I think it's important to note that most nations would not do a Mars trip because they were altruistic, but because they know it would be a mighty display of technological, and yes military power. Especially India. If they do it, it will be nothing more than a display of military might, plain and simple
Excuse me for being so dense but why "especially India"? Why India in particular? Are Indians (or people with brown skin in general) particulary predisposed to using major scientific and technological advances as a means of promoting their "military might" and their strategic national intests?
Any more so than the US, the old USSR, or even China? Was the space race of the 50's, 60's and 70's an altruistic exercise? Or was it one giant propaganda exercise?
How much more did we advance our knowledge of the solar system, etc during the Apollo space programme? Did we learn anything significant that previous unmanned missions hadn't already told us? Anything that another series of unmanned missions could have taught us at a fraction of the cost of the manned missions? A: Scientifically, none whatsoever.
It's laughable that you label the future intentions of another nation as an unnecessary show of strength when, as an American (and I bet that you are indeed an American), you're a citizen of the only nation to ever drop a nuclear bomb. Twice. On a civilian population.
You know, you might laugh about it, but if you lived somewhere where even a slight variation in sea level is of major concern, say Venice or Bangladesh, then I doubt you'd be so flippant about the issue.
(Fact: Venice is sinking and many of its famous piazzas are frequently flooded. Fact: Bangladesh is under constant threat from flooding, which affects millions and kills thousands practically every year in recent history.)
I find it curious that a great number of people who comment on/. stories that have an environmental slant to them have nothing positive to add to the debate and prefer joking about the subject rather than even admit that there might be a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
If there was a small chance that toxic chemicals were seeping into your drinking water then you'd be mad to dismiss it so nonchalantly. If there was a small chance that your car's tyres were defective and could kill you then you'd be mad to ignore that too.
Similarly, if there's a small risk that your actions (together with that of the rest of the civilisation that you live in) was causing major damage to the ecosystem then you'd have to be a complete idiot to ignore the possibility.
Somehow, on/. if not elsewhere, it's fashionable to be worried about the chances of the human race being wiped out by a giant asteroid collision but it's laughable to suggest that we (and countless other species) may be at danger because of our own reckless behaviour.
A philosopher, a mathematician and a physicist are at one end of a very, very long room. An observer tells them that there's a bottle of fine whisky on a table at the other end of the room, and that they can take as many leaps as they like to get to the other side and claim the prize but that every step must cover half the remaining distance, no more, no less.
The philosopher stands still, and contemplates whether or not the table and the whisky are there at all.
The mathematician does some quick thinking, and works out that he can never really reach the table as there will always be a finite distance, no matter how small, left to cover. He too stands his ground.
The physicist sets off across the room. He makes one, two, three, four jumps until he's withing arm's length of the table, shouts "that's close enough!" and grabs the bottle for himself.
(And after all that, what did I go on to do at university? Yep, astrophysics. Part astronomy, part physics, part mathematics and, at least with the options I took, part philosophy. No wonder I'm not a scientist by profession any more.)
ITV Digital going bust had more to do with the fact that its parent companies, Carlton and Granada (the two largest regional terrestrial TV broadcasters) decided to renege on their £315 million (~US$475 million) football (the type that's played with the foot rather than the type that's played with the hand) rights contract than any technical issue.
Basically, they overspent on the live rights of domestic football's lower divisions (minor rather than major league baseball is a rough analogy) and were somehow amazed when the viewers didn't sign up in droves. After the footballing authorities refused ITV Digital's greatly reduced "take-it-or-leave-it" offer, Carlton and Granada took the easy out and let ITV Digital go into liquidation rather than bite the bullet and honour their contracts.
Currently, the Football League and its clubs are fighting a legal battle to get the money they are owed from these parent companies.
Bottom line: ITV Digital collapsed because some suits wanted to rid themselves of a less than profitable contract that they and clubs both signed in good faith.
I interviewed people for a DTP post that required people with knowledge of Quark Xpress and proofreading ability.
About 70% of the applicants got the name of the package wrong on their CV ('express').
Err, the package is called QuarkXPress, not Quark Xpress, QuarkXpress or any other derivative. One word, only one 'e' and with the 'q', 'x' and 'p' capitalised.
By the way, do you know how to spell irony? I bet you do...
Come on, I've never heard that one but the answer's got to be "nothing".
I don't know what that says about the riddle, me or people who spend days thinking of the right answer but it's hardly a tough one is it?
(My apologies if this comes across as smug and arrogant, it's not meant to be. At the very least this post provides those that weren't as instantly inspired as myself with the correct answer.)
Unless you've been living in a cave for the past two years you'd know that CDDB has been hijacked by Gracenote who've turned what was a nice, cooperative development, steadily built up by thousands of unpaid users into a private, commercial venture.
Nowadays, if you're developing commercial software that accesses the CDDB database you have to pony up licensing fees or look elsewhere.
That elsewhere is freedb. Check it out and use it instead of using CDDB.
