If you want to look at it from a different angle, you are charging for the distribution of the app. In order to distribute the app, you incurred certain costs. Apple incurs costs distributing it as well. I'm sure they take a cut of your app's selling price, and so, in essence, you are also compensating them for their effort.
It'll be interesting to see if we can find hominid remains in similar states of preservation, so we can learn more about the layout of our evolutionary tree. Then again, a T-Rex bone is huge, and that may be the only reason it managed to keep anything preserved.
But if you live forever, you could just walk everywhere. So you wouldn't need a car. Thus the fuel truck wouldn't need to be there either, because no one else needs a car.
If you have all the time in the world, and realize it, then there's no desire to rush anywhere.
Or you could just say, screw it, we don't need to worry about money at all. Everyone's got all the time in the world, someone will most likely get to what "needs" to be done at some point, simply because they want it done, and we can drop career specialization. We would also have time for all the education in the world. Why do people make bad voting decisions? Lack of information. Why are they uninformed? Because they must spend all their time at one task to feed themselves. Why are they forced into that one task? Because the move to agriculture restructured society such that activities had to be dictated by an authority to assure the continuation of society.
We lose the need to structure society like that when everyone has time to grow their own food. Why do we not do it now? Because we don't have the time. Some of us may never want to, but if the people who love growing it can do so indefinitely, then food would be a non-issue.
The iPod is a "must have" item these days, and as such many find the cost justifiable. However, computers are commodity items, and as such cannot command a premium.
Have you looked at the Active Directory integration in Mac OS X Server? I'm pretty sure it takes care of all of that. One Mac OS X Server would take care of quite a lot of Macs, and help them integrate into an Active Directory environment.
Being in a small, Mac-only, office, I don't get to try any of that out, but hang out long enough on Apple's Mac OS X Server, and you'll hear tips on doing all of that.
Read the SENS stuff, he does mention being youthful. In fact, he says right out, that if those factors in aging are dealt with, then we would be free to live at any stage in the aging process. What would kill us would be everything else we can die of.
You take up an art, you create new things to see. You open up a world of possibility, you can try any job you'd like, you can even spend some time just staring at ant hills. Perhaps even conduct studies of phenomena that take hundreds of years to progress.
True, the "opposing view" does nothing to address de Grey's suggestions, which are backed up by journal articles.
Also, what people here seem to not know about de Grey's SENS proposal is that it proposes to eliminate aging as a cause of death. You don't grow old and die from old age, hypothetically, you die of some other thing, like being hit by a bus, SARS, avian flu, AIDS, bullet through the head, etc.
How are financial problems not inconvenient? They have to be dealt with, taking time out of your daily schedule. But accidents and breakdowns are not simply financial problems, they are obvious inconveniences.
I'm not saying cars don't have their place, but as other people have suggested, if not driving is your main concern, or safety, then mass transit is a better solution.
Of course, I live within a half hour walk from work. I detest commuting, I never want to do another long commute in my life, regardless of method of transit.
The two are intertwined, of course. If we reduce the usage of cars, we free up capital to invest in group transit. Comfort, efficiency and convenience could all increase.
How is owning a car an improvement in convenience? Maintenance, repairs, loan payments, accidents, parking, theft and insurance.
I'm quite happy to trade all of that away for a decent urban transit system, and I don't see why it's so hard to understand. Sure, you have to plan a little when you use public transit, and, heaven forbid, you may have to walk a couple of hundred meters, but that can't be anything but good for you (unless some jerk is driving like a psychotic)
The problem with deer (or children) jumping in front of cars isn't fixed now, and we have humans at the wheel.
One problem that would be fixed is drunk driving. A lot of those dead children and deer are the result of drunk driving. Unfortunately, because of the muscle relaxing properties of alcohol, and modern car safety features, the drivers never end up making the Darwin Awards.
As much as I like Apple, those were all things that someone else did but just didn't do too well. Quicktime certainly wasn't ground breaking technology when it came out.
Thanks, this and the sibling post from the 3rd year med student answered my question.:)
So this is somewhere where we'd need nanotechnology to provide us with the solution. And given the right design, an inhale/exhale wouldn't be necessary, it could just constantly filter oxygen out of the air. Then it can't sit in the chest cavity, of course, without some separate exhaust port.
Of course, that just gave me an idea for a great sci-fi comedy sketch...:)
But why even the brain? If you can reliably simulate the operation of a human mind, and easily transfer the contents from a brain to that simulator, you don't even need that. But in the mean time, you have to get oxygen to that brain, and not carbon monoxide or ozone, or any other noxious substances.
If this is in reference to the transplant of artificial ones, then you'd replace one at a time. You can survive with only one lung. In fact, one of the treatments used in the early half of this century for TB involved collapsing one lung and letting it heal, then reinflating it and collapsing the other.
If, on the other hand, you just want to know how long the human body can go without new oxygen, I believe the brain can survive for 4 minutes without oxygen, before suffering irreparable damage.
We've got artificial hearts, artificial limbs and we're working on artificial eyes. What's it going to take to make artificial lungs? I'm talking from a technical standpoint here, not socially or legislatively.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by a "good programmer". Is a good programmer someone who writes efficient code, or one who writes readable, easily understandable code? Usually the two are mutually exclusive, unless you have an excellent programmer.
But without the knowledge of good and evil, they have no knowledge that disobediance is evil. Without any concept of good or evil, the only yard stick to measure actions by is "will this bring me pleasure, or pain?" And if you don't know, then the question comes, do you want to know?
In any case, no religious precept can be argued for logically, because none are based in logic. They are based in dogma, and dogma is not logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Perl is dead. Or people like generating line noise throughout the week.
