I don't understand how Walmart expects to sell this stuff. The price tag that is on this kind of computer will appeal to the Lowest Common Denominator customer.
Have you been to a Walmart lately? It's a mecca for the Lowest Common Denominator.
Most people "in the know" would avoid them would they not?
Most people "in the know" won't go to Walmart to buy a new box. Or if they do, it wouldn't be this one.
Most Linux geeks that I know would want high end equipment not cheap junk.
Okay, I think that is blatently untrue. Most Linux geeks I know cherish the thought of getting Linux running on "cheap junk". My laptop is a Pentium 233 with Debian. X windows is a bit slow, but useable. My desktop is a Celeron 500. Heck, we've got a server in the office that's a 486, with a 1-year-plus uptime. I often scour flea markets, garage sales and the such for computers that people think are "out-of-date" and restore them, finding a use somewhere for it (firewall, low load server, etc.).
A computer is never "out-of-date".
So I can't figure out who this is marketed at? College students? First time "trailer home" computer buyers?
Well, not you. And, really, unless you work for Walmart, that's all you need to know.
I just read the article (it's fun, you should all try it sometime), and one of the ideas that's being touted as a good alternative to nuking the asteriod is to basically paint one side of it.
The difference in energy absorbtion/radiation on the two sides of the 'roid could be enough to produce a bit of a push and take it out of harms way.
Now, what they failed to mention in the article, which I think pretty much sends this idea to the dumpster is: what if the asteriod is rotating? That would cancel out any pushing (unless you paint one of the "poles", I suppose, but who says that's the side you "want" to paint?). Or, at the least, it would push it in unpredictable ways, which isn't a good idea.
The problem I can see is that your first blast deflects the object into a different trajectory, or splits it into a few pieces, each with different trajectories.
You would probably want to know what those trajectories were before launching your second nuke, and those are going to be hard to predict.
Otherwise, your second strike may be headed in a not-so-optimal direction.
Of course, you could put enough fuel onto the nukes to allow for some navigation after launch, but then you're opening another can of worms.
That article is quite interesting. Provides a nice overview of how blue LEDs came to be, and how they came to be all the rage.
Also, a neat piece of trivia on how Blaupunkt got it's name is on the second page.
Re:And you ask the /. community..
on
Just One Page a Day
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
For one example, my current project is a cookbook published in the 1730's, and so far I've corrected Apricocr to Apricock and Lemon to Lemmon; in both cases the form I corrected it to was overwhelming used in the text.
"Apricocr" I can see being a legitimate typo, but perhaps in converting "Lemon" to "Lemmon", you are eradicating one of the earliest uses (intentional or not) of the now-current spelling.
My personal opinion -- and I yes, everyone on/. did ask for it -- would be to leave the spelling and typos intact, if the goal is to preserve literary creations. You are potentially losing information by changing it.
Ask anyone who has studied the First Folio of Shakespeare about the importance of spelling.
(And just incase you don't have a Shakespeare scholar handy: since Shakespeare's plays were almost always written down after they were first performed (and written down by someone else), there are many clues to the the original performance in how certain words are spelled, capitalized and how sentences are punctuated. Hamlet's "What a piece of worke is a man" is a good example of this.)
I didn't mean to offend all you advertising producers. I, too, have friends who create ads, and what you say is absolutely correct: the creative teams often want to create catchy/funny/smart/intelligent ads.
The clients, on the other hand, want something cheap (as in inexpensive). Since it's their money, they usually get it, and it is usually cheap (as in crap).
So, the message to those companies too cheap (as in miserly) to want quality ads from your creative teams: screw you, your commercials deserve to be zapped.
My ire should've been more directed towards the companies that require ads, not those that produce them. Which is what I was trying to say. Honest!:)
Will cable companies remove features, like the ability to skip ahead 30 which they feels gives users the ability to skip commercials? Probably. Given the choice between pleasing consumers, or pleasing advertisers and shareholders (which they're leagally bound to do!) the companies always stay with the advertisers.
And therein is the biggest problem in the media industry: content providers are too lazy to adapt to changes in technology, so they fight innovation to maintain the status quo.
Record companies and file sharing. Cable companies and PVRs. Et cetera.
I own a PVR (not a TiVO, but a higher-end satellite receiver with PVR built-in). It's fan-frickin-tastic. My VCR has been collecting dust for the last year and a half.
And yes, I skip msot commercials. But why do I skip them? 'Cause most of them suck.
There are commercials, however, that I do watch. And often rewind and watch again. And call my wife over to watch with me. These are the funny, intelligent, clever or bizarre commercials. Like the IKEA lamp. Like one for Tourette's syndrome. . Like the Mini and Nissan ones (just 'cause those songs are infectious).
If companies just made better commericals, I don't think people would skip them as much. They skip them because they are boring... and they are everywhere.