Actually it is the British who decided where 0 degrees longitude was, and thereby the Eastern/Western hemispheres. Why do you think it runs through Greenwich Englind? If an American had first invented the Naval Chronometer instead of Harrison, 0 degrees longitude would run through Washington D.C. or New York City, and not the British Royal Naval Observatory.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You could try, but you'd fail.
Yes, the Prime Meridian (0 0' 0"), is situated at the Royal Observatory and Planetarium (that's its correct name), but its adoption as the international standard has nothing to do with the invention of the "naval chronometer" by John Harrison in 1735.
Until the nineteenth century, each country tended to keep its own zero meridian. The Prime Meridian for the world was adopted in 1884, at the International Meridian Conference in Washington DC. Twenty-five countries were represented and voted to adopt the Meridian at Greenwich as the Prime Meridian for the world. It was also agreed that longitude would be measured in two directions from the Prime Meridian, 'east longitude being plus and west longitude being minus.'
In 1960, shortly after the transfer of the Royal Greenwich Observatory to Herstmonceux (and, later, Cambridge), Flamsteed House was transferred to the National Maritime Museum's care and over the next ten years the remaining buildings on the site were also transferred. Here the collections of scientific, especially astronomical, instruments has continued to grow. Following the closure of the RGO at Cambridge in October 1998, the site is now known as the Royal Observatory Greenwich.
So, it was an internationally agreed meridian, not an imperically imposed one.
One of the main reasons why Greewich was chosen over its rivals (including the French alternative of a meridian running through the centre of the Eiffel Tower) was that Greenwich time was widely used worldwide by many industries.
Most notably, it was the standard time by which all US railroads ran their timetables. Rather than adopting yet another time system, the railroad operators preferred sticking to their existing standard for obvious reasons (familiarity and cost).
Perhaps, next time, you'll check the historical facts before you start giving history lessons.
It's called Research and Development. R&D if you will.
The one certainty for car makers is that, sometime in the very near future, they're going to have to come up with a mass market alternative to the traditional gasoline-based internal combustion engine.
This isn't a bet, it's survival. The bet would be if they weren't seriously examining the alternatives.
I know this is/., CmdrTaco's little baby, but do we really need the sensationalist headlines? Would click throughs (and, God forbid, ad revenues) plummet if the stories had less flashy but more accurate descriptions?
(No, I'm not a troll. Yes, this is on-topic. No, I'm not a whiner. Yes, I am interested in journalistic integrity.)
Fact: The vast majority of people hurt by landmines are non-combatants.
In most cases, these innocent civilians are maimed or killed long after the fighting has stopped.
Fact: Landmines are the only battlefield munition that is incapable of distinguishing between friend, foe and/or innocents.
Landmines don't care who they kill. And, once they've been planted, all control over who the mines target is left to chance.
Fact: The majority of landmines are not safely removed after their ostensible purpose has been achieved.
Only rarely does the combatant responsible for laying the mines remove them - in most cases that's one buck that's passed onto someone else. And in all cases, the cost of safely removing a mine far outstrips the cost of laying it.
Fact: The US is the only western power that refuses to rule out the future use of anti-personnel landmines and, because of this US stance many third-world nations also refuse to stop using these munitions.
It's widely accepted that the pro-landmine position of the US is hampering worldwide efforts to curb the sale and use of anti-personnel landmines. Basically, lots of countries take the position that "if the US, that bastion of human rights, won't give them up then why should we?"
And, honestly, if your own government won't make that kind of commitment, the kind of commitment that every other NATO member has willingly made, then why should you expect others to do so?
Ask yourself this: How much would the combat effectiveness of the US military, the world's most powerful, most technologically advanced, fighting force be diminished if it didn't use anti-personnel landmines? I think you know the answer
It's all very well for you to say that words often don't mean a thing - thanks for pointing out the obvious - but your clear implication is that the American position on landmines is right. Well, frankly, you couldn't be further from the truth.
Sometimes, to achieve the results you want you have to lead by example. The US could join the majority of the free world and stop using these indiscriminate killing machines. It chooses not to. And as a result, directly and indirectly, thousands of people worldwide suffer, and will continue to suffer for the foreseeable future. Way to go USA.
I find it laughable that you even attempt to raise the issue of gun control here. Well, that's a big can of worms but I doubt that even the most liberal individual would equate the right to bear arms with the right to leave killing devices randomly scattered around.
Lastly, I think it's wrong of you to suggest that blowing up innocent people in bus stops and discotheques is wrong (which of course it is) while neglecting to mention that blowing them up from the comfort of your M1 tank, Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter (as has happened recently in both Palestine and Afghanistan, courtesy of Israel and the US*) is equally morally reprehensible. There are always two sides to every story and the side with the Stars and Stripes on their banner isn't always right.
(Moderators, before you mod this down as a troll, re-read what I've written. It's on-topic honest, accurate and far more balanced than the parent comment.)
(*These aren't isolated incidents, these are just examples. It's always nice to know that your taxes help to kill innocent men, women and children. It's even nicer to know that when it happens, nobody is ever held accountable.)
