That's a nice theory, but it's utter bullcrap in reality. I've lived in two different towns dominated by a single industry (different in each) - and in both of them urban legend and rumours far outpaced actual knowledge of the industry.
Your response merely proves my point. The normal response is to blame to owners of the server for not maintaining security, not the users for using the internet or for using a particular server. But, since it's Myspace - that reverses.
This is an excellent point. As someone whole lived in the middle east for nearly 20 years, I can assure you that the crap in the media about oil production costs is complete nonsense. Production costs per barrel - not per gallon - in Saudi are under 50 cents.
How precisely does living in the Middle East make you an expert on oil?
I remember when one of my weekly chores was to walk up to the gas station to buy a gallon of gas for the lawn mower. I was given a dollar, and any change was mine to spend on candy at the gas station - and I'd get quite a bit of candy.
putting abusive people in jail would make them think twice
So now we want to put people in jail for exercising their legal rights?
they cost money to other companies, but also to state and law how can tribunal tolerate such behaviour and not fine a big toll ?
Because, when a tribunal is faced with somebody doing something completely legal and supported both by precedent and black letter law - the courts have little choice but to tolerate it.
The two faced attitude of Slashdot rears it's ugly head again.
Slashdotters are all about privacy uber alles when it comes to causes they care about - but when it comes to a demographic they don't care about, and a website whose users they openly disdain... The collective opinion shifts to "well, they shouldn't have uploaded it to the interwebz in the f1rst plac3".
If they'd had these twenty years - it likely wouldn't have made a damm bit of difference to what happened to you... Because you underwent colonoscopy, not endoscopy.
FCS doesn't do a damn thing to aid against insurgencies whose primary weapon is the booby trap.
So what? Do you think that insurgencies will be our only target always and forevers?
The thing about FCS is that, when early versions of it have been tried in our present war, soldiers have found that the extra computerization is often not worth the weight of the computer.
First generation systems typically have problems like that. The solution is to continue to evolve the system, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
They don't want to do distribution, shipping tens of thousands of things all around a continent isn't that easy.. Just getting payments information from paypal can be a hard thing to do.
Horseshit. If you've put the systems in place and have an infrastructure even half thought out - it's pretty simple.
Saying this will happen to governments orders as well is very strange, and uncalled for.
Why? The existing evidence implies that they haven't put much thought into their logistics pipeline.
The troll is the one who declares the 'basic principles' wrongly and in derogatory terms - and who ignores the fact that the two items being compared _are_ evolving in different directions.
How could a VC firm not be intelligent enough to realize that mail-order perishables isn't going to work out well, especially on cheap heavy things that would be a logistical nightmare to ship?
Given the extensive history of companies selling perishables mail order, I'd suspect the lack of intelligence is on the part of the Slashdot poster rather than the VC firms. Omaha Steaks has been doing it since at least the 70's (I say at least because I think I have an even earlier advertisement from them somewhere in my files, but cannot locate it ATM). Swiss Colony even longer. In fact, such shipping has been going on since dry ice was first produced in industrial quantites in the 1920's.
Look in the advertisements of most National Geographics of the 50's, or and food magazine from the same era, and you'll see ads aplenty.
</culinary_geek>
The mistake the VC firms of the dot bomb era made was, as you point out, marketing the wrong things to the wrong demographic. However, given the history of food deliveries and the increased performance of shipping companies as the 90's advanced - and it wasn't clearly obvious that their schemes were off the mark. (Doubly so since the big grocery chains have been slowly expanding into online ordering...)
Foresight isn't always 20-20 on Slashdot either, back in the day there were a lot of posts explaining how Amazon and Netflix were going to fail 'any day now'. They simply couldn't compete with bricks-and-mortar everyone said. The future lay with clicks-and-mortar, with Barnes and Noble, and Blockbuster...
Again, you have a solution is search of a problem - because this doesn't stop, or even slow down, the process of 'trolling'. ('Trolling' of course is a code for 'a patent holder enforcing his rights in a way I don't happen to care for'.)
When your main method of comparison is with what one church 'use to do' [sic] and what another church is currently doing - that should serve as bright, blinking, screaming alarm indicator that your logic and argument are deeply flawed. Apples and oranges. Doubly so since the available evidence shows one church evolving (howsoever slowly) away from what it used to do (and more in the direction of it's basic principles) and the other is intensifying it's objectionable behavior.
It doesn't matter how many times the patent has been assigned - because assignment doesn't change the duration of the patent. What you have here is a solution in search of a problem and a potential enforcement nightmare.
Am I the only one that notices Slashdot's propensity to propose/applaud the limitations of others rights, while screaming loudly at any percieved limitation of their own?
The point is, her "we know virtually nothing" comment is wrong. We spend a considerable amount of money on ocean exploration and have been doing so for decades. We spend a considerable amount of money on 'researching the planet' and have been doing so for decades.
Objecting to space programs on that basis is ignorant, not insightful.
