I would expect both of those are wrong. You don't buy a company and hire the head of it... at first. You almost always RIF them once you've got a replacement ready.
And Bezos bought it, not Amazon. Why would he give his content away?
He's keeping the same Chief Editor, so its not clear to me how much it will change.
I expect him to make it free on Kindle. Seems like a long way to go to get content.
I would expect both of those are wrong. You don't buy a company and hire the head of it... at first. You almost always RIF them once you've got a replacement ready.
And Bezos bought it, not Amazon. Why would he give his content away?
You can, but its been going on for as long as people have been governed.
Those who are offended or surprised show both a lack of vision and knowledge of history.
So go ahead and use it, but they're empty words, and the meaning behind them is intrinsic in the concept of "state". Written "constitutions" or declarations of citizen "rights" is just an evolved governmental structure that persists because it enables the structure to avoid the kind of uprisings that tend to end them. Its simple survival of the fittest. If the people think they control the institution, the institution lasts longer. IMO "states" are just generationally reinforced political memes, not much different than a religion. Catholicism works best, and people tend to be happiest, when the theological view they hold in their heads gently nudges them away from the inconsistencies, fairy tales and history. Patriotism is very much the same.
In other words, call it a police state, but you'd probably be happier if you just didn't and pretended it wasn't. Because, really, what can you do about it? Change the laws? New ones will just be made. Vote out the politicians? More will be elected. If 350 million people rose up and overthrew the US government, the one and only thing you can be sure of is that the structure that replaces it will do the exact same things, and just be better at making people believe otherwise. And in the grand scheme of things, the "injustice" that comes down from programs like this or the NSAs on 99.999% of the population is so far divorced from the reality of the injustice that a lot of the worlds' population is subject to, its just plain silly to call it an injustice. Its more just hypocrisy. First world problems.
Does John Naughton (or anyone else) believe that ANY OTHER sovereign state on the planet would allow Internet operators within their boarders to go unmonitored? Where should we turn? Russia? China? The Netherlands?
John Naughton doesn't need to believe anything about it. His job is to get readers, and this is the drama du jour.
The fact is none of the "revelations" that have come out of this should be a surprise to anyone -- nor do they change the actual amount of "privacy" people believe they have had. NSA employees who obey the law can see no more of my information with or without these systems. And NSA employees who don't obey the law could see all of that information anyway, just via a more circuitous route.
And if anyone on here honestly thinks that data jurisdiction laws that require, as an example, EU data to be hosted in the EU have *anything* to do with EU citizen privacy rather than Germany or whatever country wanting to have the same level of access to their domestic information, you're as high or delusional as the people who were surprised by the things Snowden was releasing.
Personally, the benefit of using services I can't provide for myself is MANY order of magnitudes greater than any concern I have for my privacy where the government is concerned. I'm more concerned about Russian organized crime running their botnets and spyware and stealing my financial information than anything the NSA can or would do. One has huge impact to me, one has absolutely zero impact.
If I piss in your face and you hand me 50 bucks, then next day give me 50 bucks to piss in your face again... market forces tell me to piss in your face.
Ahhh, where's my wallet!?
Oh wait, what site is this? Crap! log out, log out, log out!!!!
a) suck because it makes you refocus your eyes without moving them
I don't know about the 1980s ones, but the modern ones put the focal point of the HUD out in front of the car, not in the plane of the windscreen.
They did, too... but generally you can only put the focal point out as far as you can get the projector from the windscreen. (You can't magically focus it 200 feet ahead), so generally speaking it might be 6"-1' beyond the windscreen.
Urban climatology and the sociological (health/violence/etc) are a significant area of research these days. Its not a ridiculous claim, its an important area of research because there are significant changes happening, particularly around public health. I haven't gone through this in any detail -- the study could be junk, but dismissing this area of research out of hand is actually dismissing one of the most near-term impacts of shifting climates. It'll be a long time until NYC is underwater, but the southwest is already showing public health changes because of increased heat and humidity. And those changes impact everyone, because the people least able to handle the changes are the people who tend to have their healthcare paid for by public sources.
And, for what its worth, I'm so hot today I could punch someone.
What if you're wearing your Google Glass but don't have it switched on? Still illegal?.
In the US its illegal to hang something from your rear-view-mirror because it is in the line of sight of the driver. So, that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption.