Why is it that whenever there's a story mentioning Russia on/. that every patronising, xenophobic AC thinks that it's his patriotic duty to post some negative "reds-under-the-bed, they're-still-commie-bastards, huh-they're-all-drunk-on-vodka" comment?
Some simple facts for the uneducated:
1. Russia has the know-how.
Russia still has more experience of manned space flight than everyone else put together, in terms of both man hours and missions. During the 80's and 90's, when NASA shuttle launches were red letter days, the Russian space agency was putting up cosmonauts as often as they wanted to.
2. Mir, the Russian space station, was the best permenant orbiting platform ever built.
Laugh all you want, but it was a damn sight more sucessful than Skylab, NASA's 70's project. Yes, Mir's final few years were dogged by near-disasters but virtually all of those could be traced back to some bean counter cutting back the budget here and there - the technology, engineering and science wasn't to blame.
Mir was in use way past it's planned retirement date, and was the first true permenantly manned space station. A great deal of the ISS's design is based on the lessons (good and bad) learnt from Mir.
3. Going to the moon was a competitive race. Going to Mars will be a collective journey.
This isn't a road trip we're talking about. It's a voyage.
NASA can't afford to go to Mars single-handed. Neither can ESA. And neither can the Russians. The only way this is going to get done soon is through cooperation.
Yeah, cooperation. That dirty "c" word. Sometimes, you can't do everything yourself so you call in someone else, pooling resources and talent to get the job done as best as possible.
Politically, economically and scientifically, there are many reasons why such an endeavour will be one of cooperation rather than competition. As much as anything else, a Mars mission will be used to foster closer relationships between the US, Europe and Russia.
(And, before you mod this down as a troll, re-read what I've written. It makes sense. Which is more than can be said about many of the posts so far.)
A 15" TFT monitor costs about £150, add a £100 digital tuner.
A poor quality 15in. TFT screen might cost you £150 (even then I doubt it, want to provide an example? I couldn't find any.*) but this screen was particularly lauded for it's picture (and sound) quality. Now I wouldn't argue for a second that the reviewer at Empire is the foremost authority on TFT displays but, if he's reviewing a TV/PC monitor, it's fair to assume that he knows the difference between a bad picture and a good one. Which, I guess, is the most important thing to consider when talking about something that you're going to stare at for long periods of time.
This TFT includes a top-notch (again, according to the reviewer) speaker system, custom picture-in-picture software, other inputs, etc. And, something that you're perhaps overlooking, it's a stand-alone device that will work with any PC - the oldest, least impressive desktop or laptop will do. So, we're a far way away from a basic, no-name flat panel.
Of course the price is at a premium right now. These kind of devices offering simple, elegant TV/PC interaction aren't mass market solutions at the moment - when they are their prices will reflect that.
Early adopters/people who can't wait to have the latest thing accept that their paying a price premium now to have something that will be cheaper. It's not for everyone and, obviously, it's not for you. However, it might be just the right thing for others.
Just because you wouldn't buy it that doesn't make it any less valid a solution.
(* I looked for at TFTs priced between £100 and £300 at www.dabs.com, probably the UK's biggest PC retailer. The cheapest 15in. flat panel that they had available was at £265 excluding VAT, £311 including. Coincidentally, this was a Philips 150S, the display that their TV/PC display is based on. The price excluding VAT of the 150MT is £586, a difference of £321 - a lot less than you're suggesting. Even then, we're comparing the a cheap street price of one monitor to the manufacturer's quoted price of another. If you want to make comparisons, by all means do so, but please make sure that you're comparisons are real and valid and that you're not comparing apples to oranges.)
Never. The simpler something is to use, the better.
Don't confuse simple to use with basic - just because something is easy to operate it doesn't mean that it's incapable of doing some complicated things.
Many examples spring to mind but the telephone is top of my list. With my phone I can call half way around the world in just a few seconds - heck, even my two year-old nephew can.
Not that it's easily done, but have you considered approaching other independents in the wider area? Perhaps if you formed some kind of collective purchasing group you could get the price you pay for new software knocked down a bit.
It's not easy to do, and it involves more work on your part (convincing other owners that it's a good idea, then convincing the distributors, etc) but it might be worth a try. If it doesn't work then you're no worse off, if it does then you've helped your bottom line.
Check out the Philips 150MT (review here) TV/PC monitor.
I've read a recent review of this model in Empire Magazine (UK) and it sounds like a dream.
Check out some of the features:
concealed manual controls
rear SCART socket, S-Video input and XGA (1024 by 768) PC input, stereo audio in and PC audio in, side headphones socket
resizable picture-in-picture capability (watch TV while working on your PC without the need for a TV tuner card)
2 x 2.5W Nicam stereo integral speakers
The Philips got a five (out of five) star review, with the reviewer particularly impressed by the picture and sound quality, and cost £689 including taxes (which should equate to about roughly $879 before taxes in the US).
Also reviewed were the similar Bush LC-15 (£700, 2/5 stars) and the LG RE-15LA30 (£700, 4/5 stars).
