But I would most people to continue paying for cable tv. Someone has to foot the bill, making tv shows and content is expensive.
But if, say, Netflix and similar services were to ever to become the "norm" and cable tv to begin to erode, I think the undesirable qualities of cable TV would find their way into Netflix and similar services.
I don't want streaming to be loaded up with advertising, as an example. But cable tv is the main venue for advertising today and there are tens of billions of dollars in it.
I plan to be visiting Earth's second moon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3... ) and am concerned about this while making travel arrangements.
Please advise.
"So please, do enlighten all of us who clearly don't have your intimate knowledge of IP networking as to how we can send and receive data without sharing our IP address."
A centralized server.
Which is why you have no clue what my IP address is.
And my point with be correct the entire time while you do it, regardless of whether or not you think attacking the conveyor of a correct and valid idea has merit.
Today you don't understand, but perhaps given enough time you might accumulate the wisdom to understand my point.
If you think the flaw in the system is the central, good for you.
You will also be ignorant of the history of the internet, but that's ok and with enough time you'll either see my point or not.
But to relate to what you understand today, I would say that doesn't anonymity contribute to a healthy internet --- even semi-anonmymity as you might understand it with what you understand --- and your idea is that this would discarded because of Boogeyman (NSA or Russians or whatever).
We have been down that road before, it didn't work. And it is okay if you don't know enough about the past to know these past attempts failed, that's just part of the learning experience.
A server in the middle that acts as a central point.
I get what you are saying, but exposing IP addresses to 3rd parties isn't typically desirable.
Case in point, I don't have your IP address. And you don't have mine.
Sure email works like that (although possibly less so in current era with gmail and such, then again maybe not), but many services don't. Sure, the service provider --- the middleman --- has access to that, but the other users don't.
A solution to a problem isn't necessarily a knee-jerk opposite solution (centralized vs. decentralized) but often some variation of an existing successful model that is slightly flawed, correcting *ONLY* the part that is flawed, not the parts of the service infrastructure that work well.
" There are probably more habitable moons around those gas giants than all the other kinds of planets put together."
Gas giants have massive radiation belts caused by their magnetosphere. Moons around a gas giant can't have life as we know it. Even going anywhere near Jupiter's space would expose an astronaut to an intense dose of radiation.
Quote: "If astronauts were able to approach the planet as close as the Voyager 1 spacecraft did, they would receive a dose of 400,000 rads, or roughly 1,000 times the lethal dose for humans." https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/s...
Understandably you misjudged what I was saying because I phrased it poorly.
Microsoft Office is a form of peer-pressure where people with little technical knowledge have "heard of it".
This social peer-pressure, in itself, does not make Microsoft Office a better or worse product. And the social peer-pressure does not open solutions a better or worse product.
But makes it a known product. (Unfortunately, the open solutions are not on par with MS Office, for all of MS Office's flaws).
I'm sort of kidding, but at the same time Microsoft actively maintains their bloatware and has profit as a motivation to do so.
And "normal people" are used to it because as sheep, they are familiar with the product.
On the other hand, the various open solutions are ok on a screen shot level and for very elementary tasks, but unfortunately when you go to do complicated things, you frequently find the Microsoft product has a feature to handle it and the open solution either doesn't or it is rather messy.
Which is a shame. Firefox gets $$$ (from Google) and can afford to polish up, but the open source office solutions --- while nice --- are not polished to such a level.
" punishes fans by preventing them from watching the game if the NFL can't sell enough stadium tickets"
"NFL yearly profits reportedly number in the billions.".
Sounds like the obvious answer is "Then don't watch it."
But I can see this article isn't about rationality, but about "I want to watch it" and "I want it to be free" and "I want it available under my terms".
>A lot of phenomena in astrophysics are ridiculous, but real.
No there are many ideas in astrophysics. We don't know if they are real.
Dark matter? Maybe or maybe not. Dark energy? Maybe or maybe not.
Hawking radiation? It is an idea, it hasn't been proven or disproven.
Speed of light limitation? Probably, but how are neutrinos that have mass going 99.9999% the speed of light? That should require almost infinite energy shouldn't it?
Big bang? A large body of evidence points to a time limit to the beginning of the universe, but cosmic background radiation is the only stronger evidence of a big bang --- yet this could have another explanation.
Cosmic inflation? Could be a non-starter for reasons we currently don't have a handle on --- case in point, it is only happening *far away*. Supernova are used as standard candles, but what if we had different looking supernova 10 billion years ago and our measurements are wrong, therefore inflation isn't happening.
Astrophysics is an emerging field, even now. There are few ways to test all the ideas.
Many of the theories of the exotic blackholes rest precariously on a shaky house of cards, because there is no convenient way to test the ideas.
If negative mass and positive mass collide, what would happen?
