Our hydrogen economy is completely dependent on carbon-based fuels at this point, all other methods of producing hydrogen are prohibitively expensive, and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.
Haven't been able to tell whether ARC is making a profit or not...but still, if they're licensing it out, SOMEONE is making a profit, and it is certainly diluting their trademark.
Blu-Ray isn't ubiquitous, no HD format is yet. There's nary a Blu-Ray market out there at this point, not something most people even know exists unless they go looking for it.
If blockbuster all of a sudden is half full of Blu-Ray disks, people will become very aware of the PS3's capabilities, just as they did with the PS2.
PS2 was a huge driving factor in the final surge of DVD uptake...but DVD's were known to all by that point.
People certainly read on the box that the PS3 supports Blu-Ray, but it means nothing except to very few. The HDDVD addon for the 360 is in a worse boat as that is it's ONLY function.
Me, I'm just waiting for Blu-Ray to catch on (or not). If it does, I'll buy a PS3, and it'll be my HD player of choice...just as my PS2 has been my sole DVD player for years now.
PS is not a tough hill to climb at all, unless you're climbing to the very top.
Maybe 5% of users use 90% of the features in PS. It's serious overkill for most graphical needs except high end skilled professional work. And it's ludicrously expensive for anyone elses needs.
I do lots of graphical work in my job, lots of minor editing and image creation, gui element creation, that kind of thing. Know what? Paint.net has all of the tools from PS that I'd ever need for my requirements, and it's free. (As well as just one of a number of very suitable graphics programs that are free and suitable to most peoples needs)
Adobe could quite easily be killed off, and just might be yet if they continue to expect their entire potential market on the same level as they currently do. Adobe _should_ have been providing a free version of PS with less features to the masses for YEARS now...then they WOULD be the graphics gorilla that would be almost unstoppable. As it stands, sure most use Adobe products, but how many are thrilled to do so? Everyone I know spends a LOT of time talking about other products, just waiting to jump ship ASAP (For those that haven't yet that is!)
Yes, to run that size of a charitable organization efficiently, you need someone very good at what they do, arguably better than most doing the same for commercial entities. However, that right person for the job is only right if they are also charitable in the work they do...for starters not taking a disgustingly large salary.
Quick example: Scouts Canada (Yes, I'm Canadian) ~ 15 years ago or so decided to start paying themselves (top members of the organization that is, regional managers etc) "fair market value". Just about every low wage part timer involved was out of a job in very short order. It became either top rank with competitive pay, or pure volunteer. Money stopped trickling down to the local troops. Regional camps started closing as user fees skyrocketed. Scouts Canada is now 15 years later an empty hollow shell of it's former self. It's a total joke really.
What's my point?
Don't get involved with non profits if you personally expect to make a profit.
Or rather, if you are a non profit charitable organization, do NOT hire people that expect to make large sums of money. Just Don't Do It. The people you will end up enticing into those jobs simply do not give a shit about the organization at that point...they're there for the compensation and nothing more.
An ideal head of the ARC would be extremely capable in their field, possibly previously made very large salaries at commercial enterprises in the past, but is altruistic enough to simply want a reasonable salary knowing that anything more would be directly damaging the non profit they are there to run in the first place.
I'd consider it a moral conflict of interest to hold that kind of position for a non profit and accept that kind of compensation.
Then maybe the ARC shouldn't be licensing the symbol out to commercial companies for a profit.
When I first read this, I was very much thinking "Burn J&J, BURN". But the more I read up on it...J&J certainly shouldn't end up profiting from this by any means, and shouldn't be able to stop the ARC from using the symbol, HOWEVER, I'm really starting to think the ARC needs to smarten the hell up for the exact reasons you specify above.
ARC are most certainly diluting their own symbol, J&J is just using that mistake as leverage for their own potential personal gains.
Two wrongs don't make a right...hope the courts won't alter that math.
I agree, it won't replace the stethoscope, but there is only so much a stethoscope can do. This is another tool to add to the set, and it appears to be a very interesting and useful one at that. Think of all the other ways to get an image of the lungs...none are even remotely as cheap as this.
So no, it won't replace the stethoscope...but the stethoscope also won't stand in the way of this being adopted. Rather, I expect they will become complimentary tools.