Hey, I've been there too. I've worked at a software store (and managed a section) so I know where you're coming from.
We both know that 90 per cent of customers are as good as gold - they'll never give you a moment's hassle - but the other 10 per cent will test your patience. Well, frankly, that's life. Like I said, there are always going to be one or two that abuse the system.
Unfortunately, it's these 10 per cent who'll take up 50 per cent of your time - or at least it will feel that way.
I'm not going to teach you how to run your business (just like I'm not going to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs) but how you deal with that 10 per cent can make or break your business. Firm but fair works (as I'm sure you've found out yourself) but giving them a free ride or over-aggressiveness on your part doesn't (the former because it's you who foots the bill, the latter because they'll bad mouth you all over town every chance they get).
But, here's a secret: when things go genuinely wrong and you do your best to put things right, and show the customer that you're trying hard to do the right thing by them, then that customer will respect you and come back again. If you just write them off as "just one sale" though, then you'll never see (or sell to them) again.
(Just remember that, even though there are some people out there dishonest enough to treat you as a hire store, not everyone's the same. And, occasionally, you do have to give as good as you get.)
Bottom line's still the same: the better you treat your customers, the better they'll treat you.
(On a personal note, I can't say I'll be buying anything from you soon but that's because I live six time zones and several thousand miles away. All the best to you too.)
They take back, reshrink and resell software? Well, do the same thing. Except do it better.
Try offering your customers a 14-day "no questions asked" returns policy. As long as they have the receipt, and the goods are in mint condition (opened is OK, damaged in any way is not) then give them a refund if they want it.
Of course, you should try to get some customer feedback - find out why the game is being returned, whether it won't run, they can't get past the first mission, or it's just not suitable for little Johnny - and try to be as helpful as possible. Where appropriate, suggest alternative courses of action - ask if customers tried downloading relevant drivers and patches, tell them how to beat the first bad guy or sell them a hint book, or suggest an alternative title instead. But always stick to the policy - if the customer wants his money back, then give it to him.
Sure, going down this route has a drawback. There are always going to be one or two that abuse the system - you'll spot them the fifth time they return a game without ever keeping a selection -but they come with the territory. (There are ways of dealing with those kinds of customers on an individual basis, such as not selling to them at all, but better to ignore them in the long run. Just let them know you're watching them and that'll do the trick 90 per cent of the time.)
But the real benefit of this policy (providing you promote and advertise it properly) is that people who wouldn't normally come into your store will walk across your threshhold. They'll come in and buy stuff - whether it's for themselves, their kids or whoever - because they'll have peace of mind that if something goes wrong then they won't be stuck with a turkey. And once they've had a good customer service experience they'll come back for more and bring their friends with them.
The bottom line is this: the better you treat your customers, the better they'll treat you. Give them great prices and great customer service and they'll never shop elsewhere again.
(Oh yeah, and if you're feeling real creative, try putting together some kind of customer reward scheme - buy ten titles get the next one free, that sort of thing. Or promote games as they launch - free stuff, like posters, with new titles. Bonus rewards for preordering upcoming releases. If you give it, they will come.)
You would think that after the rolling black/brownouts they've experienced in the last year or so that Californians would be more conscientious of the need to conserve energy wherever possible.
But, from what my friends in SF and LA tell me, the average Joe is still getting through as much power as before, if not more, despite the rise in the price of electricity.
Any/. readers from California reading this who care to offer a first hand perspective? Are you using just as much energy as before the current crisis? Have you taken any measures to cut down on your consumption? What's your local government doing to promote energy efficiency?
Some detailed on the ground information would be appreciated.
Gee, you think that a movie that you haven't seen and won't see for another film is the height of cool? Boy, have I got a bridge for you.
OK, I'll acknowledge that the sequels to The Matrix will most likely be stunning but, unless you can see the future or are wearing blinkers, you've got to at least acknowledge that the sequels might turn out to be a pile of pants.
And before you scream "Never!" consider this evidence: Robocop 2 and 3, The Godfather Part III, Star Wars Episode I, Highlander 2, Rocky 2+, Police Academy 2+...
Just because the first film was fantastic it doesn't automatically follow that the next ones will be too.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's important to note that most nations would not do a Mars trip because they were altruistic, but because they know it would be a mighty display of technological, and yes military power. Especially India. If they do it, it will be nothing more than a display of military might, plain and simple
Excuse me for being so dense but why "especially India"? Why India in particular? Are Indians (or people with brown skin in general) particulary predisposed to using major scientific and technological advances as a means of promoting their "military might" and their strategic national intests?
Any more so than the US, the old USSR, or even China? Was the space race of the 50's, 60's and 70's an altruistic exercise? Or was it one giant propaganda exercise?
How much more did we advance our knowledge of the solar system, etc during the Apollo space programme? Did we learn anything significant that previous unmanned missions hadn't already told us? Anything that another series of unmanned missions could have taught us at a fraction of the cost of the manned missions? A: Scientifically, none whatsoever.