At some point (and we've probably reached it), advertizing becomes so ubiquitous that it stops working. People tune it out. Advertisers think the solution is to put up more ads, in more places, in unexpected places. It's only going to piss people off more.
The solution is to make better ads. Why don't they realize this?
... the way the betting system worked, according to this article:
An investigation this week by the Daily Racing Form revealed that while the amount of a Pick Six bet is transmitted immediately to a central computer, the horses selected are not often transmitted until after four of the six races have been run. Skeptics believe there is a window of opportunity here to change the selections after the winners are known.
Charge the company that programmed the betting system too, why don't you!
It would be one thing if the gas-guzzlers were cheaper than the fuel-sippers -- then you could argue that your average american simply could not afford to be environmentally responsible... but it is the other way around!
Except that when you take into account the "hidden" costs of owning a gas guzzler -- the damage to the environment, the resultant healthcare costs, the reliance on foreign oil and the resulant miliary campaigns to secure it, etc. -- then SUVs and their ilk *are* more expensive.
Of course, Joe American doesn't see those costs on the sticker. Joe American probably doesn't even have half a clue about those things. He just sees a cool looking car.
In reality, this is a cultural problem... Americans tend to want "bigger-better-more"... The oil companies at capitalizing on this fact - but they are not the source of the problem.
I agree with the first statement, but I don't know so much about the second. They aren't a direct source of the problem, sure. But I bet they contribute a lot of money to make sure the government doesn't raise taxes on gasoline. Look at what they pay in Europe for gas: close to three times the price, most of that taxes earmarked for things like improving public transit, cleaning up the environment, etc..
So combine the oil companies concern for higher profits at the expense of a better environment, and car companies concern for higher profits at the expense of a better environment, and Joe American's concern for a cool looking car at the expense of the environment... and there you go.
Slashdot Mirror
Two words: "prior art".
(And yeah, I know you were being sarcastic.)
Damn right! Otherwise, I might get "Cash and Carry" confused with "Sash and Sarry", which only sells Indian women's clothing.
I don't understand how Walmart expects to sell this stuff. The price tag that is on this kind of computer will appeal to the Lowest Common Denominator customer.
Have you been to a Walmart lately? It's a mecca for the Lowest Common Denominator.
Most people "in the know" would avoid them would they not?
Most people "in the know" won't go to Walmart to buy a new box. Or if they do, it wouldn't be this one.
Most Linux geeks that I know would want high end equipment not cheap junk.
Okay, I think that is blatently untrue. Most Linux geeks I know cherish the thought of getting Linux running on "cheap junk". My laptop is a Pentium 233 with Debian. X windows is a bit slow, but useable. My desktop is a Celeron 500. Heck, we've got a server in the office that's a 486, with a 1-year-plus uptime. I often scour flea markets, garage sales and the such for computers that people think are "out-of-date" and restore them, finding a use somewhere for it (firewall, low load server, etc.).
A computer is never "out-of-date".
So I can't figure out who this is marketed at? College students? First time "trailer home" computer buyers?
Well, not you. And, really, unless you work for Walmart, that's all you need to know.
Its also readily apparent that both Microsoft and Big Media have bet the farm on DRM.
Cool. I guess we're all about to win farms.
I just read the article (it's fun, you should all try it sometime), and one of the ideas that's being touted as a good alternative to nuking the asteriod is to basically paint one side of it.
The difference in energy absorbtion/radiation on the two sides of the 'roid could be enough to produce a bit of a push and take it out of harms way.
Now, what they failed to mention in the article, which I think pretty much sends this idea to the dumpster is: what if the asteriod is rotating? That would cancel out any pushing (unless you paint one of the "poles", I suppose, but who says that's the side you "want" to paint?). Or, at the least, it would push it in unpredictable ways, which isn't a good idea.
The problem I can see is that your first blast deflects the object into a different trajectory, or splits it into a few pieces, each with different trajectories.
You would probably want to know what those trajectories were before launching your second nuke, and those are going to be hard to predict.
Otherwise, your second strike may be headed in a not-so-optimal direction.
Of course, you could put enough fuel onto the nukes to allow for some navigation after launch, but then you're opening another can of worms.
Seems the Long Room webpage is slashdotted already. There isn't much to see there anyway, as Google shows.
That'll teach you for messing with GL.
Methinks some librarian is looking for increased banner revenue...
... that we here in Canada will let you all through, eh?
That article is quite interesting. Provides a nice overview of how blue LEDs came to be, and how they came to be all the rage.
Also, a neat piece of trivia on how Blaupunkt got it's name is on the second page.
For one example, my current project is a cookbook published in the 1730's, and so far I've corrected Apricocr to Apricock and Lemon to Lemmon; in both cases the form I corrected it to was overwhelming used in the text.
/. did ask for it -- would be to leave the spelling and typos intact, if the goal is to preserve literary creations. You are potentially losing information by changing it.
"Apricocr" I can see being a legitimate typo, but perhaps in converting "Lemon" to "Lemmon", you are eradicating one of the earliest uses (intentional or not) of the now-current spelling.