If you want to look at it from a different angle, you are charging for the distribution of the app. In order to distribute the app, you incurred certain costs. Apple incurs costs distributing it as well. I'm sure they take a cut of your app's selling price, and so, in essence, you are also compensating them for their effort.
It'll be interesting to see if we can find hominid remains in similar states of preservation, so we can learn more about the layout of our evolutionary tree. Then again, a T-Rex bone is huge, and that may be the only reason it managed to keep anything preserved.
But if you live forever, you could just walk everywhere. So you wouldn't need a car. Thus the fuel truck wouldn't need to be there either, because no one else needs a car.
If you have all the time in the world, and realize it, then there's no desire to rush anywhere.
Or you could just say, screw it, we don't need to worry about money at all. Everyone's got all the time in the world, someone will most likely get to what "needs" to be done at some point, simply because they want it done, and we can drop career specialization. We would also have time for all the education in the world. Why do people make bad voting decisions? Lack of information. Why are they uninformed? Because they must spend all their time at one task to feed themselves. Why are they forced into that one task? Because the move to agriculture restructured society such that activities had to be dictated by an authority to assure the continuation of society.
We lose the need to structure society like that when everyone has time to grow their own food. Why do we not do it now? Because we don't have the time. Some of us may never want to, but if the people who love growing it can do so indefinitely, then food would be a non-issue.
The iPod is a "must have" item these days, and as such many find the cost justifiable. However, computers are commodity items, and as such cannot command a premium.
Have you looked at the Active Directory integration in Mac OS X Server? I'm pretty sure it takes care of all of that. One Mac OS X Server would take care of quite a lot of Macs, and help them integrate into an Active Directory environment.
Being in a small, Mac-only, office, I don't get to try any of that out, but hang out long enough on Apple's Mac OS X Server, and you'll hear tips on doing all of that.
Read the SENS stuff, he does mention being youthful. In fact, he says right out, that if those factors in aging are dealt with, then we would be free to live at any stage in the aging process. What would kill us would be everything else we can die of.
You take up an art, you create new things to see. You open up a world of possibility, you can try any job you'd like, you can even spend some time just staring at ant hills. Perhaps even conduct studies of phenomena that take hundreds of years to progress.
True, the "opposing view" does nothing to address de Grey's suggestions, which are backed up by journal articles.
Also, what people here seem to not know about de Grey's SENS proposal is that it proposes to eliminate aging as a cause of death. You don't grow old and die from old age, hypothetically, you die of some other thing, like being hit by a bus, SARS, avian flu, AIDS, bullet through the head, etc.
How are financial problems not inconvenient? They have to be dealt with, taking time out of your daily schedule. But accidents and breakdowns are not simply financial problems, they are obvious inconveniences.
I'm not saying cars don't have their place, but as other people have suggested, if not driving is your main concern, or safety, then mass transit is a better solution.
Of course, I live within a half hour walk from work. I detest commuting, I never want to do another long commute in my life, regardless of method of transit.
The two are intertwined, of course. If we reduce the usage of cars, we free up capital to invest in group transit. Comfort, efficiency and convenience could all increase.
How is owning a car an improvement in convenience? Maintenance, repairs, loan payments, accidents, parking, theft and insurance.
I'm quite happy to trade all of that away for a decent urban transit system, and I don't see why it's so hard to understand. Sure, you have to plan a little when you use public transit, and, heaven forbid, you may have to walk a couple of hundred meters, but that can't be anything but good for you (unless some jerk is driving like a psychotic)
The problem with deer (or children) jumping in front of cars isn't fixed now, and we have humans at the wheel.
One problem that would be fixed is drunk driving. A lot of those dead children and deer are the result of drunk driving. Unfortunately, because of the muscle relaxing properties of alcohol, and modern car safety features, the drivers never end up making the Darwin Awards.
Only realize that there is no spoon.
As much as I like Apple, those were all things that someone else did but just didn't do too well. Quicktime certainly wasn't ground breaking technology when it came out.
When are they going to make an MP3 player that works as a suppository? You all know you'd want it! ;)
The copy in the machine would certainly be relieved. :)
Short article. :) It'll be interesting to see where this goes in the next few years, with advances in materials technology.
Thanks, this and the sibling post from the 3rd year med student answered my question. :)
So this is somewhere where we'd need nanotechnology to provide us with the solution. And given the right design, an inhale/exhale wouldn't be necessary, it could just constantly filter oxygen out of the air. Then it can't sit in the chest cavity, of course, without some separate exhaust port.
Of course, that just gave me an idea for a great sci-fi comedy sketch... :)
But why even the brain? If you can reliably simulate the operation of a human mind, and easily transfer the contents from a brain to that simulator, you don't even need that. But in the mean time, you have to get oxygen to that brain, and not carbon monoxide or ozone, or any other noxious substances.
If this is in reference to the transplant of artificial ones, then you'd replace one at a time. You can survive with only one lung. In fact, one of the treatments used in the early half of this century for TB involved collapsing one lung and letting it heal, then reinflating it and collapsing the other.
If, on the other hand, you just want to know how long the human body can go without new oxygen, I believe the brain can survive for 4 minutes without oxygen, before suffering irreparable damage.
We've got artificial hearts, artificial limbs and we're working on artificial eyes. What's it going to take to make artificial lungs? I'm talking from a technical standpoint here, not socially or legislatively.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by a "good programmer". Is a good programmer someone who writes efficient code, or one who writes readable, easily understandable code? Usually the two are mutually exclusive, unless you have an excellent programmer.
But without the knowledge of good and evil, they have no knowledge that disobediance is evil. Without any concept of good or evil, the only yard stick to measure actions by is "will this bring me pleasure, or pain?" And if you don't know, then the question comes, do you want to know?
In any case, no religious precept can be argued for logically, because none are based in logic. They are based in dogma, and dogma is not logic.
---