It's laughable that you label the future intentions of another nation as an unnecessary show of strength when, as an American (and I bet that you are indeed an American), you're a citizen of the only nation to ever drop a nuclear bomb. Twice. On a civilian population.
You know, you might laugh about it, but if you lived somewhere where even a slight variation in sea level is of major concern, say Venice or Bangladesh, then I doubt you'd be so flippant about the issue.
/. stories that have an environmental slant to them have nothing positive to add to the debate and prefer joking about the subject rather than even admit that there might be a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
/. if not elsewhere, it's fashionable to be worried about the chances of the human race being wiped out by a giant asteroid collision but it's laughable to suggest that we (and countless other species) may be at danger because of our own reckless behaviour.
(Fact: Venice is sinking and many of its famous piazzas are frequently flooded. Fact: Bangladesh is under constant threat from flooding, which affects millions and kills thousands practically every year in recent history.)
I find it curious that a great number of people who comment on
If there was a small chance that toxic chemicals were seeping into your drinking water then you'd be mad to dismiss it so nonchalantly. If there was a small chance that your car's tyres were defective and could kill you then you'd be mad to ignore that too.
Similarly, if there's a small risk that your actions (together with that of the rest of the civilisation that you live in) was causing major damage to the ecosystem then you'd have to be a complete idiot to ignore the possibility.
Somehow, on
This one came from my old chemistry teacher:
A philosopher, a mathematician and a physicist are at one end of a very, very long room. An observer tells them that there's a bottle of fine whisky on a table at the other end of the room, and that they can take as many leaps as they like to get to the other side and claim the prize but that every step must cover half the remaining distance, no more, no less.
The philosopher stands still, and contemplates whether or not the table and the whisky are there at all.
The mathematician does some quick thinking, and works out that he can never really reach the table as there will always be a finite distance, no matter how small, left to cover. He too stands his ground.
The physicist sets off across the room. He makes one, two, three, four jumps until he's withing arm's length of the table, shouts "that's close enough!" and grabs the bottle for himself.
(And after all that, what did I go on to do at university? Yep, astrophysics. Part astronomy, part physics, part mathematics and, at least with the options I took, part philosophy. No wonder I'm not a scientist by profession any more.)
ITV Digital going bust had more to do with the fact that its parent companies, Carlton and Granada (the two largest regional terrestrial TV broadcasters) decided to renege on their £315 million (~US$475 million) football (the type that's played with the foot rather than the type that's played with the hand ) rights contract than any technical issue.
Basically, they overspent on the live rights of domestic football's lower divisions (minor rather than major league baseball is a rough analogy) and were somehow amazed when the viewers didn't sign up in droves. After the footballing authorities refused ITV Digital's greatly reduced "take-it-or-leave-it" offer, Carlton and Granada took the easy out and let ITV Digital go into liquidation rather than bite the bullet and honour their contracts.
Currently, the Football League and its clubs are fighting a legal battle to get the money they are owed from these parent companies.
Bottom line: ITV Digital collapsed because some suits wanted to rid themselves of a less than profitable contract that they and clubs both signed in good faith.
I interviewed people for a DTP post that required people with knowledge of Quark Xpress and proofreading ability.
About 70% of the applicants got the name of the package wrong on their CV ('express').
Err, the package is called QuarkXPress, not Quark Xpress, QuarkXpress or any other derivative. One word, only one 'e' and with the 'q', 'x' and 'p' capitalised.
By the way, do you know how to spell irony? I bet you do...
Come on, I've never heard that one but the answer's got to be "nothing".
I don't know what that says about the riddle, me or people who spend days thinking of the right answer but it's hardly a tough one is it?
(My apologies if this comes across as smug and arrogant, it's not meant to be. At the very least this post provides those that weren't as instantly inspired as myself with the correct answer.)
Unless you've been living in a cave for the past two years you'd know that CDDB has been hijacked by Gracenote who've turned what was a nice, cooperative development, steadily built up by thousands of unpaid users into a private, commercial venture.
Nowadays, if you're developing commercial software that accesses the CDDB database you have to pony up licensing fees or look elsewhere.
That elsewhere is freedb. Check it out and use it instead of using CDDB.
Actually it is the British who decided where 0 degrees longitude was, and thereby the Eastern/Western hemispheres. Why do you think it runs through Greenwich Englind? If an American had first invented the Naval Chronometer instead of Harrison, 0 degrees longitude would run through Washington D.C. or New York City, and not the British Royal Naval Observatory.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You could try, but you'd fail.
Yes, the Prime Meridian (0 0' 0"), is situated at the Royal Observatory and Planetarium (that's its correct name), but its adoption as the international standard has nothing to do with the invention of the "naval chronometer" by John Harrison in 1735.
I'll let the Observatory's own pages tell the story:
Until the nineteenth century, each country tended to keep its own zero meridian. The Prime Meridian for the world was adopted in 1884, at the International Meridian Conference in Washington DC. Twenty-five countries were represented and voted to adopt the Meridian at Greenwich as the Prime Meridian for the world. It was also agreed that longitude would be measured in two directions from the Prime Meridian, 'east longitude being plus and west longitude being minus.'
