I'm sorry, you think the game somehow blinds players from making rational choice? That's ludicrous.
Is it? No seriously, is it? I've often felt the way you do about these games, but to me the idea that they might in some way interfere with rational decision making at least sounds plausible.
Before dismissing the possibility, I'd like to see some scientific research.
It's not over saving lives at all. The seatbelt legislation is to save the insurance companies money. With mandatory insurance laws the insurance companies get to have their cake and eat it too. I have long argued the seatbelt issue as a freedom issue, yet noone cares except maybe a few here on slashdot.
That's only part of it. If insurance rates/costs was all there was to it, then the all we'd need is to remove liability for damage to people who don't wear seat belts.
It's also about forcing people to be safe, and not allowing them to take risks.
Pugno, however, argues that inevitable defects in the nanotubes mean that such a cable simply wouldn't be strong enough.
Sheesh, what's wrong with these people? If the current cable isn't strong enough, there are lots of possible solutions.
For example, the strength of the cable necessary is directly related to the mass of the earth. One good sized metor at high enough velocity striking the earth, and we could build the elevator out of nylon rope.
Some other methods of reducing the mass of the earth are available here http://qntm.org/destroy
... the tens of thousands of pwn3d Windows PC's...
More like "hundreds of thousands".
My spam traps have been hit by over 1.5 million unique IPs this year alone, with an additional 30,000 never before seen IPs every day. I estimate there are currently 3-4 million compromised machines world wide.
It seems that the problem here is that they were brought down by the spammer's huge number of bots running on compromised machines. Why has no one tackled this problem? It seems to me that this should be the responsibility of the ISP's.
I don't disagree, but I think most ISP's would. No one is ever wrong - just ask them. An ISP is far more likely to think that if a customer of theirs wants to run a spam-bot, then it's really not their concern. And after years of being yelled at and generally harassed by anti-spammers, they aren't likely to listen to reasoned arguments to the contrary.
There are lots of conflicting features that are desired, but I'd still like to see what features a new email system could have.
Off the top of my head, I can think of; . Better handling of mailing lists/discussion groups/chat rooms. . Return recipit. . Unforgable ID's (or at least hard to forge). . No central authority. . Standardized rendering of non-english alphabets. . Standardized video/voice rendering . A lot less spam (not sure how to do it, but I'm sure I want it). . Attachments . Better error handling (especially for multi-recipient emails) . Standard per message rejection - i.e. if I refuse email containing html, the sender should know that I do.
I'd really like to know what other people would want.
In order to get the same energy output for a year from plants than you get from oil, it will need several hundred Earths to be cultivated.
Numbers, please.
The total world consumption of crude oil in 1996 was 71.7 million barrels per day. 1 barrel = 42 gallons ~= 159 liters. With good conditions, Algae produces 50 grams of oil per square meter. With more typical conditions, 5 grams per m^2 per day. Avocado (typical) 0.6 grams. Rapeseed (typical) 0.27 grams. Hemp (typical) 0.08 grams. Corn (typical) 0.04 grams.
Rapeseed is the usual choice for traditional farming methods because it grows well in such a wide variety of climates. (Canola is a "human safe" strain of Rapeseed.)
Best estimates I've seen claim oil can be grown for $50 a barrel which sounds pretty good until you realize that oil can be pumped out of the ground for under $10.
First, you don't mean bulk. You mean *BULK* As in, connecting to a FIX directly.
But that ignores the real costs. You also have to pay for network infrastructure and maintenance, then amortize the cost of it over some period of years.
Well, yes that is what I was thinking. (Is it normal for an ISP to buy less than a gigabit of transit?) And I realize that the price you pay once you're at an exchange isn't the full price you pay. But the other costs you mention aren't based on utilization. You have to pay all that even if your customers only use the internet once a month. They don't explain why the marginal cost of bandwidth would be so high.
The funny thing is that we have a standard response that provides these customers with a connection that doesn't have the rate-limiting for about $200 per Mbps, with a guaranteed SLA. When you're delivering this to rural communities, $200/Mbps is pretty incredible and it's darn near our cost to get it there.
If you buy in bulk, transit is availble for under $20 a Mbps. A naive assumption would be that cost difference between providing 1Mbps continuous, and 1Mbps burst wouldn't be greater than twice that ($40).
Presumably there's some other cost that I'm overlooking that makes contiuous traffic much more costly than burst. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.
Why should I spend my money to solve a problem that some credit card company creates?
Why should the gazelle run when the lion is hungry?
The trick is to make credit card companies were liable for consequental damages caused by their lax policies. If they had to pay the victim damages they'd fix this right quick. (Or maybe they'd rather pay, but either way we'd be better off.)
Since there is no keyhole or contact point on the door, this unique mechanism offers a significantly higher level of security then existing technology.
It's only a significant improvement if the old lock was the weakest point.
Kicking in the door, unlocked / poorly locked windows (or just a brick), carding the door, open skylights... the list of potential vulnerabilities is almost endless.