Considering how this tech works, I'd be fairly surprised if they didn't continue on with it to implement exactly those features. There doesn't appear to be any reason why this would only work for lungs. It is after all, an array of microphones...stethoscope is just an amplification device.
I never once suggested you MUST get married. What I was questioning was your reasons for not getting married...they all seem to add up to leaving the back door wide open 'just in case'. If there is even a hint of that thinking in you, you are most certainly NOT committed to your s/o.
Note that that has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever. I have absolutely no problem with people not getting married. But using other peoples mistakes as some sort of proof that marriage itself is wrong just doesn't hold water...it points to something else completely.
You also mention forced...perhaps you live somewhere in the world where marriages are indeed forced upon people? Because where I come from, there is simply no such thing as a 'forced monogamous relationship'. I was inquiring as to why you'd equate marriage with a forced monogamous relationship, that really doesn't make a lot of sense at all.
Anyways, not trying to persuade you to do anything by any means. Just curious.
Just thought I'd take a moment to supply this poor lonely soul with a brief, though apparently much needed, pre-school level human anatomy lesson, with a bit of English language thrown in for kicks.
The words 'dick' and 'cock' in English are slang terms for the human 'penis', of which only males of our species have one. Further, except in the case of extreme and rare genetic defects, male humans have exactly one penis. Thus using the term 'suck my dick orcock' is illogical as both terms refer to the same male appendage.
Unless of course you have your dick in one hand, and a cock of the avian persuasion in the other...which considering your post may be the smart money;)
That is the most condescending, demeaning statement I've read in a very long time. I'm sorry, but I am actually quite offended...well, I would be if I was stupid enough to take everything said on/. personally.
I guarantee you you're wrong.
Actually, I'd bet a very large sum that given a large random list of activities from all sectors of society, and equal numbers of men and women to ask, you'd have just as many men agree as women. Maybe some woman wouldn't want to build a house. Maybe some men wouldn't want to knit a sweater. But I guarantee some would.
Did you know that in many societies throughout history, WOMEN were the home builders while the men were out hunting?
Did you know that it used to be MEN that did the most knitting?
Things are not as black and white as you'd like them to be. Open your eyes a bit and see what is going on around you.
Are you against marriage due to your anti-religious beliefs? Or are you afraid of commitment?
This post has me all but convinced that you're using religion as an excuse to cop out of making a commitment. You basically say that there's no point committing to your (significant other) because your biological makeup is going to lead you to...well, you said it yourself:
Cheating, divorcing and all kinds of sexual practices like swinging, sex-clubbing and whatnot should prove to people that a forced monogamous relationship is, if not impossible, at least hard to reconcile with our basic biological function.
And if anyone is entering marriage feeling like they've got a gun to their head 'forcing' them not to do any of the above...well, they shouldn't be getting married. However, if you're committed to your s/o, truly committed, you will very likely WANT, IE: CHOOSE a monogamous relationship with your s/o, and might even back that up by, well, getting married!
I know, very strange isn't it?
Anyways, you come off as very altruistic, but something stinks in Denmark, if you know what I mean.
If it wasn't a crash, it would have instead presented some sort of alert and told the user something, before allowing the user to continue on doing what they were doing. It does none of this...rather...it crashes. Quite unspectacularly, but crash it does.
Sorry, but this isn't exactly schrodinger material, the crash can't simply be waved away by stating 'there is no crash'.
Unless of course, there's a cat in the server box that is serving up this article perchance?;)
You guys are arguing a valid point, but in the completely wrong place. There is absolutely nothing wrong about this headline. It's (for a change) actually very specific to the topic at hand, and does not blow anything out of proportion...It's a very literal description of the article.
Read it again:
"Bring Down Internet Explorer In Six Words"
Note that it does NOT say:
"OMG!!! Dooomsday!!! Internet falls apart at invocation of 6 words!!! News at 6!!!"
Note that it also doesn't say:
"Bug found in IE"
Rather, it perfectly summarizes the article.
Here's a hint for all of you with your panties in a bundle: Headlines exist for a reason...obviously neither of you think this article has any merit based on it's headline. And yet, here you are! Next time, just skip the articles you don't like mmkay? That is what headlines are for after all, to give you an idea of whether a particular article is worth your time or not.
