Katz, this has to be the most misleading mixture of statistics I've ever seen. There may be some support for your point, you may even be right, but your quotes of random statistics prove absolutely nothing.
the number of free adult Web sites grew from 22,100 in l997 to 280,300 last year. Sex-for-pay sites grew from 230 to 1,100 during the same period.
And just what constitutes a Web site? Is it one nudie picture or a whole multimedia adventure? The sex industry uses 'free sites' as a lure to take you to there pay site. Many of these pay sites are just a sub-section of a larger one. These numbers mean nothing.
Despite the explosion of sexual activity online, a Zogby survey found that 65.l per cent of respondents believed finding sexual fulfillment on the Net was "not likely." Duh.
Define 'sexual fulfillment', please. Hell, just define 'fulfillment'. 68 percent of the people I survey believe sexual fulfillment only occurs in a lasting, trusting relationship. That's sort of hard to find on the 'Fuck My Ass Hard' web site.
These robust figures show just how hypocritical and schizophrenic America's attitudes about sex and the Net are, and how much the success of online sex sites reveals about the future of the Web.
How do two unrelated, meaningless numbers reveal anything.
In a l999 CBS.MarketWatch.com poll, 23 per cent of the people surveyed called pornography the Net's worst feature. It's certainly all most politicians want to talk about when it comes to discussing the online world. But somebody isn't telling the truth.
Try cruising for some porn for a while. No other category of sites has as many pop-up banners (except maybe MP3 sites). I would call porn sites the Net's worst feature.
A 1999 report by Alvin Cooper and Coralie R. Scherer of the California- based Marital and Sexuality Centre found that 75 per cent of those who enjoy adult Internet sites don't tell anyone about it.
And here is the worst lie of all. Just because the vast majority of people cruising for porn don't tell anyone, you imply that everyone is doing it. If 4 out of 100 cruise for sex, 3 won't tell anyone, 68 will think there is nothing to be gained by it and 23 will think it's disgusting. Your numbers add up perfectly Katz, but they don't mean anything, and they definitely doesn't imply that people are lying, hypocritical, or schizophrenic.
The popularity of sex sites, especially during a so-called Tech Crash, ought to send a message about technology and applications that work online, or don't. Like Napster, sex sites offer genuine utility for millions of people who want sexual information and activity. Sex, like music and entertainment, is a universal human interest. Technology can make it easier for people to connect with these interests, and when that happens, the technology works. And the Net is rattling old taboos.
Or maybe the net is offering those who would break the taboos anyway a chance to do it without suffering the social stigma. Every culture has activities and views that it finds acceptable and taboo. People who follow the social structure are accepted, those who choose to break the taboos choose not to be part of that social structure. All the Net does is provide people with enough privacy to walk in two worlds at once.
According to the Cooper/Scherer report, 87 per cent of sex- site users said they felt no shame or guilt.
I'm willing to bet that this correlates well with Napster users. Maybe the revolution of the net is that it allows people to break social taboos without incurring the social punishment (the only thing that really keeps the number of murders down).
More than 60 per cent pretended to be a different age than they actually are; 14 per cent admitted that they made up other attributes; another five per cent assumed the opposite gender.
Only 14 percent. My survey shows that every male in every chat room has a 12in wanger, yet a recent study by a condom company (see today's bbspot) says the average length is 5.6in. My conclusion is that the net has a special attraction for people with big wangers. All the 45 year old men are either 18yr old females (36DD, BTW), or 22 yr old, independantly wealthy playboys. Remember, on the Net no one knows that you're a dog.
You, sir, are obviously and either an idiot or illiterate.
The things you rant against as if I support them were described as simple solutions to complex problems that do nothing to heal the underlying issues but only disquise the symptoms.
"Peer-to-Peer," he exults,"is the next great thing for the Internet."