At a guess, I'd say windows, not doors are the weakest physical link in security, with "leaving the back door unlocked" a close second.
I suppose the answer is to buy CDRW instead of CD-R. But I think the blank media producers should go further than that. They should pick a song and record it on their CD-RW. This would have several benifical effects: It avoids the levy. The song would almost certainly be a #1 seller, potentially, the title could be for sale to the highest bidder. It makes them a music publisher, which means they get a cut of the sales of their competitors.
Illegal downloaders would never buy any of the stuff that they download.
vs.
Everything illegally downloaded is lost revenue for the owner.
I think copyright owners hurt themselves by arguing the latter, but I suspect the truth is that almost all downloaders would have bought something - not much - of what they downloaded. It adds up to real lost revenue. We should be honest about that - despite their practice of ridiculously overstating it.
Two children were walking down the street, when they spotted a cake on the sidewalk. Alice said "I saw it first, it's mine". Bob said "We saw it together, we should share it equally" Just then a man walked by and after listening to the two children argue, said; "You should compromise - give Alice 3/4 of the cake, and Bob, you take 1/4"
Do the math. Even if every square inch of the ground was converted to ethanol production, we could hit what, 15% of the current demand for gasoline?
Do the math? Ok, for algal oil;
NREL claimed 50 grams of oil per square meter per day, but the average production rate was closer to 4 grams per square meter per day. 1 barrel of oil is approx. 155 Kilograms. 155,000 grams / 4 per meter / 10,000 meters per hectare = 3.8 So about 4 hectares needed for a barrel of oil per day. World wide oil production in 2004 was about 80 million barrels per day. Total land needed, approximately 20 million hectares. Size of great sandy desert; approximately 82 million hectares.
In other words, not only would be unnecessary to cover the earth, it isn't even necessary to use land that's currently used for farming.
When oil hits $100 a barrel, we'll be growing it (maybe sooner if we can figure out how to grow it cheaper.)
If for some insane reason we wanted to make ethonol from plants instead of oil from algae, then yields are considerable lower. And we also need to consider that we probably won't be able to make use of fertilizers (since they are largely petroleum based) to grow it, which means even lower yields. Best estimates are 1/50 - 1/100 of algae production, which means a land mass 400-800 million hectares, still less than the size of the US. Unlike algae, ethanol producing plants do compete with food crops, so doing it would displace food production, but it's at least theoretically possible to do it without covering the earth.
I'm sure the pirates will figure out some way to work around this
Even if the watermark is infeasible to remove, one could buy music using a stolen identity. For extra style points, steal the identity of the person who invented the watermarking scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it?
No seriously, is it?
I've often felt the way you do about these games, but to me the idea that they might in some way interfere with rational decision making at least sounds plausible.
Before dismissing the possibility, I'd like to see some scientific research.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
That's only part of it.
If insurance rates/costs was all there was to it, then the all we'd need is to remove liability for damage to people who don't wear seat belts.
It's also about forcing people to be safe, and not allowing them to take risks.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Sheesh, what's wrong with these people?
If the current cable isn't strong enough, there are lots of possible solutions.
For example, the strength of the cable necessary is directly related to the mass of the earth.
One good sized metor at high enough velocity striking the earth, and we could build the elevator out of nylon rope.
Some other methods of reducing the mass of the earth are available here http://qntm.org/destroy
-- Should you believe authority without question?
More like "hundreds of thousands".
My spam traps have been hit by over 1.5 million unique IPs this year alone,
with an additional 30,000 never before seen IPs every day.
I estimate there are currently 3-4 million compromised machines world wide.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
I don't disagree, but I think most ISP's would.
No one is ever wrong - just ask them.
An ISP is far more likely to think that if a customer of theirs wants to run a spam-bot, then it's really not their concern.
And after years of being yelled at and generally harassed by anti-spammers, they aren't likely to listen to reasoned arguments to the contrary.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
I think you could solve the charge problem by having multiple battery packs.
Then it's just a matter of how fast you can change the battery.
Still have a range problem though, and there's also the cost.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Or for $180 you can get one with an AMD geode.0 06/02/17/15325.html
http://www.netaffilia.com/ad/electronics/frys/i/2
There are lots of conflicting features that are desired, but I'd still like to see what features a new email system could have.
Off the top of my head, I can think of;
. Better handling of mailing lists/discussion groups/chat rooms.
. Return recipit.
. Unforgable ID's (or at least hard to forge).
. No central authority.
. Standardized rendering of non-english alphabets.
. Standardized video/voice rendering
. A lot less spam (not sure how to do it, but I'm sure I want it).
. Attachments
. Better error handling (especially for multi-recipient emails)
. Standard per message rejection - i.e. if I refuse email containing html, the sender should know that I do.
I'd really like to know what other people would want.
The total world consumption of crude oil in 1996 was 71.7 million barrels per day.
1 barrel = 42 gallons ~= 159 liters.
With good conditions, Algae produces 50 grams of oil per square meter.
With more typical conditions, 5 grams per m^2 per day.
