google lawyer isn't saying all patents are bad- only the system is broken.
Anyway- you can't pick and choose which companies you protect your patents against and which ones you don't.
If you knowingly don't protect your copyrights and patents when someone breaks them- you lose the right to protect them later against specific individuals.
I personally would jump at a chance to go even if the chance of making it back was 0%. I'm sure there are many others like this...
There probably are...... but it is easier to think you'd be fine going when there is no chance- then when there is a chance.
I'm sure a lot of people would want to go- but if they were given the chance and had to wait a while before going- it would sink in with every pleasurable even on earth "I may never get to do this again".
I suspect a lot of people willing to go on such a mission would develop cold feet long before training for the mission would conclude if there were no chance of getting back.
- but still, I bet there would indeed be some willing to go... but few.
* Reason for Science: There are some thing a robot cannot do. Humans are more adaptable and can travel more than a few feet a day.
* Reason for money: Being the nation(s) with a manned presence would probably help any claims to any potential resources found- more so than a robot- and a manned expedition would be more dynamic- no slow communications between so resources would be found easier.
* Reason for status: Big national status symbol (which does help national pride and presitge with other nations).
* Reason for humanity: Humans will one day need to leave earth if we are to extend the life-span of our species. This is the first step.
* Reason for defense: Anyone who has ever played any space civilization game will know that the species that spreads their population to the most planets early in the game is most likely to win.
I don't think anyone stayed in a space station for 520 days though.
As bad as health degredation from being in space a short period of time is- wonder if they'll all come back from Mars blind, bent bones, muscles atrophied and carrying the mutant virus from "Species II"
Oh, I don't know- how about a little entity known as the EPA and general scientific consensus.
It is not a perfect technology, it does cause some problems- and certainly there are some bad practices in place- but it needn't be. Regulate it- don't kill it. It can be done safely without much harm to the environment or it can be done poorly.
If geothermal is so profitable and easy to get running- Those with the means should go ahead and start a geothermal power plant then. Get a co-op of like minded people together- raise the funds, start a business. I'll whole-heartedly aplaud them.
I'm not against geothermal- I'm all for it. However, I'm pretty sure, if it were profitable and easier to set up than fracking we'd see it used a lot more than it is. The energy companies arn't evil people who want to destroy the environment... they're just money-motivated people looking for the cheapest option. I'm all for government subsidizing renewables- geothermal can't be used everywhere to the same effect though. Whilst fossils are cheaper for them though- fossils is what will be used even if certain methods are banned.
Like it or not- we're decades away from getting rid of fossil fuels- so I'd rather we eliminate the worst polluters first. The public is not going to go for some draconian measure- we need to take down the worst first.
I don't think it is fair to label them "honest" and "dishonest", There is nothing dishonest about it. Your "60%" either have a smarter business philosophy realising that if the lendee likes the book is more likely to read other books he writes, or are less motivated by the money
Your "40%" are not dishonest- they just have a faulty business philosophy and only want compensation for the hard work they do. (Some of the 60% probably don't even consider writing to be work).
It is not wrong- or dishonest, to want to be rewarded financially for your work. Afterall, it is why the vast majority of us DO work.
I have a strong belief your 60% will be better off in the long run- but the 40% arn't necessarily bad people... just wrong.
The kind of quakes we are talking about happen every day naturally- all across the country- even in areas not on fault lines.
Worst case scenario here, a 3.0, is not going to cause any damage. So yeah, big deal. That said, absolutely, I can see the case not to frack near a nuclear power plant *just in case*- even though the chances of any problem are absolutely minute.
There is a big difference between the risk associated with a vase falling off a shelf and a nuclear disaster. Chances that it would cause a problem at a nuclear plant are very very minor- but I think it's reasonable to say that, yes, we would go to more trouble to ensure it would never happen than we would go to the trouble of preventing a vase falling off your shelf.
Vase falls off your shelf- you pay $30. Nuclear disaster would cost lives and billions of $. There is a huge difference.
The fracking industry is the same as the coal industry
It is not even close.
Most fracking sites don't pollute ground water- and gasses released are very minimal. If you stop fracking- the sources for energy will go elsewhere- most likely coal or oil. There are exceptions. If they're using toxic chemicals in New York- hey, I'm against that- especially when there are non-toxic equivalents. Even though toxic chemicals released in even the worst scenario have been extremely limited. I'm not familiar with what is going on in New York- but fracking in general need not be especially harmfull to the environment (compared to other fossil fuels).
You're not going to encourage more renewables by stopping fracking- you will just cause more coal to be mined instead. I'm in full agreement we need to move to renewables long term- but by cancelling out fracking, private enterprise will just go to more damaging technology instead.