Ummm...no. 'P2P' is just a different way of describing what the Internet always has been. OOooh, now I can distribute my own stuff!! I can be my own publisher!! I can even let other people contribute and talk back!!
Basically the same thing with the same motivations that drove amatuer radio, CBs, and BBS phenomenons.
How much training did they give to a gradeschool teacher that they couldn't give to this guy?
Make no mistake about it, NASA's problem with this is all about PR. They want/need to be the heroes/heroines. Putting civilians in space was cast as 'NASA defeating space'. Letting a civilian buy his way into the same program robs NASA administrators of the pleasure of being the high priest that hands down the word of God.
The problem is that the executives of NASA have spent too much time reading their own press. They are on a great mission to keep space pristine and pure. But as happens in all religious movements, they get their own goals confused with those of God.
Why the hell ain't it on the front page? It's is much more 'new for nerds' that a 0.0.X release of a kernal PC kernel that refuses to include PC features (like swsup).
``If we find a drug that can be used to regulate ACC2 without having some other side effects, I think we've achieved our goal,'' he said.
Stop to consider this for a moment. The western world is rich, with little need for the average human to have to do strenuous work for a living. They can afford to eat all they want, without having to do anything to work that food off. They keep adding fuel, without ever reving their engine. Digestion is a simple system really.
The human body is designed through years of evolutionary development to want to store up fuel as fat. Cyclical weather patterns with the accompanying cyles of feast and famine, insured that those who could store up more energy during the feast periods would fare better during the famine. The problem is, you can't continually add food without burning it off. You can't keep storing up for ever. The western world sees a continuous feast, without ever seeing the famine.
Enter these guys who have a goal of putting a hole in the fuel tank. Instead of stopping the pump, or driving the car for a while, their goal is to let the fuel pour out on the ground. This is ludicrous in its simple-minded short sightedness.
This may be a good technique for some troubling cases, but a much better solution for the majority of people is to push back from the table and get off their fat asses. I say this as a person who has lost 50lbs in the past year, and went from barely being able to run a mile in 12 minutes to running a 6:30 mile and winning a wrestling tournament this past weekend.
Westerners need to drop the idea of loosing weight, and start concentrating on making the body burn the fuel it takes in. This type of solution may make you tip the scales at a lower point, but it won't make you any healthier. There is a lot of evidence that increase flow rate of the blood does a lot of the work of cleaning arteries. How will sitting on the couch eating '0-calory' chips increase blood flow.
In summary, this type of drug is the type of 'no-pain' cure-all that my fellow American like. It hides the current, annoying symptoms, while totally ignoring the overall systemic problems. For those who doubt this, here are other examples of simple, cure-alls for systemic problems:
I meant that I couldn't use my land next year in order to insure that your seeds don't grow back. 8*)
On second thought, I couldn't sue Monsanto, unless it was their field could I. I mean, Monsanto wouldn't be responsible for contaminating my field if they just sold the seed to a neighboring farmer. I would have to sue my neighbor. Of course, I could force my neighbor into bankruptcy for using this seed and then take over his fields and eliminate the offensive material in the process. Would serve him right, wouldn't it?
This sounds just as cool as the GPL as far as hacks of the legal system are concerned.
If you don't want me to use your genetically engineered seeds, then make damn sure that you don't let it 'contaminate' my fields. You can sue me for using your seeds, but then you'll have to pay me
-for paying you,
-plus the cost I incurred from being sued by you,
-plus lossed profits because I couldn't use my land the next year in order to insure that your seeds grow back (ie, I get a year off at your expense)
-plus punitive damages for mental anguish
-plus anything else creative lawyers can think of
All in all, Monsanto sounds to me like the guy who lost all his change through a whole in his pocket, and now wants to beat up all the kids in the neighborhood to get his money back.
One starts at exactly 11am the other starts at exactly 11pm? One of the guys gets some CC numbers off the net and calls the 1-800 number on the back to see how much money is on the card? Western Union gives out $250 in cash? One of the guys has stolen merchandise sent to his "friend's" house?