In 1960, shortly after the transfer of the Royal Greenwich Observatory to Herstmonceux (and, later, Cambridge), Flamsteed House was transferred to the National Maritime Museum's care and over the next ten years the remaining buildings on the site were also transferred. Here the collections of scientific, especially astronomical, instruments has continued to grow. Following the closure of the RGO at Cambridge in October 1998, the site is now known as the Royal Observatory Greenwich.
So, it was an internationally agreed meridian, not an imperically imposed one.
One of the main reasons why Greewich was chosen over its rivals (including the French alternative of a meridian running through the centre of the Eiffel Tower) was that Greenwich time was widely used worldwide by many industries.
Most notably, it was the standard time by which all US railroads ran their timetables. Rather than adopting yet another time system, the railroad operators preferred sticking to their existing standard for obvious reasons (familiarity and cost).
Perhaps, next time, you'll check the historical facts before you start giving history lessons.
Gee, that's one unit upgrade that Blizzard obviously forgot to include in Warcraft III.
A plough here, a grain store there, and voila, +50% to your food output. I'm surprised that nobody's thought of it before...
My point? Enough with the bitching about the spelling/grammar. Most of people here aren't any better and of the remainder most don't care.
Surely you meant one of the following:
1. Most of people here aren't any better and, of the remainder, most don't care.
2. Most of people here aren't any better, and most of the remainder don't care.
Hey, even grammar nazis need grammar nazis.
It's called Research and Development. R&D if you will.
/., CmdrTaco's little baby, but do we really need the sensationalist headlines? Would click throughs (and, God forbid, ad revenues) plummet if the stories had less flashy but more accurate descriptions?
The one certainty for car makers is that, sometime in the very near future, they're going to have to come up with a mass market alternative to the traditional gasoline-based internal combustion engine.
This isn't a bet, it's survival. The bet would be if they weren't seriously examining the alternatives.
I know this is
(No, I'm not a troll. Yes, this is on-topic. No, I'm not a whiner. Yes, I am interested in journalistic integrity.)
Stop trolling and look at the facts.
Fact: The vast majority of people hurt by landmines are non-combatants.
In most cases, these innocent civilians are maimed or killed long after the fighting has stopped.
Fact: Landmines are the only battlefield munition that is incapable of distinguishing between friend, foe and/or innocents.
Landmines don't care who they kill. And, once they've been planted, all control over who the mines target is left to chance.
Fact: The majority of landmines are not safely removed after their ostensible purpose has been achieved.
Only rarely does the combatant responsible for laying the mines remove them - in most cases that's one buck that's passed onto someone else. And in all cases, the cost of safely removing a mine far outstrips the cost of laying it.
Fact: The US is the only western power that refuses to rule out the future use of anti-personnel landmines and, because of this US stance many third-world nations also refuse to stop using these munitions.
It's widely accepted that the pro-landmine position of the US is hampering worldwide efforts to curb the sale and use of anti-personnel landmines. Basically, lots of countries take the position that "if the US, that bastion of human rights, won't give them up then why should we?"
And, honestly, if your own government won't make that kind of commitment, the kind of commitment that every other NATO member has willingly made, then why should you expect others to do so?
Ask yourself this: How much would the combat effectiveness of the US military, the world's most powerful, most technologically advanced, fighting force be diminished if it didn't use anti-personnel landmines? I think you know the answer
It's all very well for you to say that words often don't mean a thing - thanks for pointing out the obvious - but your clear implication is that the American position on landmines is right. Well, frankly, you couldn't be further from the truth.
Sometimes, to achieve the results you want you have to lead by example. The US could join the majority of the free world and stop using these indiscriminate killing machines. It chooses not to. And as a result, directly and indirectly, thousands of people worldwide suffer, and will continue to suffer for the foreseeable future. Way to go USA.
I find it laughable that you even attempt to raise the issue of gun control here. Well, that's a big can of worms but I doubt that even the most liberal individual would equate the right to bear arms with the right to leave killing devices randomly scattered around.
Lastly, I think it's wrong of you to suggest that blowing up innocent people in bus stops and discotheques is wrong (which of course it is) while neglecting to mention that blowing them up from the comfort of your M1 tank, Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter (as has happened recently in both Palestine and Afghanistan, courtesy of Israel and the US*) is equally morally reprehensible. There are always two sides to every story and the side with the Stars and Stripes on their banner isn't always right.
(Moderators, before you mod this down as a troll, re-read what I've written. It's on-topic honest, accurate and far more balanced than the parent comment.)
(*These aren't isolated incidents, these are just examples. It's always nice to know that your taxes help to kill innocent men, women and children. It's even nicer to know that when it happens, nobody is ever held accountable.)
Why is it that whenever there's a story mentioning Russia on /. that every patronising, xenophobic AC thinks that it's his patriotic duty to post some negative "reds-under-the-bed, they're-still-commie-bastards, huh-they're-all-drunk-on-vodka" comment?
