On the contrary...I would say that putting something that once made everyone who saw/heard about it say "Holy s**t, can they do that?" within the reach of the average person to be a very important milestone in any technological development. Fancy technology is great, but if it doesn't eventually have an effect on everyday life, then, once you get beyond the "cool" factor, there's not much left for the average person to appreciate. Bringing new stuff to the masses may not be as revolutionary as inventing some incredible new technology, but I would still call it a "milestone."
Well...when I said "in the end," I was thinking of the really big picture. The technology to do this is out there, and it would be very difficult for even the megacorps and the government to make it vanish entirely. I, too, can easily see how the government could become as oppressive as you say...but even if they do, it's very unlikely that such a regime would last forever, or encompass the entire human race. Our lives may well suck, and maybe the lives of our children, but the technology to exchange information will probably survive somewhere, somehow, and will eventually be put to use when the current regime fails, or when those who dislike it do indeed find somewhere else to go.
The corporations are doing their best to retard our development of information distribution, or even set us back several years, and they may succeed for a while, unfortunatly. But eventually, every regime changes, or falls, or loses some of its subjects to a "New World", wherever that may be. Sadly, that doesn't neccesarily help those of us in the here and now...
There are levels of distinction and laws which forbid certain types of speech. In general, "personal" speech (non-commercial) enjoys more Constitutional protection than commercial speech. For example, it is illegal for companies to misrepresent or lie about their products. There are laws about what descriptive phrases or words can appear on product labels (i.e. "low-fat", "fat-free").
Even personal speech is not protected 100%. Libel, slander, harassment, assault, death threats, etc. are all illegal, and the First Amendment does not protect them. Other things and actions which could be defined as "forms of expression" (I use the term loosely) like child pornography and public nudity can also be made illegal, and are not considered protected.
That said, I disagree with most of the judge's arguments here. Especially the part about "fair use" not being interfered with because it is still "possible" to excercise fair-use rights, it's just harder. *That* is a slippery slope indeed. You could argue that, because it is theoretically possible to take a random clump of matter and rearrange the subatomic particles contained within it to form an exact duplicate of a "protected" work, it is perfectly all right to do away with every other concievable method of duplicating said work for fair use. Sure, it's more difficult to construct a duplicate from the subatomic level, but hey, it's still *possible*, right?
As for the whole IP market...what all of this boils down to is that companies who make their living "selling" intellectual property are losing their control over the distribution. The trouble is, almost all IP is abstract. It's just a bunch of ideas. There is no physical component to sell. In theory, in a true free market, it would be impossible to sell ideas, because they are not limited resources. Yes, it is possible to run out of NEW ideas...but once an idea exists, it could, in theory, be distributed to every being on this planet with no limitations. Everyone can possess the same idea without taking it away from anyone else.
Those who sell IP have always relied on the fact that in order to spread those ideas reliably, a physical medium is neccesary...and since this physical medium is a limited resource, it can be sold. Books, music cassettes, VHS tapes...they are all physical, limited objects. If you have a book, you can't give it to your neighbor and keep reading it yourself at the same time...so if you both want to read it, you both have to buy a book. Duplicating the book yourself is certainly possible. You can memorize it, transcribe it, or even photocopy it. But these methods are all expensive in terms of time or money, and the results are not as reliable. IP merchants were able to use these physical limitations to exert control over the market and artificially inflate the price of their ideas.
The digital age, however, in one swift stroke, has destroyed that physical limitation which allowed IP to be sold like it was a limited physical resource. Now, suddenly, it is fast, easy, and cheap to take a single copy of an Intellectual Property and make hundreds, thousands, even millions of copies of it...copies that are indistinguishable from the original.
For humanity, this is a wonderful thing. Now ideas can be shared with millions of people at a tiny fraction of what it would cost a decade ago, with no need to worry about having to tie them up in artificial physical limitations. But for those companies who have been profiting for years on the artificial scarcity of IP in the physical world, it's an absolute nightmare. Their control is gone. Their entire business model is crashing and burning around them. That's why they are buying Congressmen and new laws like they're on clearance at Wal-Mart. They aren't concerned about this new world of almost limitless, extremely low-cost distribution of IP. They aren't apprehensive. They're freaking terrified.
The trouble is, all of these IP merchants are obsolete. They're outdated. They're not needed anymore...or won't be needed for much longer. They're going the way of the horsed carriage and the typewriter. Or, at least, they should be. But they're putting up one hell of a fight. They don't like this brave new world, so they're doing their damndest to reverse the progress we've made to reach this point. I don't think they will succeed in the long run. They can't undo what's been done, no matter how much money they throw at Congress and the lawmakers. Eventually, they will wither away and die, or adapt to the new environment. But I fear that they are going to make the transision as painful for everyone around them as they can before they do.
It's really unfortunate. Here, we have the ability to pass ideas in many formats (verbal, audible, visual) to a vast number of people at once at a relatively low cost. It's the next best thing to matter replication. But a few greedy corporations, trying desperately to hold on to a dying business model, are trying to destroy this ability, or at the least, to cripple it, reduce it to a fraction of it's current usefulness...all in the name of their own profit margins. Sad, sad times...