We know virtually nothing about about our seas and oceans? Ms. Braun is stuck in the 1930's somewhere, because we know far from 'virtually nothing'. The ocean and the ocean bottom have been the subject of intensive since the 1950's - it just doesn't make the news as often because, like most exploration, it isn't very 'sexy' and doesn't produce much in the way of spectacular imagery. (Heck, most space exploration isn't very 'sexy' either - which is why the images make the news, and little else.)
What goals are you thinking that they haven't met, exactly?
It doesn't matter how many systems you 'prove'- if you haven't met the operational spec. It doesn't matter how many demos you fly- if you haven't demonstrated you can meet your advertised performance.
Exactly how many payloads has Falcon I orbited?
And no, Falcon I isn't on schedule. It's years behind it's original advertised availability date.
The quantity, quality, and diversity of online video grows by the day; and though it's far from perfect, it is at least interesting enough to make you forget that you're watching it on a PC monitor.
There isn't anything on the web that can make me forget I'm watching it on a PC monitor - because my computer room isn't nearly as comfortable as my living room.
I'm surprised at the amount of scepticism over this project, esp on/. Let's face it, commercial designs such as SS2 are the only way any of us down here will be getting 'up there' in our lifetime.
Folks are skeptical because they are looking at the hard numbers, rather than cheerleading because SS2 et al are the 'only way'.
It's not how many people who sign up in advance that matters - it's how many actually show up at the counter and plunk down cold hard cash, and having people continue to do so on an ongoing basis. After two years of availability, having only 200 people paid up isn't a positive sign - it's a worrisome one, especially with 65k applicants on the books.
If you want small companies doing meaningful rocketry, check out SpaceX. Their Falcon 9, a rocket whose heavy version will carry as much payload as NASA's beleagured (and possibly dead in the water) Ares, including its own spacecraft that can dock with the ISS, will be launching this June.
I wouldn't bet large sums of money on it. SpaceX doesn't have a good track record of meeting it's goals - and they haven't been able to get the much simpler Falcon I flying regularly and reliably.
Several friends of mine teach art history at a large university and in my conversations with them, I came to appreciate that the study and appreciation of art is similar to that of the study of literature or film.
For example, prior to the Renaissance, much of art was iconography (the representation of icons of religion and pivotal moments in the story of Christianity) whence the Renaisannce introduced the human subject into art.
I'd be very suspicious of someone who claims to teach art history - but doesn't understand (or explain) that iconography was a key part of art right up into the late 19th century, even in portraiture [1] or other works centering on the human figure. Equally specious is the claim that the human subject was absent prior to the Renaissance, as even the briefest survey of Roman, Greek, Ancient Egyptian, etc... art will show you.
Another strand of the study revolves about the construction of a social canon (the 'great' works of genius and orginality) and how it reflects the social shifts in power. One way of understanding this is the common complaint amongst film afficiandos that the academy awards are a popularity contest and that, over and above the wonderful movies, Speilberg has been a brand and is a socio-economic construction.
Anything can be justified ex post facto.
[1] Those regal portraits so popular in history books? If you know the iconography, you can tell as much about the person as if you were reading a hyperlinked article of Wikipedia. A globe on a table meant this, a map on a table or on the wall meant that, etc... etc...
Slashdot Mirror
That's a nice theory, but it's utter bullcrap in reality. I've lived in two different towns dominated by a single industry (different in each) - and in both of them urban legend and rumours far outpaced actual knowledge of the industry.
So no, it doesn't answer my question.
Your response merely proves my point. The normal response is to blame to owners of the server for not maintaining security, not the users for using the internet or for using a particular server. But, since it's Myspace - that reverses.
How precisely does living in the Middle East make you an expert on oil?
I remember when one of my weekly chores was to walk up to the gas station to buy a gallon of gas for the lawn mower. I was given a dollar, and any change was mine to spend on candy at the gas station - and I'd get quite a bit of candy.
Now git off my lawn!
So now we want to put people in jail for exercising their legal rights?
Because, when a tribunal is faced with somebody doing something completely legal and supported both by precedent and black letter law - the courts have little choice but to tolerate it.
Of course - it's the "trolls" and "lawyers" fault. It's not even possible for you to be the one in the wrong.
The two faced attitude of Slashdot rears it's ugly head again.
Slashdotters are all about privacy uber alles when it comes to causes they care about - but when it comes to a demographic they don't care about, and a website whose users they openly disdain... The collective opinion shifts to "well, they shouldn't have uploaded it to the interwebz in the f1rst plac3".
If they'd had these twenty years - it likely wouldn't have made a damm bit of difference to what happened to you... Because you underwent colonoscopy, not endoscopy.
So what? Do you think that insurgencies will be our only target always and forevers?
First generation systems typically have problems like that. The solution is to continue to evolve the system, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Horseshit. If you've put the systems in place and have an infrastructure even half thought out - it's pretty simple.
Why? The existing evidence implies that they haven't put much thought into their logistics pipeline.