This bullshit is worse than those hollywood movies showing a 16yr old breaking into the NSA and breaking their strongest encryption in 3mins with a full GUI animation sequence. At least the hollywood bullshit doesn't claim to be true. (It only claims to be entertaining, which is enough lying in itself).
but as a Yankee fan in Ohio I don't have much of a choice and I'll pay it.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to flame, but I find this statement indicative of the mindset of a lot of my fellow Americans. I just have to say,
"BULLSHIT!!!"
You have a great deal of choice. We're talking about paying to hear someone talk about a bunch of grown men being payed to play a child's game. We're not talking about listening to a discussion on what politicians are doing to regulate our lives. We're not talking about listening to someone discuss how science and technology are changing how we live and work. We're talking about paying to hear someone talk about a bunch of grown men being payed to play a child's game.
I doubt you meant your statement as I've interpreted it. I'm sure you realize that your life would go on tomorrow without MLB. But I run into so many people who think I'm from another planet because I don't give a shit about who won the 'World Series' (which only allows American teams?), or who is playing in the 'Final Four' (oh, how I really wish it were the final four so that everyone would shut the hell up about it!)
People, these are grown men (or nearly so) playing games. They are not 'local' teams (how many of the players from the 'local' team are even from your state), and they will not let you play. What stake do you have in the outcome of any of the games?
Stop appointing yourselves kings and rulers. Entertainers are not royalty, and do not deserve to live like it.
The big draw back right now seems to be the useful life of the display. The numbers given by the article are a current maximum of around 1,000 hours for the blue, 100,000 for the red and 30,000(?) for the green.
My question is, would it be possible to make the displays cheap enough that they would be disposable? The article talks about advances that may make it possible to print the displays on presses much like a newspaper is printed. Would it be possible to put the control circuitry in a holder, with the OLED and substrate being on a removable plate that slid in and out? If the display replacement could be dropped to around $20, I would replace it every few months (and get used to a red/green display when funds are low 8*)
Notice how astronomers allways say that we need to spend money investigating the sky because there is a 1 in 10000000000000000000000000 chance that it could fall and kill us all in the next 100000000 years. Biologist always say that we need to spend money investigating viruses because there is a 1 in 10000000000000000000000000 chance that an formerly unknown one could pop up and kill us all in the next 100000000 years. Geologist always say that we need to spend money investigating earthquakes because there is a 1 in 10000000000000000000000000 chance that one could hit a population center and kill us all in the next 100000000 years.
Meanwhile, life goes on.
Geesh, guys. Get a new tune. Isn't there any other way to campaign for an increased budget? And you wonder why people get desensitized and just ignore you after a while. Most people realize that the chances of humanity being able to stop any of these scenarios is about 1 in 10000000000000000000000000.
The problem with any encryption system, neigh any protection system at all, is the point at which they break.
They super heavy deadbolts on my front door are useless if I pass out they key. The electronic security system is just a bunch of lights and buzzers if I give out the passcode or everyone ignores it. The extra heavy combination lock is just dead weight if the hinges of the safe are on the outside of the door.
Public Key cryptography is only as strong as the security on the key. The article says that this doesn't fit the strict definition of a security vulnerability, presumably because it doesn't break the software. Well, I'd like to disagree. Part of the product, part of what M$ sells with the promotion of signed inActiveX controls, is that the pieces of code are trusted. This is not a piece of software they are selling, it's an entire system. The software is only part of it. The system has been broken. This makes it a security vulnerability in the same way that giving out keys to my front door and the combination to my safe are security vulnerabilities.
The gist of my rant, and the point I'm trying to convey, is that systems are more than just the software. To concentrate only on one part of the system when defining terms to describe the safety of the whole system is foolish.
Ok, I hit the link and read about half of it. Many of the things seem to be nit-picking of someone with a slightly different accent. The old attitude that anyone with a southern accent is stupid and slow of wit.