PS: As someone else mentioned, the point of the article is NOT that there is 'yet another bug in IE'. It's the pure simplicity of it. Plain ole HTML and CSS. No javascript, no XSS, no fancy stuff at all.
I see your point, sort of...however that's like saying an engine mechanic shouldn't know where the fuel lines connect.
If you're an Oracle admin, you'd damned well better be able to install Oracle, period. If you're an Oracle admin making 6 figures and you can't, you're a fraud, period.
Heck, I'm a programmer, mostly relegated to MS environments for the past 10 years. Rarely had to work with Oracle in any fashion...and yet I've actually installed it on a sun box.
Maybe this is something common to DBA's in general? At my last place of work, we never had a DBA until we hired one about a year ago. If something was sent to him to be done, we quickly learned not to bother as it would take at least 2 weeks to get that work done...typically work we would have done ourselves in minutes. Work which we quickly learned to continue to do ourselves if we wanted to continue being productive at all. Of course that is of limited anecdotal value, YMMV.
True, though it's not _that_ tiny a price cut at all...that is a full 10% price cut after all...a ton of commercial products don't have a 10% margin to cut. Of course, with MS, if you're already selling at a loss, what's another 10% right?;)
Slashdot Mirror
Because that dilutes their market share, moves potential customers out of the Adobe camp.
Not saying it's a bad thing from the user's end, but as a business move on Adobe's part...they've left a TON of room for competition.
Our hydrogen economy is completely dependent on carbon-based fuels at this point, all other methods of producing hydrogen are prohibitively expensive, and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.
Haven't been able to tell whether ARC is making a profit or not...but still, if they're licensing it out, SOMEONE is making a profit, and it is certainly diluting their trademark.
Blu-Ray isn't ubiquitous, no HD format is yet. There's nary a Blu-Ray market out there at this point, not something most people even know exists unless they go looking for it.
If blockbuster all of a sudden is half full of Blu-Ray disks, people will become very aware of the PS3's capabilities, just as they did with the PS2.
PS2 was a huge driving factor in the final surge of DVD uptake...but DVD's were known to all by that point.
People certainly read on the box that the PS3 supports Blu-Ray, but it means nothing except to very few. The HDDVD addon for the 360 is in a worse boat as that is it's ONLY function.
Me, I'm just waiting for Blu-Ray to catch on (or not). If it does, I'll buy a PS3, and it'll be my HD player of choice...just as my PS2 has been my sole DVD player for years now.
You're right, my bad.
;)
VS 2005 blows Dreamweaver out of the water...not a fair comparison at all
Forgive me if I take that with a rather large grain of salt...just considering your nick and all ;)
PS is not a tough hill to climb at all, unless you're climbing to the very top.
Maybe 5% of users use 90% of the features in PS. It's serious overkill for most graphical needs except high end skilled professional work. And it's ludicrously expensive for anyone elses needs.
I do lots of graphical work in my job, lots of minor editing and image creation, gui element creation, that kind of thing. Know what? Paint.net has all of the tools from PS that I'd ever need for my requirements, and it's free. (As well as just one of a number of very suitable graphics programs that are free and suitable to most peoples needs)
Adobe could quite easily be killed off, and just might be yet if they continue to expect their entire potential market on the same level as they currently do. Adobe _should_ have been providing a free version of PS with less features to the masses for YEARS now...then they WOULD be the graphics gorilla that would be almost unstoppable. As it stands, sure most use Adobe products, but how many are thrilled to do so? Everyone I know spends a LOT of time talking about other products, just waiting to jump ship ASAP (For those that haven't yet that is!)
You know darned well, just as most around here, that Frontpage and Dreamweaver are not comparable products. When they were, Dreamweaver was crap too.
The comparable product from MS today is VisualStudio 2005. Not such a clear cut victory anymore when it's on fair terms is it?
But you knew that, which is why your post is flamebait.
Expected to drop as either:
a) demand for natural gas skyrockets or
b) demand for electricity skyrockets
It will NOT go down...or at least, if it does it will be purely artificial and VERY short lived.
If we had natural gas in that kind of abundance, or electricity in that kind of abundance, we'd completely skip Hydrogen without question.