Some simple facts for the uneducated:
1. Russia has the know-how.
Russia still has more experience of manned space flight than everyone else put together, in terms of both man hours and missions. During the 80's and 90's, when NASA shuttle launches were red letter days, the Russian space agency was putting up cosmonauts as often as they wanted to.
2. Mir, the Russian space station, was the best permenant orbiting platform ever built.
Laugh all you want, but it was a damn sight more sucessful than Skylab, NASA's 70's project. Yes, Mir's final few years were dogged by near-disasters but virtually all of those could be traced back to some bean counter cutting back the budget here and there - the technology, engineering and science wasn't to blame.
Mir was in use way past it's planned retirement date, and was the first true permenantly manned space station. A great deal of the ISS's design is based on the lessons (good and bad) learnt from Mir.
3. Going to the moon was a competitive race. Going to Mars will be a collective journey.
This isn't a road trip we're talking about. It's a voyage.
NASA can't afford to go to Mars single-handed. Neither can ESA. And neither can the Russians. The only way this is going to get done soon is through cooperation.
Yeah, cooperation. That dirty "c" word. Sometimes, you can't do everything yourself so you call in someone else, pooling resources and talent to get the job done as best as possible.
Politically, economically and scientifically, there are many reasons why such an endeavour will be one of cooperation rather than competition. As much as anything else, a Mars mission will be used to foster closer relationships between the US, Europe and Russia.
(And, before you mod this down as a troll, re-read what I've written. It makes sense. Which is more than can be said about many of the posts so far.)
A 15" TFT monitor costs about £150, add a £100 digital tuner.
A poor quality 15in. TFT screen might cost you £150 (even then I doubt it, want to provide an example? I couldn't find any.*) but this screen was particularly lauded for it's picture (and sound) quality. Now I wouldn't argue for a second that the reviewer at Empire is the foremost authority on TFT displays but, if he's reviewing a TV/PC monitor, it's fair to assume that he knows the difference between a bad picture and a good one. Which, I guess, is the most important thing to consider when talking about something that you're going to stare at for long periods of time.
This TFT includes a top-notch (again, according to the reviewer) speaker system, custom picture-in-picture software, other inputs, etc. And, something that you're perhaps overlooking, it's a stand-alone device that will work with any PC - the oldest, least impressive desktop or laptop will do. So, we're a far way away from a basic, no-name flat panel.
Of course the price is at a premium right now. These kind of devices offering simple, elegant TV/PC interaction aren't mass market solutions at the moment - when they are their prices will reflect that.
Early adopters/people who can't wait to have the latest thing accept that their paying a price premium now to have something that will be cheaper. It's not for everyone and, obviously, it's not for you. However, it might be just the right thing for others.
Just because you wouldn't buy it that doesn't make it any less valid a solution.
(* I looked for at TFTs priced between £100 and £300 at www.dabs.com, probably the UK's biggest PC retailer. The cheapest 15in. flat panel that they had available was at £265 excluding VAT, £311 including. Coincidentally, this was a Philips 150S, the display that their TV/PC display is based on. The price excluding VAT of the 150MT is £586, a difference of £321 - a lot less than you're suggesting. Even then, we're comparing the a cheap street price of one monitor to the manufacturer's quoted price of another. If you want to make comparisons, by all means do so, but please make sure that you're comparisons are real and valid and that you're not comparing apples to oranges.)
Never. The simpler something is to use, the better.
Don't confuse simple to use with basic - just because something is easy to operate it doesn't mean that it's incapable of doing some complicated things.
Many examples spring to mind but the telephone is top of my list. With my phone I can call half way around the world in just a few seconds - heck, even my two year-old nephew can.
Wow, those margins are real tight.
Not that it's easily done, but have you considered approaching other independents in the wider area? Perhaps if you formed some kind of collective purchasing group you could get the price you pay for new software knocked down a bit.
It's not easy to do, and it involves more work on your part (convincing other owners that it's a good idea, then convincing the distributors, etc) but it might be worth a try. If it doesn't work then you're no worse off, if it does then you've helped your bottom line.
so I pent less then £300 on a 28" widescreen. not great, but cheap. you look at £700 on a 15"? Whats the world coming too :roll eyes:
Follow the link. It's a 15in. TFT flat panel, not a CRT. You get what you pay for.
I've read a recent review of this model in Empire Magazine (UK) and it sounds like a dream.
Check out some of the features:
- concealed manual controls
- rear SCART socket, S-Video input and XGA (1024 by 768) PC input, stereo audio in and PC audio in, side headphones socket
- resizable picture-in-picture capability (watch TV while working on your PC without the need for a TV tuner card)
- 2 x 2.5W Nicam stereo integral speakers
The Philips got a five (out of five) star review, with the reviewer particularly impressed by the picture and sound quality, and cost £689 including taxes (which should equate to about roughly $879 before taxes in the US).Also reviewed were the similar Bush LC-15 (£700, 2/5 stars) and the LG RE-15LA30 (£700, 4/5 stars).