They are supposed to be opposites, and let's presume they cancel each other out...
What could they cancel out into? You still have to conserve the energy.
High energy photons can create particles with mass if they strike matter, what kind of photons would the negative mass particles be related to?
Even positive and negative mass don't cancel out, would having a lot of positive mass and negative mass in the same area cancel out gravity?
What role does the Higgs play in negative mass?
I'm no particle physicist, but negative mass seems to integrate very poorly into the system here.
And presumably negative mass would have particles of some sort, some sort of unusual electrons or quarks or protons or maybe none of those --- but all mass as we know it interact with photons (neutrinos excluded?), so presumably negative mass would need to reflect light or absorb it.
I want to give the pizza guy a $2 tip. Do I really want to get his email address, register online, have him register online, get his mobile phone number and all of that.
How is your suggestion even in the same universe as "more convenient than cash"?
Are we assuming all transactions humans do are with merchants?
Naive as hell !
Crappy list of examples, I'm sure there are hundreds of examples:
1) What about if I want to buy your [insert bike or computer or whatever]?
2) Baby sitter?
3) Kid's allowance?
4) Pay some kid kid to mow yard.
5) Underground transactions (illegal stuff)
The importance of cash will continue to decline with transactions with merchants, but it will never remotely approach "cashless".
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
But I would most people to continue paying for cable tv. Someone has to foot the bill, making tv shows and content is expensive.
But if, say, Netflix and similar services were to ever to become the "norm" and cable tv to begin to erode, I think the undesirable qualities of cable TV would find their way into Netflix and similar services.
I don't want streaming to be loaded up with advertising, as an example. But cable tv is the main venue for advertising today and there are tens of billions of dollars in it.
The articles says it will orbit the Earth eventually.
I'm ahead of curve, as always!
I plan to be visiting Earth's second moon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3... ) and am concerned about this while making travel arrangements. Please advise.
"So please, do enlighten all of us who clearly don't have your intimate knowledge of IP networking as to how we can send and receive data without sharing our IP address."
A centralized server.
Which is why you have no clue what my IP address is.
Have at it. Do it from sunrise to sunset.
And my point with be correct the entire time while you do it, regardless of whether or not you think attacking the conveyor of a correct and valid idea has merit.
And when your communications are routed through your DSL, Cable or Phone provider?
You seem to operate from the idea that communications network is separate from corporate control or government observation. But it isn't.
You can wish it were. It does not make it so.
Hence, your ideas aren't from a position of experience like you wish to believe, but rather inexperience. Which is my point.
I hope you learned something today.
Today you don't understand, but perhaps given enough time you might accumulate the wisdom to understand my point.
If you think the flaw in the system is the central, good for you.
You will also be ignorant of the history of the internet, but that's ok and with enough time you'll either see my point or not.
But to relate to what you understand today, I would say that doesn't anonymity contribute to a healthy internet --- even semi-anonmymity as you might understand it with what you understand --- and your idea is that this would discarded because of Boogeyman (NSA or Russians or whatever).
We have been down that road before, it didn't work. And it is okay if you don't know enough about the past to know these past attempts failed, that's just part of the learning experience.
A server in the middle that acts as a central point.
I get what you are saying, but exposing IP addresses to 3rd parties isn't typically desirable.
Case in point, I don't have your IP address. And you don't have mine.
Sure email works like that (although possibly less so in current era with gmail and such, then again maybe not), but many services don't. Sure, the service provider --- the middleman --- has access to that, but the other users don't.
A solution to a problem isn't necessarily a knee-jerk opposite solution (centralized vs. decentralized) but often some variation of an existing successful model that is slightly flawed, correcting *ONLY* the part that is flawed, not the parts of the service infrastructure that work well.
It is a legitimate concern. Mocking it doesn't allay the concern.
Well phrased.
" There are probably more habitable moons around those gas giants than all the other kinds of planets put together."
Gas giants have massive radiation belts caused by their magnetosphere. Moons around a gas giant can't have life as we know it. Even going anywhere near Jupiter's space would expose an astronaut to an intense dose of radiation.
Quote: "If astronauts were able to approach the planet as close as the Voyager 1 spacecraft did, they would receive a dose of 400,000 rads, or roughly 1,000 times the lethal dose for humans." https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/s...
Understandably you misjudged what I was saying because I phrased it poorly.
Microsoft Office is a form of peer-pressure where people with little technical knowledge have "heard of it".
This social peer-pressure, in itself, does not make Microsoft Office a better or worse product. And the social peer-pressure does not open solutions a better or worse product.
But makes it a known product. (Unfortunately, the open solutions are not on par with MS Office, for all of MS Office's flaws).
I'm sort of kidding, but at the same time Microsoft actively maintains their bloatware and has profit as a motivation to do so.