Technically, there is no plural of "LEGO" (yes, all caps) because LEGO is a trademark name, not a noun. There is no such thing as "a LEGO." The correct term would be "LEGO piece" or "LEGO element" or "LEGO brick." Remember, all trademarks are technically descriptive adjectives when used in product names, not nouns.
However, outside the world of official trademarks, most people I've ever heard refer to LEGO bricks as simply "Legos" or (when the context is already established) just "bricks" or "pieces". Just like people say they had "Pop-Tarts" for breakfast or "some Oreos" for dessert. Technically, there is no such thing as "a Pop-Tart" or "an Oreo" or "a can of Spam", only "Pop-Tarts toaster pastries" and "Oreo chocolate sandwich cookies" and "SPAM luncheon meat"...but in casual conversation, people usually make the trademark into a noun. Actually, this is something companies have to watch out for, in more "official" media like the press or television, because if they allow their trademark name to be used in too widespread fashion as a generic noun, it will become invalidated, and they will lose it...like Trampoline, Asprin, and many other companies' trademarks have in the past.
Sorry, but I have to quibble with one of your points...
Just because we don't know why some things happed does not mean there is some supernatural reason behind it.
Well...supernatural means "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe," according to M-W. So...if we don't know how something occurred, because we can't observe what is causing or allowing it to occur, that would make it, by definition, supernatural.
Now, supernatural does NOT mean that there is not a logical, rational, 100% scientific explanation for it. There is a logical, rational, 100% scientific explanation for everything. And I do mean *everything*. However, we have not (yet) developed the science to explain 99.999% of it.
Think about this...five hundred years ago, no one knew that everything in the material world was made up of atoms. Nobody had ever perceived a single atom. No scientific tests at that time could have proven or disproven the hypothesis that everything is made of atoms. Scientists could have tried everything they knew to test such an idea, and all their tests would have failed. Why? Because scientists were simply unable to observe atoms as individual units. At that time, they were, quite literally, of an "order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"...in other words, supernatural.
Does that mean that atoms didn't exist five hundred years ago? Almost certainly not. Yet if someone back then had suggested the ludicrous idea that everything around them was made up of impossibly tiny particles, which themselves were almost entirely empty space, they would have been laughed at at best, locked up as madmen or heretics at worse. And then, after just a few centuries, that ridiculous, "impossible" notion suddenly becomes hard scientific fact.
It seems quite reasonable to me that the experiences and occurances we refer to as "paranormal" or "supernatural" today may become the scientific facts of tomorrow. Just because today's science cannot prove such things is no reason to dismiss them as hokum and nonsense, or impossible, any more than the fact that no one knew about atoms a few centuries back is any reason to assume they didn't exist.
Science is a wonderful tool for bettering ourselves and learning about our existance. It helps to keep in mind, however, that science is basically nothing more than verifying that certain actions we take produce certain results within the incredibly miniscule slice of perception we have available to us. Beyond this tiny pinhole we look through, we have no idea what goes on out there. To assume that what we perceive through that pinhole constitutes all or even a significant portion of reality is foolish in the extreme.
Actually, www.truepath.com is a free Christian web hosting service...so it's quite possible that this particular member is having some fun...;)
Of course, the author does have several other articles up there. Like the Apple one, it's hard to tell whether he is being humorous or serious in them. Half his writings sound like tongue-in-cheek exaggerated Christian zealotry, and half sound like somewhat serious arguments (though these are usually backed up only by "Because the Bible tells us so...").
Whether intentionally or unintentionally, his stuff is still pretty funny. I hope he truly isn't as paranoid about "Evolutionists" as it seems from his writing, though... I have the utmost respect for any and all belief systems, but it's pretty sad to go through life thinking that everyone who believes differently than you do is out to get you and corrupt your soul...:-/
I suppose it depends on the job you have. When I'm at my job, I'm expected to work, not goof off. I am "actually" doing something all the time. I can't recall any time since I've started working that there was nothing that I was supposed to be working on while I was clocked in. If I'm "slacking off" instead of doing it, then I'm not doing my job.
Obviously, I don't work for eight hours straight. That's what breaks and lunches are for. Work a couple of hours, take a break, work a couple more hours, go eat lunch. On my break, I'll read a book, check Slashdot, whatever relaxes me. But I still don't do anything that I would get in trouble for if my employer found out, so they can keep logs of my web "surfing" during breaks if they want. I'm usually visiting sites that have a relevance to my field, anyway. I don't spend my break time posting company secrets to F*ckedCompany.com or griping about work over AIM, first because I have no desire to do so (I happen to like my job and the company I work for...;) ), and second, even if I DID have the desire, doing that from my workstation at work would just be stupid.
Yes, but there's a large difference between ICQing a coworker to ask about a business-related issue and jabbering with your buddies on AIM for hours on end. One is a perfectly valid activity while working. The other is slacking off, and will probably get you in trouble. The solution is to avoid the second activity. Do you really care if your employer is recording the IM you sent to Joe down the hall asking if he knew the correct syntax for some obscure Perl command, or when the next meeting was scheduled for?
The company I work for, for instance, uses an internal ICQ server and the corporate ICQ client for interoffice IM, and doesn't allow any other IM clients. This lets people communicate internally without a problem, but keeps them from wasting time on idle chats with outside friends.
I never buy used books.:) Unless it's a school text, does anyone?