Maybe they will just move away from your neck of the woods and start dismantling entire mountains in West Virginia. I'm sure that's OK for you- environmentalism only matters for some when it is their neighbourhood.
I'm all for mankind moving off the fast-track to global destruction- but this is a global issue. It's also an issue you have to be sensible about and take steps towards that people can follow.
Bannishing one of the cleanest forms of energy production that we currently are mass using (but yes, mid to long term should be moving away from) is not going to help. Private enterprise looks for profits- right now- if you take fracking away they'll go back to coal... but hey, that's West Virginia's problem not New York so that's OK.
I wouldn't care less if they were fracking near me. I don't think most people would either.
Man-made earthquakes can not be felt by man. Big deal- there are microscopic quakes that no-one can feel. I understand the Nuclear Plant concerns just-in-case- even though fracking is unlikely to cause any issues there.
We're not talking about structure damaging quakes- we're not even talking about quakes you can feel. We're talking about quakes you need mega-money equipment to even detect.
If one of us gets prime (which can be shared amongst 3 family members I think) - can we each rent a book for free each month since we both have kindles? Or would we need two prime accounts?
If we can both rent a book that is cool- if we each need a prime account then it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
e-ink is usefull for an e-reader but less so for a tablet. e-ink is too slow to respond (even b&w) to be usefull for 99% of tablet applications.
Until e-ink's response time improves it will only really be usefull for eReading and a few other tasks.
I wouldn't want to read eBooks on a non e-ink device. I wouldn't want a table on e-ink though.
Or- more likely apple are trying to put a spin on their dwindling market share to try and win consumers back by trying to pretend to the consumer that they're not the only one-off operating system.
Walking on the ceiling is easy... so easy a caveman could do it.
You want proof there are no ETs on earth?
Look at the defense budget.
Now look at NASAs budget.
NASA's budget is tiny in comparison. Clearly the US sees other countries as much bigger threat than the anal-probers from outta space. Either that or they feel that a little humiliation for the drunk rednecks that spot them is acceptable.
If we had discovered aliens do you really think we'd be slashing science spending and space exploration costs?
Do you really think the US would be the only country to know about them and that all 200+ nations on earth are collaborating together to keep us in the dark.
It is ludicrous. The one way you know that aliens have been found and secretly being kept away from the public is when the government starts putting higher priority on space funding and NASA's budget starts rocketing upwards instead of getting cut further and further each year.
GWBSTEC
George W Bush Second Term Election Committee
The cyborg part of this- is that cyborg women can now get a cyborg yeast infection by shining a red light at them.
Google lawyer isn't saying all patents are bad- only the system is broken.
Anyway- you can't pick and choose which companies you protect your patents against and which ones you don't.
If you knowingly don't protect your copyrights and patents when someone breaks them- you lose the right to protect them later against specific individuals.
That's nothing- rap musicians have been doing this for decades.
Of course they exist!
Haven't you seen "History of the World Part II"?
I personally would jump at a chance to go even if the chance of making it back was 0%. I'm sure there are many others like this...
There probably are... ... but it is easier to think you'd be fine going when there is no chance- then when there is a chance.
I'm sure a lot of people would want to go- but if they were given the chance and had to wait a while before going- it would sink in with every pleasurable even on earth "I may never get to do this again".
I suspect a lot of people willing to go on such a mission would develop cold feet long before training for the mission would conclude if there were no chance of getting back.
- but still, I bet there would indeed be some willing to go... but few.
There is actually a big difference. Most of the slashdotters access the back pages of a sears catalogue.
Sears doesn't yet deliver catalogs to space capsules.
* Reason for Science:
There are some thing a robot cannot do. Humans are more adaptable and can travel more than a few feet a day.
* Reason for money:
Being the nation(s) with a manned presence would probably help any claims to any potential resources found- more so than a robot- and a manned expedition would be more dynamic- no slow communications between so resources would be found easier.
* Reason for status:
Big national status symbol (which does help national pride and presitge with other nations).
* Reason for humanity:
Humans will one day need to leave earth if we are to extend the life-span of our species. This is the first step.
* Reason for defense:
Anyone who has ever played any space civilization game will know that the species that spreads their population to the most planets early in the game is most likely to win.
/ the last reason is the best.
That is quite presumptious of you- he could be a Kiwi. I think $0.05 (NZD) is approximately $0.02 (USD).
This is an international community.
Yes, but that is because he isn't really an American.
/ it's a joke guys- relax.
520 / 28 = 18.6
I don't think the men would have survived,
if you aren't going be there to support them and enjoy them
You don't have kids, do you?
I'm married.
I would SO volunteer to get locked away for two years.
I don't think anyone stayed in a space station for 520 days though.