Hope that helps.
Hey, I've been there too. I've worked at a software store (and managed a section) so I know where you're coming from.
We both know that 90 per cent of customers are as good as gold - they'll never give you a moment's hassle - but the other 10 per cent will test your patience. Well, frankly, that's life. Like I said, there are always going to be one or two that abuse the system.
Unfortunately, it's these 10 per cent who'll take up 50 per cent of your time - or at least it will feel that way.
I'm not going to teach you how to run your business (just like I'm not going to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs) but how you deal with that 10 per cent can make or break your business. Firm but fair works (as I'm sure you've found out yourself) but giving them a free ride or over-aggressiveness on your part doesn't (the former because it's you who foots the bill, the latter because they'll bad mouth you all over town every chance they get).
But, here's a secret: when things go genuinely wrong and you do your best to put things right, and show the customer that you're trying hard to do the right thing by them, then that customer will respect you and come back again. If you just write them off as "just one sale" though, then you'll never see (or sell to them) again.
(Just remember that, even though there are some people out there dishonest enough to treat you as a hire store, not everyone's the same. And, occasionally, you do have to give as good as you get.)
Bottom line's still the same: the better you treat your customers, the better they'll treat you.
(On a personal note, I can't say I'll be buying anything from you soon but that's because I live six time zones and several thousand miles away. All the best to you too.)
The link appears to be slashdotted.. 2 minutes after the story was posted.
Don't you mean 0.12 kiloseconds?
They take back, reshrink and resell software? Well, do the same thing. Except do it better.
Try offering your customers a 14-day "no questions asked" returns policy. As long as they have the receipt, and the goods are in mint condition (opened is OK, damaged in any way is not) then give them a refund if they want it.
Of course, you should try to get some customer feedback - find out why the game is being returned, whether it won't run, they can't get past the first mission, or it's just not suitable for little Johnny - and try to be as helpful as possible. Where appropriate, suggest alternative courses of action - ask if customers tried downloading relevant drivers and patches, tell them how to beat the first bad guy or sell them a hint book, or suggest an alternative title instead. But always stick to the policy - if the customer wants his money back, then give it to him.
Sure, going down this route has a drawback. There are always going to be one or two that abuse the system - you'll spot them the fifth time they return a game without ever keeping a selection -but they come with the territory. (There are ways of dealing with those kinds of customers on an individual basis, such as not selling to them at all, but better to ignore them in the long run. Just let them know you're watching them and that'll do the trick 90 per cent of the time.)
But the real benefit of this policy (providing you promote and advertise it properly) is that people who wouldn't normally come into your store will walk across your threshhold. They'll come in and buy stuff - whether it's for themselves, their kids or whoever - because they'll have peace of mind that if something goes wrong then they won't be stuck with a turkey. And once they've had a good customer service experience they'll come back for more and bring their friends with them.
The bottom line is this: the better you treat your customers, the better they'll treat you. Give them great prices and great customer service and they'll never shop elsewhere again.
(Oh yeah, and if you're feeling real creative, try putting together some kind of customer reward scheme - buy ten titles get the next one free, that sort of thing. Or promote games as they launch - free stuff, like posters, with new titles. Bonus rewards for preordering upcoming releases. If you give it, they will come.)
Good luck.
You would think that after the rolling black/brownouts they've experienced in the last year or so that Californians would be more conscientious of the need to conserve energy wherever possible.
/. readers from California reading this who care to offer a first hand perspective? Are you using just as much energy as before the current crisis? Have you taken any measures to cut down on your consumption? What's your local government doing to promote energy efficiency?
But, from what my friends in SF and LA tell me, the average Joe is still getting through as much power as before, if not more, despite the rise in the price of electricity.
Any
Some detailed on the ground information would be appreciated.
Gee, you think that a movie that you haven't seen and won't see for another film is the height of cool? Boy, have I got a bridge for you.
Apologies. That obviously should have read:
Gee, you think that a movie that you haven't seen and won't see for another year is the height of cool? Boy, have I got a bridge for you.
Yet another reminder that the Preview button is your friend.
Look at... The Matrix:Revolution
Gee, you think that a movie that you haven't seen and won't see for another film is the height of cool? Boy, have I got a bridge for you.
OK, I'll acknowledge that the sequels to The Matrix will most likely be stunning but, unless you can see the future or are wearing blinkers, you've got to at least acknowledge that the sequels might turn out to be a pile of pants.
And before you scream "Never!" consider this evidence: Robocop 2 and 3, The Godfather Part III, Star Wars Episode I, Highlander 2, Rocky 2+, Police Academy 2+...
Just because the first film was fantastic it doesn't automatically follow that the next ones will be too.
1. The Japanese have a national obsession with gadgets. They just can't get enough of them.
2. Japanese companies will give Japanese consumers what they want.
What's next on Slate? Articles telling us that Italians like pasta, Russians like vodka and Brazilians like football?