Very often, actually. I will often pick up used books at garage sales, thrift shops, and other such places. I can get the same book that's currently selling for $8 at B&N for a buck or two. Obviously, I don't buy books that are badly mangled (or smell...smokers' books are nasty...;) ). What I don't buy used, I usually get from the library.
The fact is, I'm a fast reader, so unless a book is good enough for me to read several times, it's not worth buying...and not many books are worth paying the $7-9 that most publishers charge for paperbacks these days.
In all seriousness, has anyone ever thought about the price of your average paperback? Ten years ago, you could buy a new paperback for $3-4. Today, that price has almost doubled. In many cases, it is the *exact same book*, just republished, that is now costing twice as much as it did a few years ago. Where is the justification in that? I doubt publishing costs have risen that much in the last decade. With an older book, the author was paid any "up-front" money a loooong time ago, so there's no advance to recover. The price has risen far faster than any inflation could account for. Seems like plain, simple greed to me...
At home: 17" TTX 1787 CRT, 800x600, 100hz. Higher resolution = harder to see stuff, less refresh rate = instant killer headache.;)
At work...usually a 17" generic CRT at 800x600, 85hz (damn cheap embedded video systems...ow, my head...;) )
On most monitors, I have to have the brightness/contrast maxed out, unless it's a brand-new high-quality screen. Dark monitors also give me headaches.;)
I detest LCD screens. I have never seen one I would consider using except on a laptop or somewhere else where portability was essential. Every LCD I've looked at (even the really good ones) has annoying color shifts as I change my viewing angle, fuzzy screens, poor motion display, and are usually far too dim and faded for me to use for extended periods. Not to mention the fact that they're usually "best viewed at" some ungodly high resolution that I can't see with or without my glasses (said glasses make a 17" screen appear about 13-14"...:-/ ). No thanks. I'll stick with my nice, crisp, bright, sharp CRT, thanks;)
A very good point. However, it brings up yet another flaw in the original idea: You could copyright the result, even if it is just a sequence of noise generated from some encoding of a DNA sequence, but that would NOT give you ownership of the thing you used to make it, any more than Marcel Duchamp owns the design of his "Fountain" urinal.
Odd...personally, I find that the brighter the monitor is, the easier it is to read the text. Obviously, too much brightness is bad (when blacks look washed out, that ain't good...;) ), but on most monitors I've used, I have to turn up the brightness most or all of the way to get a decent image that I can see well, and even then I occasionally wish it was better. Maybe that's just cause I spend too much time on old/crappy monitors...;)
To the original poster: As for advice on monitors...well, first I'd suggest checking with your optomitrist, as several others have said. They're best equipped to tell you at least how to avoid things that could strain or damage your eyes more than neccesary. Beyond that, I'm not sure how much advice I can give you, since I don't suffer from your particular condition.
Personally, I suffer from pretty serious nearsightedness. I'm not legally blind, but my vision is pretty bad without glasses. Anything up to a foot away is fine, after that, it degrades pretty quickly. I can read my jumbo alarm clock from across the room if I squint right. At work, I wear glasses when on the computer, but at home, I usually do without and just sit closer to the screen. Eyestrain has never been a problem for me...dunno why, though.
I have a 17" monitor (TTX 1787 for those who care;) ), and I run at 800x600 at 100Hz. I can't use any higher resolution on a 17" screen (even with my glasses; they make everything about 25-30% smaller than it really is, which makes high res even worse;) ), and my monitor doesn't support 100Hz refresh rates on higher resolutions anyway. (I happen to be one of those who are very sensitive to refresh rates; any static images below 85Hz will give me a headache after a few hours, and below 75Hz is intolerable for even a short time. Even at 100Hz I can still see the flicker sometimes...)
Another oddity I've noticed is that I cannot stand dark screens. Most people I know like darker screens and say that brighter monitors make their eyes hurt. I've always been the opposite way; dim monitors give me a headache, but bright ones are just fine. Go figure...;) The other things I can't stand are antialiased fonts. They look awful, and make my eyes hurt trying to read them. To me, they don't look sharp and crisp, but blurry and out of focus. Maybe it's just my eyes or something, but I've always preferred well-defined fonts with a few jaggies to smooth but blurry antialiased fonts.
It would be nice, but unfortunatly, it just isn't practical.
Most modern microwaves have preprogrammed buttons for common generic food items (i.e. warm a muffin, defrost 1lb of meat, heat a cup of coffee, pop 1 bag of popcorn). These usually work reasonably well. Having these types of options for specific items, however, would be next to impossible. Since every microwave differs and every micro-meal differs, someone would have to test every possible micro-meal in every "Microwave +" microwave. The product wouldn't sell well unless it could handle a good portion of the microwaveable stuff out there. Go to your local grocery store's freezer someday and start counting products...it ain't pretty...;) Not to mention the fact that other variables (crappy power, aging microwave ovens, even the temprature of the food before being cooked) would affect the "ideal" cooking time to enough of a degree to throw off any automated system.
However...I suggest a compromise: a user-programmable microwave. Put a bigger LED display on there and let the user enter his or her favorite items into a list along with their cooking times. After you've cooked an item a few times, you know how long it will take in your microwave - so you program it in. When you want to cook it again, just select it from a menu or punch in a hotkey sequence, and off it goes!