The troll is the one who declares the 'basic principles' wrongly and in derogatory terms - and who ignores the fact that the two items being compared _are_ evolving in different directions.
Given the extensive history of companies selling perishables mail order, I'd suspect the lack of intelligence is on the part of the Slashdot poster rather than the VC firms. Omaha Steaks has been doing it since at least the 70's (I say at least because I think I have an even earlier advertisement from them somewhere in my files, but cannot locate it ATM). Swiss Colony even longer. In fact, such shipping has been going on since dry ice was first produced in industrial quantites in the 1920's.
Look in the advertisements of most National Geographics of the 50's, or and food magazine from the same era, and you'll see ads aplenty.
</culinary_geek>
The mistake the VC firms of the dot bomb era made was, as you point out, marketing the wrong things to the wrong demographic. However, given the history of food deliveries and the increased performance of shipping companies as the 90's advanced - and it wasn't clearly obvious that their schemes were off the mark. (Doubly so since the big grocery chains have been slowly expanding into online ordering...)
Foresight isn't always 20-20 on Slashdot either, back in the day there were a lot of posts explaining how Amazon and Netflix were going to fail 'any day now'. They simply couldn't compete with bricks-and-mortar everyone said. The future lay with clicks-and-mortar, with Barnes and Noble, and Blockbuster...
Again, you have a solution is search of a problem - because this doesn't stop, or even slow down, the process of 'trolling'. ('Trolling' of course is a code for 'a patent holder enforcing his rights in a way I don't happen to care for'.)
Those guys [partyvan] are seriously scary - it's frightening to think that anyone would support a group of such vigilantes and cyberstalkers.
When your main method of comparison is with what one church 'use to do' [sic] and what another church is currently doing - that should serve as bright, blinking, screaming alarm indicator that your logic and argument are deeply flawed. Apples and oranges. Doubly so since the available evidence shows one church evolving (howsoever slowly) away from what it used to do (and more in the direction of it's basic principles) and the other is intensifying it's objectionable behavior.
It doesn't matter how many times the patent has been assigned - because assignment doesn't change the duration of the patent. What you have here is a solution in search of a problem and a potential enforcement nightmare.
Am I the only one that notices Slashdot's propensity to propose/applaud the limitations of others rights, while screaming loudly at any percieved limitation of their own?
The point is, her "we know virtually nothing" comment is wrong. We spend a considerable amount of money on ocean exploration and have been doing so for decades. We spend a considerable amount of money on 'researching the planet' and have been doing so for decades.
Objecting to space programs on that basis is ignorant, not insightful.
We know virtually nothing about about our seas and oceans? Ms. Braun is stuck in the 1930's somewhere, because we know far from 'virtually nothing'. The ocean and the ocean bottom have been the subject of intensive since the 1950's - it just doesn't make the news as often because, like most exploration, it isn't very 'sexy' and doesn't produce much in the way of spectacular imagery. (Heck, most space exploration isn't very 'sexy' either - which is why the images make the news, and little else.)
Oh yeah - thousands of dollars to provide the capbility of simulating real TV. I'll just run right out and pay for it out of petty cash.
If you don't watch TV, then what exactly do you use the Home Theatre PC and TV for? Paperweights?
It doesn't matter how many systems you 'prove'- if you haven't met the operational spec. It doesn't matter how many demos you fly- if you haven't demonstrated you can meet your advertised performance.
Exactly how many payloads has Falcon I orbited?
And no, Falcon I isn't on schedule. It's years behind it's original advertised availability date.
It's meaning is quite obvious if you stop and think a little bit. None of the words are particularly hard or used in any obscure or unusual manner.
Although it might help if you knew a little history rather than just reguritating [ignorant] bile and bias.
There isn't anything on the web that can make me forget I'm watching it on a PC monitor - because my computer room isn't nearly as comfortable as my living room.
Folks are skeptical because they are looking at the hard numbers, rather than cheerleading because SS2 et al are the 'only way'.
It's not how many people who sign up in advance that matters - it's how many actually show up at the counter and plunk down cold hard cash, and having people continue to do so on an ongoing basis. After two years of availability, having only 200 people paid up isn't a positive sign - it's a worrisome one, especially with 65k applicants on the books.
I wouldn't bet large sums of money on it. SpaceX doesn't have a good track record of meeting it's goals - and they haven't been able to get the much simpler Falcon I flying regularly and reliably.
I'd be very suspicious of someone who claims to teach art history - but doesn't understand (or explain) that iconography was a key part of art right up into the late 19th century, even in portraiture [1] or other works centering on the human figure. Equally specious is the claim that the human subject was absent prior to the Renaissance, as even the briefest survey of Roman, Greek, Ancient Egyptian, etc... art will show you.
Anything can be justified ex post facto.
[1] Those regal portraits so popular in history books? If you know the iconography, you can tell as much about the person as if you were reading a hyperlinked article of Wikipedia. A globe on a table meant this, a map on a table or on the wall meant that, etc... etc...