Avocado (typical) 0.6 grams.
Rapeseed (typical) 0.27 grams.
Hemp (typical) 0.08 grams.
Corn (typical) 0.04 grams.
Rapeseed is the usual choice for traditional farming methods because it grows well in such a wide variety of climates.
(Canola is a "human safe" strain of Rapeseed.)
Best estimates I've seen claim oil can be grown for $50 a barrel which sounds pretty good until you realize that oil can be pumped out of the ground for under $10.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Rapeseed oil needs to be rebranded I admit.
Maybe we should call it high acid canola oil.
Well, yes that is what I was thinking.
(Is it normal for an ISP to buy less than a gigabit of transit?)
And I realize that the price you pay once you're at an exchange isn't the full price you pay.
But the other costs you mention aren't based on utilization.
You have to pay all that even if your customers only use the internet once a month.
They don't explain why the marginal cost of bandwidth would be so high.
Or do ISPs not actually connect to exchanges?
-- Should you believe authority without question?
If you buy in bulk, transit is availble for under $20 a Mbps.
A naive assumption would be that cost difference between providing 1Mbps continuous, and 1Mbps burst wouldn't be greater than twice that ($40).
Presumably there's some other cost that I'm overlooking that makes contiuous traffic much more costly than burst.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Of course people said they were "intending" to play less.
Smokers usually "intend" to quit too.
Saying it isn't doing it.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Why not Linux/GNU?
No, seriously, why does he advocate putting the GNU first, and Linux second?
-- Should you believe authority without question?
If I were making a microwave oven, I probably wouldn't be interested in using linux either.
How many said they weren't considering it because they didn't think they needed any os?
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Why should the gazelle run when the lion is hungry?
The trick is to make credit card companies were liable for consequental damages caused by their lax policies.
If they had to pay the victim damages they'd fix this right quick.
(Or maybe they'd rather pay, but either way we'd be better off.)
-- Should you believe authority without question?
While I think that punishment is a bit excessive, I wish there was some punishment for voting for an unconstitutional law.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
No.
The EU is a government.
"Hard ball" for a government is property seizure, jail, expulsion, death squads, and war.
Fines aren't even softball, that's just the governments way of letting you know they might get angry if you keep doing what you've been doing.
Another stupid bill that has essentially zero chance of passing, but which will generate a huge amount of outrage.
Whenever I see a story like this, I always wonder what it is they are trying to distract people away from.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
It's only a significant improvement if the old lock was the weakest point.
Kicking in the door, unlocked / poorly locked windows (or just a brick), carding the door, open skylights
At a guess, I'd say windows, not doors are the weakest physical link in security, with "leaving the back door unlocked" a close second.
-- Should you trust authority without question?
First a mirror; http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/6313facd6836dbf60 e15be4aeeb17c69/index.html
I suppose the answer is to buy CDRW instead of CD-R.
But I think the blank media producers should go further than that.
They should pick a song and record it on their CD-RW.
This would have several benifical effects:
It avoids the levy.
The song would almost certainly be a #1 seller, potentially, the title could be for sale to the highest bidder.
It makes them a music publisher, which means they get a cut of the sales of their competitors.
Two children were walking down the street, when they spotted a cake on the sidewalk.
Alice said "I saw it first, it's mine".
Bob said "We saw it together, we should share it equally"
Just then a man walked by and after listening to the two children argue, said;
"You should compromise - give Alice 3/4 of the cake, and Bob, you take 1/4"
Do the math? Ok, for algal oil;
NREL claimed 50 grams of oil per square meter per day, but the average production rate was closer to 4 grams per square meter per day.
1 barrel of oil is approx. 155 Kilograms.
155,000 grams / 4 per meter / 10,000 meters per hectare = 3.8
So about 4 hectares needed for a barrel of oil per day.
World wide oil production in 2004 was about 80 million barrels per day.
Total land needed, approximately 20 million hectares.
Size of great sandy desert; approximately 82 million hectares.
In other words, not only would be unnecessary to cover the earth, it isn't even
necessary to use land that's currently used for farming.
When oil hits $100 a barrel, we'll be growing it (maybe sooner if we can figure out how to grow it cheaper.)
If for some insane reason we wanted to make ethonol from plants instead of oil from algae, then yields are considerable lower.
And we also need to consider that we probably won't be able to make use of fertilizers (since they are largely petroleum based) to grow it, which means even lower yields.
Best estimates are 1/50 - 1/100 of algae production, which means a land mass 400-800 million hectares, still less than the size of the US.
Unlike algae, ethanol producing plants do compete with food crops, so doing it would displace food production, but it's at least theoretically possible to do it without covering the earth.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Even if the watermark is infeasible to remove, one could buy music using a stolen identity.
For extra style points, steal the identity of the person who invented the watermarking scheme.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
So instead of giving players a bonus for being rested, you'd rather give a penalty for not being rested?
Sure, there's no real difference, it's just spin, but you're advocating a negative spin.
IMO, positive spin is better.
-- Should you believe authority without question?