My personal opinion -- and I yes, everyone on
Ask anyone who has studied the First Folio of Shakespeare about the importance of spelling.
(And just incase you don't have a Shakespeare scholar handy: since Shakespeare's plays were almost always written down after they were first performed (and written down by someone else), there are many clues to the the original performance in how certain words are spelled, capitalized and how sentences are punctuated. Hamlet's "What a piece of worke is a man" is a good example of this.)
I didn't mean to offend all you advertising producers. I, too, have friends who create ads, and what you say is absolutely correct: the creative teams often want to create catchy/funny/smart/intelligent ads.
:)
The clients, on the other hand, want something cheap (as in inexpensive). Since it's their money, they usually get it, and it is usually cheap (as in crap).
So, the message to those companies too cheap (as in miserly) to want quality ads from your creative teams: screw you, your commercials deserve to be zapped.
My ire should've been more directed towards the companies that require ads, not those that produce them. Which is what I was trying to say. Honest!
Will cable companies remove features, like the ability to skip ahead 30 which they feels gives users the ability to skip commercials? Probably. Given the choice between pleasing consumers, or pleasing advertisers and shareholders (which they're leagally bound to do!) the companies always stay with the advertisers.
... and they are everywhere.
And therein is the biggest problem in the media industry: content providers are too lazy to adapt to changes in technology, so they fight innovation to maintain the status quo.
Record companies and file sharing. Cable companies and PVRs. Et cetera.
I own a PVR (not a TiVO, but a higher-end satellite receiver with PVR built-in). It's fan-frickin-tastic. My VCR has been collecting dust for the last year and a half.
And yes, I skip msot commercials. But why do I skip them? 'Cause most of them suck.
There are commercials, however, that I do watch. And often rewind and watch again. And call my wife over to watch with me. These are the funny, intelligent, clever or bizarre commercials. Like the IKEA lamp. Like one for Tourette's syndrome. . Like the Mini and Nissan ones (just 'cause those songs are infectious).
If companies just made better commericals, I don't think people would skip them as much. They skip them because they are boring
At some point (and we've probably reached it), advertizing becomes so ubiquitous that it stops working. People tune it out. Advertisers think the solution is to put up more ads, in more places, in unexpected places. It's only going to piss people off more.
The solution is to make better ads. Why don't they realize this?
It's a FAQ. You can't disable it (without going into pico emulation mode), but you can cancel it.
A little annoyance in comparison to all the other benefits.
*cough* ... nano ...
... the /. editors take a few seconds to convert submissions with characters like ' to '.
/. homepage is full of undisplayable characters because the encoding doesn't match the content, it's a bit annying.
Picky, I know. But when the
No freaking way am I gonna trade my Hanson CDs. Not even in a simulation. I would rather ...
What? "Hansa?"
Oh. Never mind.
Are the instructions in English or metric?
Really, would it matter?
Charge the company that programmed the betting system too, why don't you!
LocustWorld seems to be down, so here's the Google cache.
I'm such a whore.
Do you honestly think that MS would access data on your computer?
Do you honestly want to give them that option?
And if it is just for Windows Update, why don't they reword the EULA then?
It would be one thing if the gas-guzzlers were cheaper than the fuel-sippers -- then you could argue that your average american simply could not afford to be environmentally responsible... but it is the other way around!
... Americans tend to want "bigger-better-more" ... The oil companies at capitalizing on this fact - but they are not the source of the problem.
... and there you go.
Except that when you take into account the "hidden" costs of owning a gas guzzler -- the damage to the environment, the resultant healthcare costs, the reliance on foreign oil and the resulant miliary campaigns to secure it, etc. -- then SUVs and their ilk *are* more expensive.
Of course, Joe American doesn't see those costs on the sticker. Joe American probably doesn't even have half a clue about those things. He just sees a cool looking car.
In reality, this is a cultural problem
I agree with the first statement, but I don't know so much about the second. They aren't a direct source of the problem, sure. But I bet they contribute a lot of money to make sure the government doesn't raise taxes on gasoline. Look at what they pay in Europe for gas: close to three times the price, most of that taxes earmarked for things like improving public transit, cleaning up the environment, etc..
So combine the oil companies concern for higher profits at the expense of a better environment, and car companies concern for higher profits at the expense of a better environment, and Joe American's concern for a cool looking car at the expense of the environment
Yeah, I know. I was making fun of the original poster.
Oh wait. That was you.
The lovely XML feed says there is an article called Mathematica and BattleBots, but it doesn't seem to exist.
A glitch in the move?
What? TLD's don't exist for the US states?
Is this internet thing, like, international or something? Call in the marines, I say!
- Colin
The two companies hope to blend their technologies to improve the lifetime of the dendrimers.
Soon I will finally see all the contributions I've made to the "Save the Dendrimer Society" and "Dendrimers Unlimited" pay off.