As bad as health degredation from being in space a short period of time is- wonder if they'll all come back from Mars blind, bent bones, muscles atrophied and carrying the mutant virus from "Species II"
Have they pattented having a fast-draining battery yet?
My old Nokia from the 90's used to drain the battery fast- perhaps they can retro-actively sue Nokia.
Oh, I don't know- how about a little entity known as the EPA and general scientific consensus.
It is not a perfect technology, it does cause some problems- and certainly there are some bad practices in place- but it needn't be. Regulate it- don't kill it. It can be done safely without much harm to the environment or it can be done poorly.
If geothermal is so profitable and easy to get running- Those with the means should go ahead and start a geothermal power plant then. Get a co-op of like minded people together- raise the funds, start a business. I'll whole-heartedly aplaud them.
I'm not against geothermal- I'm all for it. However, I'm pretty sure, if it were profitable and easier to set up than fracking we'd see it used a lot more than it is. The energy companies arn't evil people who want to destroy the environment... they're just money-motivated people looking for the cheapest option. I'm all for government subsidizing renewables- geothermal can't be used everywhere to the same effect though.
Whilst fossils are cheaper for them though- fossils is what will be used even if certain methods are banned.
Like it or not- we're decades away from getting rid of fossil fuels- so I'd rather we eliminate the worst polluters first. The public is not going to go for some draconian measure- we need to take down the worst first.
I don't think it is fair to label them "honest" and "dishonest", There is nothing dishonest about it. Your "60%" either have a smarter business philosophy realising that if the lendee likes the book is more likely to read other books he writes, or are less motivated by the money
Your "40%" are not dishonest- they just have a faulty business philosophy and only want compensation for the hard work they do. (Some of the 60% probably don't even consider writing to be work).
It is not wrong- or dishonest, to want to be rewarded financially for your work. Afterall, it is why the vast majority of us DO work.
I have a strong belief your 60% will be better off in the long run- but the 40% arn't necessarily bad people... just wrong.
The kind of quakes we are talking about happen every day naturally- all across the country- even in areas not on fault lines.
Worst case scenario here, a 3.0, is not going to cause any damage. So yeah, big deal. That said, absolutely, I can see the case not to frack near a nuclear power plant *just in case*- even though the chances of any problem are absolutely minute.
There is a big difference between the risk associated with a vase falling off a shelf and a nuclear disaster. Chances that it would cause a problem at a nuclear plant are very very minor- but I think it's reasonable to say that, yes, we would go to more trouble to ensure it would never happen than we would go to the trouble of preventing a vase falling off your shelf.
Vase falls off your shelf- you pay $30. Nuclear disaster would cost lives and billions of $. There is a huge difference.
The fracking industry is the same as the coal industry
It is not even close.
Most fracking sites don't pollute ground water- and gasses released are very minimal. If you stop fracking- the sources for energy will go elsewhere- most likely coal or oil. There are exceptions. If they're using toxic chemicals in New York- hey, I'm against that- especially when there are non-toxic equivalents. Even though toxic chemicals released in even the worst scenario have been extremely limited. I'm not familiar with what is going on in New York- but fracking in general need not be especially harmfull to the environment (compared to other fossil fuels).
You're not going to encourage more renewables by stopping fracking- you will just cause more coal to be mined instead. I'm in full agreement we need to move to renewables long term- but by cancelling out fracking, private enterprise will just go to more damaging technology instead.
Maybe they will just move away from your neck of the woods and start dismantling entire mountains in West Virginia. I'm sure that's OK for you- environmentalism only matters for some when it is their neighbourhood.
I'm all for mankind moving off the fast-track to global destruction- but this is a global issue. It's also an issue you have to be sensible about and take steps towards that people can follow.
Bannishing one of the cleanest forms of energy production that we currently are mass using (but yes, mid to long term should be moving away from) is not going to help. Private enterprise looks for profits- right now- if you take fracking away they'll go back to coal... but hey, that's West Virginia's problem not New York so that's OK.
I wouldn't care less if they were fracking near me. I don't think most people would either.
Man-made earthquakes can not be felt by man. Big deal- there are microscopic quakes that no-one can feel. I understand the Nuclear Plant concerns just-in-case- even though fracking is unlikely to cause any issues there.
We're not talking about structure damaging quakes- we're not even talking about quakes you can feel. We're talking about quakes you need mega-money equipment to even detect.
The one thing I want to know.
I have a kindle- my wife has a kindle.
If one of us gets prime (which can be shared amongst 3 family members I think) - can we each rent a book for free each month since we both have kindles? Or would we need two prime accounts?
If we can both rent a book that is cool- if we each need a prime account then it isn't.