Of course, you see morons with their highschool graduation tassels hanging from them all the time.
UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
Windscreen HUDs were pretty common on the "luxury" brands back into the mid 80's.
They're not there anymore because they: a) suck because it makes you refocus your eyes without moving them b) are dangerous and distracting
Seriously... shower rings. Yes, that's the future of 3D printing that will save the world.
But I can't fault the summary, the article is even worse: "It blows my mind you can print your own shower curtains and beat the retail price," said Joshua Pearce, an associate professor in the Materials Science and Engineering Department at MTU.
I think the one thing we can take away from this article is this:
Kids, you've learned something important about MTU when it comes time to pick a school.
and thus have a very deranged and clueless view of how poor people live.
I suspect the opposite is true. If you disagree with his statement, I suggest a bit more world travel. The vast majority of the "poor" in the US are have living standards greater than 50% of the human being alive today.
I have no idea if the GP has actually seen real poverty first hand, but some of us have. And you won't find it in the US.
If you care about security, you're running NoScript. And they do not run.
Why bother using the web, then? Most sites won't work with scripting disabled to any usable extent.
If you want to be safe from evil ad networks, just don't use the web. Problem solved.
But saying "just don't do it" in reference to things that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people need or want to do is not solving the problem, and is distracting to the need to actually solve the problem.
Actually "intellectual" property rights exist to encourage new ideas. At least that's what they were supposed to be...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Um, no shit. And by securing for a limited time, you're promoting inequality for that time.
yes, the 'life is a race' concept. I heard of that. Nice concept. if everybody started at the same point (and not: some near the finish pole and others without legs outside the stadium)
As others have said, all property rights exist to protect and promote inequality.
And what's the problem with that? Inequality is pretty much the defining characteristic of life. Evolution works because something got more than something else.
The PC is here to stay. What we are seeing is a longer life cycle. There is no need to update the hardware these days,
Hold on there why does anyone say this....I want more powerful hardware and can use it. Where is my 4X 1080P 24" touchscreen monitor, with keyboard with LED keys with these futuristic storage sizes with android compatibility...at a price I can afford.
Those are new monitors, not new PCs. You proved the GP's point. You talk about more powerful hardware, and listed nothing that actually involves replacing the PC. You just need to replace the peripherals.
The era of the PC is over. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised at this.
That's drawing a conclusion on shaky evidence.
Drops in PC sales does't indicate that PC usage has dropped.
The real issue is two things: - There's little in the way of new markets for generic computing devices. After 30 years, most of the population likely to ever have one have been served effectively by the companies selling them - In existing, saturated markets, there's declining reason to replace existing systems. The sweet spot of memory, storage, and CPU power has been met for the majority of the uses that people have them for. Gaming is really the only area pushing a need for new computers, and even that is arguable in most cases. (Peripheral sales like new video cards is doing just fine, as an example). Even things like editing HD video of the kids is done more than effectively with five year old hardware.
That is the real problem. There's no need to upgrade a 3-4 year old system, short of hardware failures. The fact that even a small part of the market (and is IS very small) can do everything they need on a tablet, without a primary computer is more evidence that there's just no "new" uses that drive a need for new hardware, and a smaller "ultrabook" form factor isn't a compelling enough reason to get people to cough up $1k.
Fact is, other then web surfing, most of the things people have always used PCs for they still need to use PCs for. You can't store a terabyte of family video and photos on a tablet. If you have a Windows tablet, I suppose you could use an external drive. Wireless NAS is just too slow. You're not, generally, going to tap your way through your taxes on a little tablet.
PC era isn't over, but the era of 18-24 month lifespan for PCs is. If that doubles, then sales have to drop in half.
Actually, you lose. What you spotted was a reasonable person with a brain.
Unfortunately, that's a rare breed around these parts... if you're looking for a population of people who fit that billing, Slashdot is not the place to look, any more than among the support base of Fox News. The two are nearly identical -- "media" communities pushing a narrow minded, ignorant agenda on a narrow slice of the population that is seeking out justification for their beliefs, and feeding tripe to them like an addiction to drive ad revenue.
I suspect the person you replied to was just joking, but it says something about Slashdot that you just can't be sure anymore.
Remember We do these things because they are hard?