Turns out Hydrogen is merely an expensive battery.
Wow.
That is nothing short of disgusting.
Yes, to run that size of a charitable organization efficiently, you need someone very good at what they do, arguably better than most doing the same for commercial entities. However, that right person for the job is only right if they are also charitable in the work they do...for starters not taking a disgustingly large salary.
Quick example: Scouts Canada (Yes, I'm Canadian) ~ 15 years ago or so decided to start paying themselves (top members of the organization that is, regional managers etc) "fair market value". Just about every low wage part timer involved was out of a job in very short order. It became either top rank with competitive pay, or pure volunteer. Money stopped trickling down to the local troops. Regional camps started closing as user fees skyrocketed. Scouts Canada is now 15 years later an empty hollow shell of it's former self. It's a total joke really.
What's my point?
Don't get involved with non profits if you personally expect to make a profit.
Or rather, if you are a non profit charitable organization, do NOT hire people that expect to make large sums of money. Just Don't Do It. The people you will end up enticing into those jobs simply do not give a shit about the organization at that point...they're there for the compensation and nothing more.
An ideal head of the ARC would be extremely capable in their field, possibly previously made very large salaries at commercial enterprises in the past, but is altruistic enough to simply want a reasonable salary knowing that anything more would be directly damaging the non profit they are there to run in the first place.
I'd consider it a moral conflict of interest to hold that kind of position for a non profit and accept that kind of compensation.
Sickening.
Then maybe the ARC shouldn't be licensing the symbol out to commercial companies for a profit.
When I first read this, I was very much thinking "Burn J&J, BURN". But the more I read up on it...J&J certainly shouldn't end up profiting from this by any means, and shouldn't be able to stop the ARC from using the symbol, HOWEVER, I'm really starting to think the ARC needs to smarten the hell up for the exact reasons you specify above.
ARC are most certainly diluting their own symbol, J&J is just using that mistake as leverage for their own potential personal gains.
Two wrongs don't make a right...hope the courts won't alter that math.
Yes...and then?
I agree, it won't replace the stethoscope, but there is only so much a stethoscope can do. This is another tool to add to the set, and it appears to be a very interesting and useful one at that. Think of all the other ways to get an image of the lungs...none are even remotely as cheap as this.
So no, it won't replace the stethoscope...but the stethoscope also won't stand in the way of this being adopted. Rather, I expect they will become complimentary tools.
Considering how this tech works, I'd be fairly surprised if they didn't continue on with it to implement exactly those features. There doesn't appear to be any reason why this would only work for lungs. It is after all, an array of microphones...stethoscope is just an amplification device.
I never once suggested you MUST get married. What I was questioning was your reasons for not getting married...they all seem to add up to leaving the back door wide open 'just in case'. If there is even a hint of that thinking in you, you are most certainly NOT committed to your s/o.
Note that that has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever. I have absolutely no problem with people not getting married. But using other peoples mistakes as some sort of proof that marriage itself is wrong just doesn't hold water...it points to something else completely.
You also mention forced...perhaps you live somewhere in the world where marriages are indeed forced upon people? Because where I come from, there is simply no such thing as a 'forced monogamous relationship'. I was inquiring as to why you'd equate marriage with a forced monogamous relationship, that really doesn't make a lot of sense at all.
Anyways, not trying to persuade you to do anything by any means. Just curious.
And you've never made a mistake in your perfect little life I'm sure, Mr. Anonymous.
Just thought I'd take a moment to supply this poor lonely soul with a brief, though apparently much needed, pre-school level human anatomy lesson, with a bit of English language thrown in for kicks.
;)
The words 'dick' and 'cock' in English are slang terms for the human 'penis', of which only males of our species have one. Further, except in the case of extreme and rare genetic defects, male humans have exactly one penis. Thus using the term 'suck my dick orcock' is illogical as both terms refer to the same male appendage.
Unless of course you have your dick in one hand, and a cock of the avian persuasion in the other...which considering your post may be the smart money
Hey Mods!
Not Funny != Off Topic
Sheesh!
Whether it is actually funny or not is left as an exercise for the reader, however it most certainly is not off-topic.
Where the FUCK do you get off making statements like this as if they are fact?
You're a sick puppy mr, I'll tell you that right now.