A good percentage seem to be quotes from impromtu speakings/shooting from the hip type of responses to questions. Watch CSpan sometime. You'll find a lot of these type statements. They all sound ludicrous when taken out of context.
The President's method of using parenthetical phrases doesn't seem to sit well with the person making this collection, but I don't find anything silly about them.
Some of the statements appear quite ludicrous, but out of context I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. Were they prepared statements? Or was he distracted by something else while trying to answer several questions at once?
I'm sorry, but I'm from the southern United States, and I have often dealt with the "we talk better than you" snobbery. If this is the extent of your criteria for considering the man a buffoon, then I must discount your opinion as that of a political opponent who is upset that someone with opposing ideas was selected by the American people through the constitutionally mandated process as President.
You'll have to forgive me my ignorance, but I lost interest in tracking all the ins and outs of our nations capital when it was decided that lying to a grand jury was not an impeachable defense.
I'd just like to know where does this elitist outlook about the President came from? Everyone seems to think it's funny to act like the man is one step above retarded. My question is, what has he done to deserve this? I do know that he was only a C student (whether high school or college, I'm not sure). While that doesn't make him a nobel laureate, it doesn't make him an idiot either. And from the Katz' Columbine pieces, I would expect that most Slashdotter's would agree that high school grades shouldn't be considered a measure of intelligence (besides, I know several PhD who are dumb as dirt).
So, riddle me this: In what instance has the REAL President of the United States (not the one in the Saturday Night Live script) demonstrated a sever lack of intelligence?
Please don't cite policy decisions that you don't like as lack of intelligence. Scratching the back of his corporate buddies made be bad public policy, but not necessarily bad private policy. So, please just the facts.
"I could have bought a Harley for the money I've blown on it," he said.
A problem that could easily be fixed with a 'loser pays' court system. There is no way a company like this would survive if they had to pay for harassing people with bullshit claims. As it stands, all they have to lose is a little time.
public's dissatisfaction with the gTLD process is finally getting to them
ICANN isn't responsive to the public. They're responsive to companies paying to register domains. More likely they're moving to stem the rising tide of alternate naming organizations.
Why can't the patent reviewer call ??SU, with a which has a department that is well known for the technology that the patent covers. The reviewer ask to speak to a professor in that department. He ask the professor how (s)he would solve a problem covered by the patent. If the professor can describe within a ten-minute cold call the method covered by the patent, then it is trivial.
I think this would kill most of the high tech patents being given out today, because the patents only describe the obvious way to do something with a computer. (ie, it's patentable just because it is done by a computer seems to be acceptable by the USPTO)
The laser melts the rock, some of which then cools to form a ceramic pipe (RTFA). You make the the fiber optic cable with a sheath that you pump water through. This clears out extra debris and makes a lubricant to slide the cable through. With a flexible cable, turning a corner is just a matter of pumping more water to one side than the other. This will reduce resistance on the side with more water and make the cable bend in that direction. Talk to some of the guys who use newer equipment to lay fiber optics without digging a trench.
For example, let's say the Linux Standard's Orginization says RPM is the standard format that will be used for installation of software. Who has to listen?
You forget that social norms, while limiting society, actually frees the individual citizen. Think about it. It used to be universally accepted in the Western world that a man opening the door for a lady was a sign of politeness. The women's liberation movement in the 70's did much to destroy this norm. Now if a man takes a girl on a date he won't know for sure if he's being polite or insulting her. Where once he was free to act, he now has to worry over a decision. At one time there was a standard that everyone agreed to use. Now there is confusion.
Yes, that example was frivilous, I know. But think of the things that distribution do differently for no good reason at all, usually resulting in widespread confusion. Mandrake recently changed the install directory for their version of Wine if I'm not mistaken. Why? Well, was it just that someone thought it was a good idea, and there wasn't anyone saying no. Or, could it be that they just didn't know any better because there was no standard to turn to?