PUNCH-IT-UP ALARM CLOCK
Again, a nice idea, but not likely to happen. Clock radios are cheap products (unless you wake up to a Bose WaveRadio or some such nonsensical item;) ), and manufacturers have to cut costs to sell them cheap enough to compete. A ten-digit keypad, plus the two or three other controls to tell it what to adjust, would cost significantly more to design, implement, and manufacture than the two or three buttons most clock radios have now. If it was done, the model produced would cost more than similar models with three-button time setting systems. A few people would probably buy it for the convinence, but most would simply reach for the cheaper model sitting next to it. In any case, the time saving would be minimal. It takes me about 30 seconds to set my alarm clock to any time, not two minutes. If it "counts" too slowly for you when holding down the button, there's a very easy workaround: just hit the button once for each hour/minute you want to move. It's much faster than waiting for the clock to do it for you!;)
BLIND DATA
This is a pretty clever idea! Privacy implications aside, it might actually be a workable and marketable item, especially in larger cities. (I doubt it would go over well in rural areas...when you can count the number of people you meet each day on your fingers and toes, you probably know most of 'em already;) )
TIVOCORDER
This would be an interesting gadget, for sure! However, I think we're still a little ways away from the technology required to implement it (microphone, storage, simultaneous playback and recording from the same device without feedback or interference, and the power supply) in such a small package and make it affordable. Down the road, however, this could be very doable. Maybe we could even create a video version someday...now that would be a fun little toy!:)
MP-TEETHBRUSH
Cute, but redundant. Why not just wear your MP3 watch, cellphone, etc. into the bathroom with you?;)
INTERCOM-PUTER It would be quick, convenient and simpler than software-based intercom systems, which require microphone and speakers for each PC.
Um...actually, it would be a USB-connected microphone and speaker with a software interface, unless someone figures out a way to make the USB port talk directly to the Ethernet port without stepping on normal network traffic...;)
Kind of an interesting idea, but there are so many other ways to implement a similar arrangement that don't require specialized hardware that it's hard to imagine it being very popular. What's wrong with ICQ?;)
FLUMAPPER.COM
Could be very workable on a community level, but it would require a *lot* of coordination to be implemented on a larger scale. Kind of pointless, too...by the time there are enough cases to register, it's probably too late;)
SNAPFLAT SCREEN Not such a great idea, really. How could you come up with a single screen that attaches to all of those devices? Do you really want to wrestle with a Handycam and attached 14" TFT display, or surf the web via your laptop on a 2.5" camcorder LCD? How 'bout watching your new Lord of the Rings DVD on a tiny black and white Palm screen, or stuffing a 42" plasma display into your back pocket to look up phone numbers? There's a reason all those devices have proprietary displays; they were designed from the ground up to integrate with the products they are used on and fill the specific needs of those products.
Flat-panel displays will come down in price, like any technological product. Just have patience...;)
THE I-PODULE
Definatly the best idea on the list. However, development on high-capacity interchangeable storage media has been going on for some time, so I'd hardly call it new or in need of invention...;)
Assuming you actually owned the rights to the stuff you developed previously (i.e. it doesn't already belong to the last company you worked for, etc.), if you sign a contract saying a company gets ownership of it, that is most certainly enforceable in court. It's no different than any other contract in that sense.
Already been implemented...check out RealDoll's site.
Other enhancements currently available:
1. Interactive sensory response system: This system is composed of sensors embedded in the Realdoll's breasts, vaginal and anal entries. The doll is connected via an ethernet cable (up to 100') to your PC, and when the various sensors are triggered by activity, the doll will respond with sensor specific audio. The software will run on any Windows based PC, and is completely user editable; The directories for each sensor can be editied to the user's taste by adding or subtracting specific audio files. This system is currently offered in limited quantity. Please check with us for availablity if you are interested in adding this option to your order. The price for this option is currently $1500.00
Fascinating, the things they can do with technology...;-)
Very true...BUT I am also employed to work 40 hours a week, not 50. I am employed to be a programmer, not a systems tester or a business analyst. I am employed to work Monday to Friday, not weekends. Todays companies have no problems whatsoever impose company life on my private life, so why not the other way around?
Does your employment agreement/contract specifically include the above restrictions? If so, I'd suggest mentioning that to your boss the next time he asks you to come in on Saturday and do some business analysis...;)
If not, then your argument doesn't make much sense...you are hired to do whatever is in your job description or stipulated in your contract or agreement. If that requires working 50 hour weeks and weekends, then that's just part of the job. If that makes you unhappy, then maybe it's time to look around for other opportunities that don't intrude so much on your personal life?;)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you mean power and pay? ;-D
DennyK
On the contrary...I would say that putting something that once made everyone who saw/heard about it say "Holy s**t, can they do that?" within the reach of the average person to be a very important milestone in any technological development. Fancy technology is great, but if it doesn't eventually have an effect on everyday life, then, once you get beyond the "cool" factor, there's not much left for the average person to appreciate. Bringing new stuff to the masses may not be as revolutionary as inventing some incredible new technology, but I would still call it a "milestone."
DennyK
Well...when I said "in the end," I was thinking of the really big picture. The technology to do this is out there, and it would be very difficult for even the megacorps and the government to make it vanish entirely. I, too, can easily see how the government could become as oppressive as you say...but even if they do, it's very unlikely that such a regime would last forever, or encompass the entire human race. Our lives may well suck, and maybe the lives of our children, but the technology to exchange information will probably survive somewhere, somehow, and will eventually be put to use when the current regime fails, or when those who dislike it do indeed find somewhere else to go.