Not particularly, and that was never the case anyway. It was always a space race, an attempt to beat Cold War enemies. With that rationale gone, NASA lost much of its support.
This is an important detail that seems to be glossed over. NASA's development prior to the 80's was a way of developing technology the military needed that was too "big" to be kept classified. Big rockets were needed for big nukes. Putting spacecraft into orbit and being able to control those orbits was necessary for spy satellites. Skylab was about countering concerns of manned space spy stations from the Soviets. The moon shot was half cold-war PR and half critical military technology development.
Post-Apollo, NASA's manned program has been 100% about corporate welfare for defense contractors. The joke was always "why does the space shuttle exist? to build the space station! Why does the space station exist? To give the shuttle somewhere to go!". And it wasn't far of the truth. Continuing the Apollo-era style rockets and targeting Mars (which was the program NASA declined in favor of the Shuttle -- the intent was to be on Mars in the early 80's!) didn't strategically align with the technology development investments needed to pump money into the defense contractors. And when the cold war ended, it became all the more critical to crank up the construction of the ISS to ensure the key expertise was maintained at the set of contractors deemed strategic to national security.
Why do you think the ridiculous work is still going on with Orion? To keep important NASA and defense contractor skills working on new technology.
Slashdot Mirror
I would expect both of those are wrong. You don't buy a company and hire the head of it ... at first. You almost always RIF them once you've got a replacement ready.
And Bezos bought it, not Amazon. Why would he give his content away?
Fire, not hire. Damn autocomplete.
He's keeping the same Chief Editor, so its not clear to me how much it will change.
I expect him to make it free on Kindle. Seems like a long way to go to get content.
I would expect both of those are wrong. You don't buy a company and hire the head of it ... at first. You almost always RIF them once you've got a replacement ready.
And Bezos bought it, not Amazon. Why would he give his content away?
Can we use the word police state yet?
You can, but its been going on for as long as people have been governed.
Those who are offended or surprised show both a lack of vision and knowledge of history.
So go ahead and use it, but they're empty words, and the meaning behind them is intrinsic in the concept of "state". Written "constitutions" or declarations of citizen "rights" is just an evolved governmental structure that persists because it enables the structure to avoid the kind of uprisings that tend to end them. Its simple survival of the fittest. If the people think they control the institution, the institution lasts longer. IMO "states" are just generationally reinforced political memes, not much different than a religion. Catholicism works best, and people tend to be happiest, when the theological view they hold in their heads gently nudges them away from the inconsistencies, fairy tales and history. Patriotism is very much the same.
In other words, call it a police state, but you'd probably be happier if you just didn't and pretended it wasn't. Because, really, what can you do about it? Change the laws? New ones will just be made. Vote out the politicians? More will be elected. If 350 million people rose up and overthrew the US government, the one and only thing you can be sure of is that the structure that replaces it will do the exact same things, and just be better at making people believe otherwise. And in the grand scheme of things, the "injustice" that comes down from programs like this or the NSAs on 99.999% of the population is so far divorced from the reality of the injustice that a lot of the worlds' population is subject to, its just plain silly to call it an injustice. Its more just hypocrisy. First world problems.
So, can any mediocre author convert his story to the style of a known good author using this?
There's hope for Slashdot's editors! Huzzah!
Sounds like some company is trying to toot their own horn here or something, but AI didn't out J.K. Rowling. Her lawyers friend did. http://www.businessinsider.com/russells-apologizes-to-jk-rowling-2013-7
This is a privacy related story on Slashdot. Facts have as much of a place here as in a Microsoft story.
Although Slashdot does hate lawyers, so maybe you can get some traction with this ...
Does John Naughton (or anyone else) believe that ANY OTHER sovereign state on the planet would allow Internet operators within their boarders to go unmonitored? Where should we turn? Russia? China? The Netherlands?
John Naughton doesn't need to believe anything about it. His job is to get readers, and this is the drama du jour.
The fact is none of the "revelations" that have come out of this should be a surprise to anyone -- nor do they change the actual amount of "privacy" people believe they have had. NSA employees who obey the law can see no more of my information with or without these systems. And NSA employees who don't obey the law could see all of that information anyway, just via a more circuitous route.