Men more inquisitive than women...wow. That's just asinine. What are you? 12 year old son of a single redneck father or something? Grow up.
That is the most condescending, demeaning statement I've read in a very long time. I'm sorry, but I am actually quite offended...well, I would be if I was stupid enough to take everything said on /. personally.
I guarantee you you're wrong.
Actually, I'd bet a very large sum that given a large random list of activities from all sectors of society, and equal numbers of men and women to ask, you'd have just as many men agree as women. Maybe some woman wouldn't want to build a house. Maybe some men wouldn't want to knit a sweater. But I guarantee some would.
Did you know that in many societies throughout history, WOMEN were the home builders while the men were out hunting?
Did you know that it used to be MEN that did the most knitting?
Things are not as black and white as you'd like them to be. Open your eyes a bit and see what is going on around you.
Are you against marriage due to your anti-religious beliefs?
Or are you afraid of commitment?
This post has me all but convinced that you're using religion as an excuse to cop out of making a commitment. You basically say that there's no point committing to your (significant other) because your biological makeup is going to lead you to...well, you said it yourself:
And if anyone is entering marriage feeling like they've got a gun to their head 'forcing' them not to do any of the above...well, they shouldn't be getting married. However, if you're committed to your s/o, truly committed, you will very likely WANT, IE: CHOOSE a monogamous relationship with your s/o, and might even back that up by, well, getting married!
I know, very strange isn't it?
Anyways, you come off as very altruistic, but something stinks in Denmark, if you know what I mean.
Pre-tell then, what is a crash?
;)
If it wasn't a crash, it would have instead presented some sort of alert and told the user something, before allowing the user to continue on doing what they were doing. It does none of this...rather...it crashes. Quite unspectacularly, but crash it does.
Sorry, but this isn't exactly schrodinger material, the crash can't simply be waved away by stating 'there is no crash'.
Unless of course, there's a cat in the server box that is serving up this article perchance?
You guys are arguing a valid point, but in the completely wrong place. There is absolutely nothing wrong about this headline. It's (for a change) actually very specific to the topic at hand, and does not blow anything out of proportion...It's a very literal description of the article.
Read it again:
"Bring Down Internet Explorer In Six Words"
Note that it does NOT say:
"OMG!!! Dooomsday!!! Internet falls apart at invocation of 6 words!!! News at 6!!!"
Note that it also doesn't say:
"Bug found in IE"
Rather, it perfectly summarizes the article.
Here's a hint for all of you with your panties in a bundle: Headlines exist for a reason...obviously neither of you think this article has any merit based on it's headline. And yet, here you are! Next time, just skip the articles you don't like mmkay? That is what headlines are for after all, to give you an idea of whether a particular article is worth your time or not.
PS: As someone else mentioned, the point of the article is NOT that there is 'yet another bug in IE'. It's the pure simplicity of it. Plain ole HTML and CSS. No javascript, no XSS, no fancy stuff at all.
I see your point, sort of...however that's like saying an engine mechanic shouldn't know where the fuel lines connect.
If you're an Oracle admin, you'd damned well better be able to install Oracle, period.
If you're an Oracle admin making 6 figures and you can't, you're a fraud, period.
Heck, I'm a programmer, mostly relegated to MS environments for the past 10 years. Rarely had to work with Oracle in any fashion...and yet I've actually installed it on a sun box.
Maybe this is something common to DBA's in general? At my last place of work, we never had a DBA until we hired one about a year ago. If something was sent to him to be done, we quickly learned not to bother as it would take at least 2 weeks to get that work done...typically work we would have done ourselves in minutes. Work which we quickly learned to continue to do ourselves if we wanted to continue being productive at all. Of course that is of limited anecdotal value, YMMV.
True, though it's not _that_ tiny a price cut at all...that is a full 10% price cut after all...a ton of commercial products don't have a 10% margin to cut. Of course, with MS, if you're already selling at a loss, what's another 10% right? ;)
One problem I see with your attempted analogy...there is no such thing as a 'fuel-sipping Jag that never needs repairs' ;)
:)
Jags are notoriously repair-prone, to say the least. And last I checked, they weren't exactly near the top of the barrel for fuel economy either.
But I do get your point