The corporations are doing their best to retard our development of information distribution, or even set us back several years, and they may succeed for a while, unfortunatly. But eventually, every regime changes, or falls, or loses some of its subjects to a "New World", wherever that may be. Sadly, that doesn't neccesarily help those of us in the here and now...
DennyK
There are levels of distinction and laws which forbid certain types of speech. In general, "personal" speech (non-commercial) enjoys more Constitutional protection than commercial speech. For example, it is illegal for companies to misrepresent or lie about their products. There are laws about what descriptive phrases or words can appear on product labels (i.e. "low-fat", "fat-free").
Even personal speech is not protected 100%. Libel, slander, harassment, assault, death threats, etc. are all illegal, and the First Amendment does not protect them. Other things and actions which could be defined as "forms of expression" (I use the term loosely) like child pornography and public nudity can also be made illegal, and are not considered protected.
That said, I disagree with most of the judge's arguments here. Especially the part about "fair use" not being interfered with because it is still "possible" to excercise fair-use rights, it's just harder. *That* is a slippery slope indeed. You could argue that, because it is theoretically possible to take a random clump of matter and rearrange the subatomic particles contained within it to form an exact duplicate of a "protected" work, it is perfectly all right to do away with every other concievable method of duplicating said work for fair use. Sure, it's more difficult to construct a duplicate from the subatomic level, but hey, it's still *possible*, right?
As for the whole IP market...what all of this boils down to is that companies who make their living "selling" intellectual property are losing their control over the distribution. The trouble is, almost all IP is abstract. It's just a bunch of ideas. There is no physical component to sell. In theory, in a true free market, it would be impossible to sell ideas, because they are not limited resources. Yes, it is possible to run out of NEW ideas...but once an idea exists, it could, in theory, be distributed to every being on this planet with no limitations. Everyone can possess the same idea without taking it away from anyone else.
Those who sell IP have always relied on the fact that in order to spread those ideas reliably, a physical medium is neccesary...and since this physical medium is a limited resource, it can be sold. Books, music cassettes, VHS tapes...they are all physical, limited objects. If you have a book, you can't give it to your neighbor and keep reading it yourself at the same time...so if you both want to read it, you both have to buy a book. Duplicating the book yourself is certainly possible. You can memorize it, transcribe it, or even photocopy it. But these methods are all expensive in terms of time or money, and the results are not as reliable. IP merchants were able to use these physical limitations to exert control over the market and artificially inflate the price of their ideas.
The digital age, however, in one swift stroke, has destroyed that physical limitation which allowed IP to be sold like it was a limited physical resource. Now, suddenly, it is fast, easy, and cheap to take a single copy of an Intellectual Property and make hundreds, thousands, even millions of copies of it...copies that are indistinguishable from the original.
For humanity, this is a wonderful thing. Now ideas can be shared with millions of people at a tiny fraction of what it would cost a decade ago, with no need to worry about having to tie them up in artificial physical limitations. But for those companies who have been profiting for years on the artificial scarcity of IP in the physical world, it's an absolute nightmare. Their control is gone. Their entire business model is crashing and burning around them. That's why they are buying Congressmen and new laws like they're on clearance at Wal-Mart. They aren't concerned about this new world of almost limitless, extremely low-cost distribution of IP. They aren't apprehensive. They're freaking terrified.
The trouble is, all of these IP merchants are obsolete. They're outdated. They're not needed anymore...or won't be needed for much longer. They're going the way of the horsed carriage and the typewriter. Or, at least, they should be. But they're putting up one hell of a fight. They don't like this brave new world, so they're doing their damndest to reverse the progress we've made to reach this point. I don't think they will succeed in the long run. They can't undo what's been done, no matter how much money they throw at Congress and the lawmakers. Eventually, they will wither away and die, or adapt to the new environment. But I fear that they are going to make the transision as painful for everyone around them as they can before they do.
It's really unfortunate. Here, we have the ability to pass ideas in many formats (verbal, audible, visual) to a vast number of people at once at a relatively low cost. It's the next best thing to matter replication. But a few greedy corporations, trying desperately to hold on to a dying business model, are trying to destroy this ability, or at the least, to cripple it, reduce it to a fraction of it's current usefulness...all in the name of their own profit margins. Sad, sad times...
DennyK
I seriously doubt it would be at the top of a retail book list. Perhaps "Most widely distributed" would be a more appropriate title for it... ;)
DennyK
Technically, there is no plural of "LEGO" (yes, all caps) because LEGO is a trademark name, not a noun. There is no such thing as "a LEGO." The correct term would be "LEGO piece" or "LEGO element" or "LEGO brick." Remember, all trademarks are technically descriptive adjectives when used in product names, not nouns.
However, outside the world of official trademarks, most people I've ever heard refer to LEGO bricks as simply "Legos" or (when the context is already established) just "bricks" or "pieces". Just like people say they had "Pop-Tarts" for breakfast or "some Oreos" for dessert. Technically, there is no such thing as "a Pop-Tart" or "an Oreo" or "a can of Spam", only "Pop-Tarts toaster pastries" and "Oreo chocolate sandwich cookies" and "SPAM luncheon meat"...but in casual conversation, people usually make the trademark into a noun. Actually, this is something companies have to watch out for, in more "official" media like the press or television, because if they allow their trademark name to be used in too widespread fashion as a generic noun, it will become invalidated, and they will lose it...like Trampoline, Asprin, and many other companies' trademarks have in the past.