And "normal people" are used to it because as sheep, they are familiar with the product.
On the other hand, the various open solutions are ok on a screen shot level and for very elementary tasks, but unfortunately when you go to do complicated things, you frequently find the Microsoft product has a feature to handle it and the open solution either doesn't or it is rather messy.
Which is a shame. Firefox gets $$$ (from Google) and can afford to polish up, but the open source office solutions --- while nice --- are not polished to such a level.
>one hour of working your social network looking for a referral is equivalent to roughly 12 hours of submitting web-based job applications
You have a very well phrased expression there. Communicates very effectively!
There is no relationship between an online job application and getting a job.
Online job applications are neglected because no one needs 10,000 online forms filled out for 1 job.
"NFL charges exorbitant prices for tickets" ...
" punishes fans by preventing them from watching the game if the NFL can't sell enough stadium tickets"
"NFL yearly profits reportedly number in the billions.".
Sounds like the obvious answer is "Then don't watch it."
But I can see this article isn't about rationality, but about "I want to watch it" and "I want it to be free" and "I want it available under my terms".
That isn't true. Sports don't exist to be elitist and show others that you're better than they are.
That is the definition of "competition".
You find competition in everything whether you are talking elite coders, spelling bee champions, among sales people and amongst companies.
Some people said Steve Jobs was "elitist".
Competition brings out those characteristics. Sports is a way that it is done where the arena is physical prowess.
>A lot of phenomena in astrophysics are ridiculous, but real.
No there are many ideas in astrophysics. We don't know if they are real.
Dark matter? Maybe or maybe not. Dark energy? Maybe or maybe not.
Hawking radiation? It is an idea, it hasn't been proven or disproven.
Speed of light limitation? Probably, but how are neutrinos that have mass going 99.9999% the speed of light? That should require almost infinite energy shouldn't it?
Big bang? A large body of evidence points to a time limit to the beginning of the universe, but cosmic background radiation is the only stronger evidence of a big bang --- yet this could have another explanation.
Cosmic inflation? Could be a non-starter for reasons we currently don't have a handle on --- case in point, it is only happening *far away*. Supernova are used as standard candles, but what if we had different looking supernova 10 billion years ago and our measurements are wrong, therefore inflation isn't happening.
Astrophysics is an emerging field, even now. There are few ways to test all the ideas.
Many of the theories of the exotic blackholes rest precariously on a shaky house of cards, because there is no convenient way to test the ideas.
The ipv6 traffic is probably almost all cellphone bandwidth.
A guess.
Maybe for voting, I don't see your argument on the freedom of speech thing or the other ones.
And land was cheap and plentiful and plenty of trees to cut down and make log cabins.
Not many very apartment renters back then, as you seem to apply was going on.
In 1948, the United States voted for that declaration.
"n 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 48 in favor, none against"
This was the West announcing their idea of human rights.
(see Wikipedia)
If negative mass and positive mass collide, what would happen?
...
They are supposed to be opposites, and let's presume they cancel each other out
What could they cancel out into? You still have to conserve the energy.
High energy photons can create particles with mass if they strike matter, what kind of photons would the negative mass particles be related to?
Even positive and negative mass don't cancel out, would having a lot of positive mass and negative mass in the same area cancel out gravity?
What role does the Higgs play in negative mass?
I'm no particle physicist, but negative mass seems to integrate very poorly into the system here.
And presumably negative mass would have particles of some sort, some sort of unusual electrons or quarks or protons or maybe none of those --- but all mass as we know it interact with photons (neutrinos excluded?), so presumably negative mass would need to reflect light or absorb it.
I want to give the pizza guy a $2 tip. Do I really want to get his email address, register online, have him register online, get his mobile phone number and all of that.
How is your suggestion even in the same universe as "more convenient than cash"?
Are we assuming all transactions humans do are with merchants?
Naive as hell !
Crappy list of examples, I'm sure there are hundreds of examples: 1) What about if I want to buy your [insert bike or computer or whatever]? 2) Baby sitter? 3) Kid's allowance? 4) Pay some kid kid to mow yard. 5) Underground transactions (illegal stuff)
The importance of cash will continue to decline with transactions with merchants, but it will never remotely approach "cashless".
Back in the 1960s after the moon landings, people would have expected we would be well past Mars by now. Probably Jupiter, Saturn or other stars.
The moon landings happened 45 years ago!!
I see no evidence of any programming that "learns" or is the slightest bit adaptive.
And immortality wouldn't help --- evolution is powered by the failures dying off.
And although slightly off the topic, what good would immortality be when advances in genetics will make humans better.
And immortal 2014 human living in the year 3000 would be like a Homo habilis hanging around us. Would be genetically obsolete.
This article is --- well --- shortsighted, bordering on the naive.