And if anyone on here honestly thinks that data jurisdiction laws that require, as an example, EU data to be hosted in the EU have *anything* to do with EU citizen privacy rather than Germany or whatever country wanting to have the same level of access to their domestic information, you're as high or delusional as the people who were surprised by the things Snowden was releasing.
Personally, the benefit of using services I can't provide for myself is MANY order of magnitudes greater than any concern I have for my privacy where the government is concerned. I'm more concerned about Russian organized crime running their botnets and spyware and stealing my financial information than anything the NSA can or would do. One has huge impact to me, one has absolutely zero impact.
Something to actually use.
Until you can put the crypto chip into your head, all that does is move the needle, and not by much.
If I piss in your face and you hand me 50 bucks, then next day give me 50 bucks to piss in your face again... market forces tell me to piss in your face.
Ahhh, where's my wallet!?
Oh wait, what site is this? Crap! log out, log out, log out!!!!
a) suck because it makes you refocus your eyes without moving them
I don't know about the 1980s ones, but the modern ones put the focal point of the HUD out in front of the car, not in the plane of the windscreen.
They did, too... but generally you can only put the focal point out as far as you can get the projector from the windscreen. (You can't magically focus it 200 feet ahead), so generally speaking it might be 6"-1' beyond the windscreen.
This has to be one of the more ridiculous claims to come out of the alarmosphere about climate change I've ever heard. There's a cool list of things that are supposed to be attributable to climate change (according to the alarmists): http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/17/global-warming-ate-my-homework-100-things-blamed-on-global-warming/ . I guess we can add this to the list.
Urban climatology and the sociological (health/violence/etc) are a significant area of research these days. Its not a ridiculous claim, its an important area of research because there are significant changes happening, particularly around public health. I haven't gone through this in any detail -- the study could be junk, but dismissing this area of research out of hand is actually dismissing one of the most near-term impacts of shifting climates. It'll be a long time until NYC is underwater, but the southwest is already showing public health changes because of increased heat and humidity. And those changes impact everyone, because the people least able to handle the changes are the people who tend to have their healthcare paid for by public sources.
And, for what its worth, I'm so hot today I could punch someone.
$i = 0
while $i = 0
wget ”http://www.google.com/search?q=Pressure+Cooker"
wget ”http://www.google.com/search?q=backpack"
'Nuff Said
When I see an angry dog, I like to poke at it with a stick, too. Rational things happen every time!
What if you're wearing your Google Glass but don't have it switched on? Still illegal? .
In the US its illegal to hang something from your rear-view-mirror because it is in the line of sight of the driver. So, that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption.
Of course, you see morons with their highschool graduation tassels hanging from them all the time.
UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
Windscreen HUDs were pretty common on the "luxury" brands back into the mid 80's.
They're not there anymore because they:
a) suck because it makes you refocus your eyes without moving them
b) are dangerous and distracting
Seriously... shower rings. Yes, that's the future of 3D printing that will save the world.
But I can't fault the summary, the article is even worse: "It blows my mind you can print your own shower curtains and beat the retail price," said Joshua Pearce, an associate professor in the Materials Science and Engineering Department at MTU.
I think the one thing we can take away from this article is this:
Kids, you've learned something important about MTU when it comes time to pick a school.
and thus have a very deranged and clueless view of how poor people live.
I suspect the opposite is true. If you disagree with his statement, I suggest a bit more world travel. The vast majority of the "poor" in the US are have living standards greater than 50% of the human being alive today.
I have no idea if the GP has actually seen real poverty first hand, but some of us have. And you won't find it in the US.
Microsoft Cloud Drive Storage Home Edition
Microsoft Cloud Drive Storage Premium Edition
Microsoft Cloud Drive Storage Enterprise Edition
Live Mesh was the traditional name when they launched it six years ago.
How many Microsoft SkyDrive users will be confused by the rename of this product and switch to Dropbox?
Both.
If they lose two out of the 250 million active users, I think they'll be okay.
That said, I doubt very highly that they'd change the branding worldwide.
Personally, I think I'm going to register "thecloudstorageformerlyknownasskydrive.co.uk" and sell it to them.
If you care about security, you're running NoScript. And they do not run.
Why bother using the web, then? Most sites won't work with scripting disabled to any usable extent.
If you want to be safe from evil ad networks, just don't use the web. Problem solved.
But saying "just don't do it" in reference to things that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people need or want to do is not solving the problem, and is distracting to the need to actually solve the problem.