DennyK
Win95 used to run just fine on my old Cyrix 200 w/32MB. Even Office 97 didn't bog it down too much... ;)
DennyK
Sorry, but I have to quibble with one of your points...
Just because we don't know why some things happed does not mean there is some supernatural reason behind it.
Well...supernatural means "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe," according to M-W. So...if we don't know how something occurred, because we can't observe what is causing or allowing it to occur, that would make it, by definition, supernatural.
Now, supernatural does NOT mean that there is not a logical, rational, 100% scientific explanation for it. There is a logical, rational, 100% scientific explanation for everything. And I do mean *everything*. However, we have not (yet) developed the science to explain 99.999% of it.
Think about this...five hundred years ago, no one knew that everything in the material world was made up of atoms. Nobody had ever perceived a single atom. No scientific tests at that time could have proven or disproven the hypothesis that everything is made of atoms. Scientists could have tried everything they knew to test such an idea, and all their tests would have failed. Why? Because scientists were simply unable to observe atoms as individual units. At that time, they were, quite literally, of an "order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"...in other words, supernatural.
Does that mean that atoms didn't exist five hundred years ago? Almost certainly not. Yet if someone back then had suggested the ludicrous idea that everything around them was made up of impossibly tiny particles, which themselves were almost entirely empty space, they would have been laughed at at best, locked up as madmen or heretics at worse. And then, after just a few centuries, that ridiculous, "impossible" notion suddenly becomes hard scientific fact.
It seems quite reasonable to me that the experiences and occurances we refer to as "paranormal" or "supernatural" today may become the scientific facts of tomorrow. Just because today's science cannot prove such things is no reason to dismiss them as hokum and nonsense, or impossible, any more than the fact that no one knew about atoms a few centuries back is any reason to assume they didn't exist.
Science is a wonderful tool for bettering ourselves and learning about our existance. It helps to keep in mind, however, that science is basically nothing more than verifying that certain actions we take produce certain results within the incredibly miniscule slice of perception we have available to us. Beyond this tiny pinhole we look through, we have no idea what goes on out there. To assume that what we perceive through that pinhole constitutes all or even a significant portion of reality is foolish in the extreme.
DennyK
Actually, www.truepath.com is a free Christian web hosting service...so it's quite possible that this particular member is having some fun... ;)
:-/
Of course, the author does have several other articles up there. Like the Apple one, it's hard to tell whether he is being humorous or serious in them. Half his writings sound like tongue-in-cheek exaggerated Christian zealotry, and half sound like somewhat serious arguments (though these are usually backed up only by "Because the Bible tells us so...").
Whether intentionally or unintentionally, his stuff is still pretty funny. I hope he truly isn't as paranoid about "Evolutionists" as it seems from his writing, though... I have the utmost respect for any and all belief systems, but it's pretty sad to go through life thinking that everyone who believes differently than you do is out to get you and corrupt your soul...
DennyK
I suppose it depends on the job you have. When I'm at my job, I'm expected to work, not goof off. I am "actually" doing something all the time. I can't recall any time since I've started working that there was nothing that I was supposed to be working on while I was clocked in. If I'm "slacking off" instead of doing it, then I'm not doing my job.
;) ), and second, even if I DID have the desire, doing that from my workstation at work would just be stupid.
Obviously, I don't work for eight hours straight. That's what breaks and lunches are for. Work a couple of hours, take a break, work a couple more hours, go eat lunch. On my break, I'll read a book, check Slashdot, whatever relaxes me. But I still don't do anything that I would get in trouble for if my employer found out, so they can keep logs of my web "surfing" during breaks if they want. I'm usually visiting sites that have a relevance to my field, anyway. I don't spend my break time posting company secrets to F*ckedCompany.com or griping about work over AIM, first because I have no desire to do so (I happen to like my job and the company I work for...
DennyK
Yes, but there's a large difference between ICQing a coworker to ask about a business-related issue and jabbering with your buddies on AIM for hours on end. One is a perfectly valid activity while working. The other is slacking off, and will probably get you in trouble. The solution is to avoid the second activity. Do you really care if your employer is recording the IM you sent to Joe down the hall asking if he knew the correct syntax for some obscure Perl command, or when the next meeting was scheduled for?
The company I work for, for instance, uses an internal ICQ server and the corporate ICQ client for interoffice IM, and doesn't allow any other IM clients. This lets people communicate internally without a problem, but keeps them from wasting time on idle chats with outside friends.
DennyK
I never buy used books. :) Unless it's a school text, does anyone?
;) ). What I don't buy used, I usually get from the library.
Very often, actually. I will often pick up used books at garage sales, thrift shops, and other such places. I can get the same book that's currently selling for $8 at B&N for a buck or two. Obviously, I don't buy books that are badly mangled (or smell...smokers' books are nasty...
The fact is, I'm a fast reader, so unless a book is good enough for me to read several times, it's not worth buying...and not many books are worth paying the $7-9 that most publishers charge for paperbacks these days.
In all seriousness, has anyone ever thought about the price of your average paperback? Ten years ago, you could buy a new paperback for $3-4. Today, that price has almost doubled. In many cases, it is the *exact same book*, just republished, that is now costing twice as much as it did a few years ago. Where is the justification in that? I doubt publishing costs have risen that much in the last decade. With an older book, the author was paid any "up-front" money a loooong time ago, so there's no advance to recover. The price has risen far faster than any inflation could account for. Seems like plain, simple greed to me...
DennyK
At home: 17" TTX 1787 CRT, 800x600, 100hz. Higher resolution = harder to see stuff, less refresh rate = instant killer headache. ;)
;) )
;)
:-/ ). No thanks. I'll stick with my nice, crisp, bright, sharp CRT, thanks ;)
At work...usually a 17" generic CRT at 800x600, 85hz (damn cheap embedded video systems...ow, my head...
On most monitors, I have to have the brightness/contrast maxed out, unless it's a brand-new high-quality screen. Dark monitors also give me headaches.
I detest LCD screens. I have never seen one I would consider using except on a laptop or somewhere else where portability was essential. Every LCD I've looked at (even the really good ones) has annoying color shifts as I change my viewing angle, fuzzy screens, poor motion display, and are usually far too dim and faded for me to use for extended periods. Not to mention the fact that they're usually "best viewed at" some ungodly high resolution that I can't see with or without my glasses (said glasses make a 17" screen appear about 13-14"...
DennyK
You mean you West Coast dwellers don't have Sprint FastConnect out there already? Oh...lucky you... ;-)
DennyK
...but spending too much time working in VisualBasic seems to make me BSOD more often. Sometimes I can't even get it to boot up!
;) )
;-)
(Sorry, couldn't resist...
DennyK
A very good point. However, it brings up yet another flaw in the original idea: You could copyright the result, even if it is just a sequence of noise generated from some encoding of a DNA sequence, but that would NOT give you ownership of the thing you used to make it, any more than Marcel Duchamp owns the design of his "Fountain" urinal.
DennyK
Odd...personally, I find that the brighter the monitor is, the easier it is to read the text. Obviously, too much brightness is bad (when blacks look washed out, that ain't good... ;) ), but on most monitors I've used, I have to turn up the brightness most or all of the way to get a decent image that I can see well, and even then I occasionally wish it was better. Maybe that's just cause I spend too much time on old/crappy monitors... ;)
;) ), and I run at 800x600 at 100Hz. I can't use any higher resolution on a 17" screen (even with my glasses; they make everything about 25-30% smaller than it really is, which makes high res even worse ;) ), and my monitor doesn't support 100Hz refresh rates on higher resolutions anyway. (I happen to be one of those who are very sensitive to refresh rates; any static images below 85Hz will give me a headache after a few hours, and below 75Hz is intolerable for even a short time. Even at 100Hz I can still see the flicker sometimes...)
;) The other things I can't stand are antialiased fonts. They look awful, and make my eyes hurt trying to read them. To me, they don't look sharp and crisp, but blurry and out of focus. Maybe it's just my eyes or something, but I've always preferred well-defined fonts with a few jaggies to smooth but blurry antialiased fonts.
To the original poster: As for advice on monitors...well, first I'd suggest checking with your optomitrist, as several others have said. They're best equipped to tell you at least how to avoid things that could strain or damage your eyes more than neccesary. Beyond that, I'm not sure how much advice I can give you, since I don't suffer from your particular condition.
Personally, I suffer from pretty serious nearsightedness. I'm not legally blind, but my vision is pretty bad without glasses. Anything up to a foot away is fine, after that, it degrades pretty quickly. I can read my jumbo alarm clock from across the room if I squint right. At work, I wear glasses when on the computer, but at home, I usually do without and just sit closer to the screen. Eyestrain has never been a problem for me...dunno why, though.
I have a 17" monitor (TTX 1787 for those who care
Another oddity I've noticed is that I cannot stand dark screens. Most people I know like darker screens and say that brighter monitors make their eyes hurt. I've always been the opposite way; dim monitors give me a headache, but bright ones are just fine. Go figure...
DennyK
MICROWAVE PLUS+
;) Not to mention the fact that other variables (crappy power, aging microwave ovens, even the temprature of the food before being cooked) would affect the "ideal" cooking time to enough of a degree to throw off any automated system.
;) ), and manufacturers have to cut costs to sell them cheap enough to compete. A ten-digit keypad, plus the two or three other controls to tell it what to adjust, would cost significantly more to design, implement, and manufacture than the two or three buttons most clock radios have now. If it was done, the model produced would cost more than similar models with three-button time setting systems. A few people would probably buy it for the convinence, but most would simply reach for the cheaper model sitting next to it. In any case, the time saving would be minimal. It takes me about 30 seconds to set my alarm clock to any time, not two minutes. If it "counts" too slowly for you when holding down the button, there's a very easy workaround: just hit the button once for each hour/minute you want to move. It's much faster than waiting for the clock to do it for you! ;)
;) )
:)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
It would be nice, but unfortunatly, it just isn't practical.