Actually "intellectual" property rights exist to encourage new ideas. At least that's what they were supposed to be...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Um, no shit. And by securing for a limited time, you're promoting inequality for that time.
You know, exactly like I said.
yes, the 'life is a race' concept. I heard of that. Nice concept. if everybody started at the same point (and not: some near the finish pole and others without legs outside the stadium)
That's the second part: "Life isn't fair".
As others have said, all property rights exist to protect and promote inequality.
And what's the problem with that? Inequality is pretty much the defining characteristic of life. Evolution works because something got more than something else.
The PC is here to stay. What we are seeing is a longer life cycle. There is no need to update the hardware these days,
Hold on there why does anyone say this....I want more powerful hardware and can use it. Where is my 4X 1080P 24" touchscreen monitor, with keyboard with LED keys with these futuristic storage sizes with android compatibility...at a price I can afford.
Those are new monitors, not new PCs. You proved the GP's point. You talk about more powerful hardware, and listed nothing that actually involves replacing the PC. You just need to replace the peripherals.
The era of the PC is over. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised at this.
That's drawing a conclusion on shaky evidence.
Drops in PC sales does't indicate that PC usage has dropped.
The real issue is two things:
- There's little in the way of new markets for generic computing devices. After 30 years, most of the population likely to ever have one have been served effectively by the companies selling them
- In existing, saturated markets, there's declining reason to replace existing systems. The sweet spot of memory, storage, and CPU power has been met for the majority of the uses that people have them for. Gaming is really the only area pushing a need for new computers, and even that is arguable in most cases. (Peripheral sales like new video cards is doing just fine, as an example). Even things like editing HD video of the kids is done more than effectively with five year old hardware.
That is the real problem. There's no need to upgrade a 3-4 year old system, short of hardware failures. The fact that even a small part of the market (and is IS very small) can do everything they need on a tablet, without a primary computer is more evidence that there's just no "new" uses that drive a need for new hardware, and a smaller "ultrabook" form factor isn't a compelling enough reason to get people to cough up $1k.
Fact is, other then web surfing, most of the things people have always used PCs for they still need to use PCs for. You can't store a terabyte of family video and photos on a tablet. If you have a Windows tablet, I suppose you could use an external drive. Wireless NAS is just too slow. You're not, generally, going to tap your way through your taxes on a little tablet.
PC era isn't over, but the era of 18-24 month lifespan for PCs is. If that doubles, then sales have to drop in half.
Actually, you lose. What you spotted was a reasonable person with a brain.
Unfortunately, that's a rare breed around these parts ... if you're looking for a population of people who fit that billing, Slashdot is not the place to look, any more than among the support base of Fox News. The two are nearly identical -- "media" communities pushing a narrow minded, ignorant agenda on a narrow slice of the population that is seeking out justification for their beliefs, and feeding tripe to them like an addiction to drive ad revenue.
I suspect the person you replied to was just joking, but it says something about Slashdot that you just can't be sure anymore.
Remember We do these things because they are hard?
Not particularly, and that was never the case anyway. It was always a space race, an attempt to beat Cold War enemies. With that rationale gone, NASA lost much of its support.
This is an important detail that seems to be glossed over. NASA's development prior to the 80's was a way of developing technology the military needed that was too "big" to be kept classified. Big rockets were needed for big nukes. Putting spacecraft into orbit and being able to control those orbits was necessary for spy satellites. Skylab was about countering concerns of manned space spy stations from the Soviets. The moon shot was half cold-war PR and half critical military technology development.
Post-Apollo, NASA's manned program has been 100% about corporate welfare for defense contractors. The joke was always "why does the space shuttle exist? to build the space station! Why does the space station exist? To give the shuttle somewhere to go!". And it wasn't far of the truth. Continuing the Apollo-era style rockets and targeting Mars (which was the program NASA declined in favor of the Shuttle -- the intent was to be on Mars in the early 80's!) didn't strategically align with the technology development investments needed to pump money into the defense contractors. And when the cold war ended, it became all the more critical to crank up the construction of the ISS to ensure the key expertise was maintained at the set of contractors deemed strategic to national security.
Why do you think the ridiculous work is still going on with Orion? To keep important NASA and defense contractor skills working on new technology.