Most modern microwaves have preprogrammed buttons for common generic food items (i.e. warm a muffin, defrost 1lb of meat, heat a cup of coffee, pop 1 bag of popcorn). These usually work reasonably well. Having these types of options for specific items, however, would be next to impossible. Since every microwave differs and every micro-meal differs, someone would have to test every possible micro-meal in every "Microwave +" microwave. The product wouldn't sell well unless it could handle a good portion of the microwaveable stuff out there. Go to your local grocery store's freezer someday and start counting products...it ain't pretty...
However...I suggest a compromise: a user-programmable microwave. Put a bigger LED display on there and let the user enter his or her favorite items into a list along with their cooking times. After you've cooked an item a few times, you know how long it will take in your microwave - so you program it in. When you want to cook it again, just select it from a menu or punch in a hotkey sequence, and off it goes!
PUNCH-IT-UP ALARM CLOCK
Again, a nice idea, but not likely to happen. Clock radios are cheap products (unless you wake up to a Bose WaveRadio or some such nonsensical item
BLIND DATA
This is a pretty clever idea! Privacy implications aside, it might actually be a workable and marketable item, especially in larger cities. (I doubt it would go over well in rural areas...when you can count the number of people you meet each day on your fingers and toes, you probably know most of 'em already
TIVOCORDER
This would be an interesting gadget, for sure! However, I think we're still a little ways away from the technology required to implement it (microphone, storage, simultaneous playback and recording from the same device without feedback or interference, and the power supply) in such a small package and make it affordable. Down the road, however, this could be very doable. Maybe we could even create a video version someday...now that would be a fun little toy!
MP-TEETHBRUSH
Cute, but redundant. Why not just wear your MP3 watch, cellphone, etc. into the bathroom with you?
INTERCOM-PUTER
It would be quick, convenient and simpler than software-based intercom systems, which require microphone and speakers for each PC.
Um...actually, it would be a USB-connected microphone and speaker with a software interface, unless someone figures out a way to make the USB port talk directly to the Ethernet port without stepping on normal network traffic...
Kind of an interesting idea, but there are so many other ways to implement a similar arrangement that don't require specialized hardware that it's hard to imagine it being very popular. What's wrong with ICQ?
FLUMAPPER.COM
Could be very workable on a community level, but it would require a *lot* of coordination to be implemented on a larger scale. Kind of pointless, too...by the time there are enough cases to register, it's probably too late
SNAPFLAT SCREEN
Not such a great idea, really. How could you come up with a single screen that attaches to all of those devices? Do you really want to wrestle with a Handycam and attached 14" TFT display, or surf the web via your laptop on a 2.5" camcorder LCD? How 'bout watching your new Lord of the Rings DVD on a tiny black and white Palm screen, or stuffing a 42" plasma display into your back pocket to look up phone numbers? There's a reason all those devices have proprietary displays; they were designed from the ground up to integrate with the products they are used on and fill the specific needs of those products.
Flat-panel displays will come down in price, like any technological product. Just have patience...
THE I-PODULE
Definatly the best idea on the list. However, development on high-capacity interchangeable storage media has been going on for some time, so I'd hardly call it new or in need of invention...
DennyK
...is apparently an imperfect science. Unless the PriceWaterhouseCoopers anthem really does go "...How high can you retch?..." ;-)
;-)
Of course, the *real* stuff some of these songs contain is far scarier...
DennyK
- Do companies actually pay people to come up with these things?
;)
;)
- WHY do companies pay people to come up with these things??
All I can say is...thank God my company doesn't have its own song. Yet... *shudder*
If we did...they'd probably make us techs sing it to the clients over the phone...
Great...now that thought's gonne give me nightmares tonight...
DennyK
I laugh at your pitiful lies! Your story cannot be true! It's absurd! Everyone knows spammers don't have souls...
;-)
DennyK
Assuming you actually owned the rights to the stuff you developed previously (i.e. it doesn't already belong to the last company you worked for, etc.), if you sign a contract saying a company gets ownership of it, that is most certainly enforceable in court. It's no different than any other contract in that sense.
DennyK
Already been implemented...check out RealDoll's site.
;-)
Other enhancements currently available:
1. Interactive sensory response system: This system is composed of sensors embedded in the Realdoll's breasts, vaginal and anal entries. The doll is connected via an ethernet cable (up to 100') to your PC, and when the various sensors are triggered by activity, the doll will respond with sensor specific audio. The software will run on any Windows based PC, and is completely user editable; The directories for each sensor can be editied to the user's taste by adding or subtracting specific audio files. This system is currently offered in limited quantity. Please check with us for availablity if you are interested in adding this option to your order. The price for this option is currently $1500.00
Fascinating, the things they can do with technology...
DennyK
Very true...BUT I am also employed to work 40 hours a week, not 50. I am employed to be a programmer, not a systems tester or a business analyst. I am employed to work Monday to Friday, not weekends. Todays companies have no problems whatsoever impose company life on my private life, so why not the other way around?
;)
;)
Does your employment agreement/contract specifically include the above restrictions? If so, I'd suggest mentioning that to your boss the next time he asks you to come in on Saturday and do some business analysis...
If not, then your argument doesn't make much sense...you are hired to do whatever is in your job description or stipulated in your contract or agreement. If that requires working 50 hour weeks and weekends, then that's just part of the job. If that makes you unhappy, then maybe it's time to look around for other opportunities that don't intrude so much on your personal life?
DennyK
Athiest geek's headstone:
/dev/null
mv John.Smith
;-)
DennyK