With a standard in place that everyone can point at and say, "That's the way this community likes to do it," many things get simpler. Fewer trivial questions have to be worried over. The mind is freed to move on to more important subjects (like, When on a date do you eat the fried chicken with your fingers or your fork?) Even diverging from the standards will be simplified. Mandrake won't have to list where everything is in their distribution; they'll only need to point out what is different from the standard.
No one will stop you from distributing your project as a tarball. But if everyone else is using RPMs, you may find more acceptance we you go along with the rest of the community. The way it is now, some distribute RPMs, some use apt-get, and some distribute tarballs (with different compression formats). Each has some small strenght over the others, but in the end they are all more similar than different. The end result is that the poor newbie is just confused. One distribution format would give him one less thing to worry over. Standards are a good thing.
NO.NO.NO.
You misunderstand. I don't want to REPLACE my engine. I want an ADDITIONAL 30hp.
I'm suggesting a motor that straps onto the driveshaft to assist the dinosaur burner. That way you jump from 170 to 200 for a somewhat average vehicle. No, it's not an incredible jump. But it would save a lot of that energy used to stop a vehicle into energy used to accelerate it. The main benefit is fuel economy, with some secondary performance enhancements to boot.
NO.NO.NO.
You misunderstand. I don't want to REPLACE my engine. I want an ADDITIONAL 30hp.
I'm suggesting a motor that straps onto the driveshaft to assist the dinosaur burner. That way you jump from 170 to 200 for a somewhat average vehicle. No, it's not an incredible jump. But it would save a lot of that energy used to stop a vehicle into energy used to accelerate it. The main benefit is fuel economy, with some secondary performance enhancements to boot.
I'd like to see a lot of hardware vendors with their own distribution. A lot of the problems with installs and "user-friendliness" in current distributions is the need to include support for every piece of hardware in existence. This often causes complex error scenarios when trying to autodetect hardware.
However, if Dell, for example, were to do a distribution for Dell computers, they would only include support for the chipsets that they were currently shipping. There would be no need to include code that would make sure that there wasn't a SuperCollosalXX00 Video Controller installed before checking for a VIA 200KX Romtroller (just to make up a bogus example).
People keep saying that 'Linux' can't do everything, but then they don't define 'Linux'. KDE/Gnome may not go everywhere, but there is no reason that the kernel can't be used in most computers, be they server, destop or appliance. And with that basic foundation, computing in general is simplified because all the systems will start behaving similarly. Where we need to differeniate is at the DISTRIBUTION level. Red Hat Linux isn't the solution to all problems. Maybe Mandrake is better for your home destop, Red Hat fits the corporate desktop and Suse is best for the server. (No flame wars please. All examples are contrived.) Currently Red Hat, Mandrake, et.al., have tried to be all things to all people, leading to the idea that Linux is complicated. Linux is not ocmplicated and can do everything if the distributers would catch a clue, define a market, and then design their distribution as a solution for that market.
The point is that all distributions should take the parts of what's being developed out there and package them in an appropriate way for the appropriate application. It will still be Linux, it will just be the parts that apply to the problem space.
So here's KUDOs to Transmeta and any other hardware vendor building a problem space specific distribution. May you live long and prosper.
I'd settle for a retro-fit electric motor that fit around my drive-shaft. Control from the brake could provide regenerative braking, and return extra excelleration at startup. The electric motor could run till the cells are nearly depleted, and leave the rest to the old dinosour burner. Solar cells could provide additional energy, though charge times would require all day to get an apprecialbe amount of energy. This would give a large portion of the benefits of EV, at a fraction of the cost.
How feasible would it be to add a 30HP electric motor to the driveshaft (basically, convert the drive shaft into a rotor), and throw in a few batteries to capture braking energy? Rotational speed of the driveshaft is a factor, I know, but I believe that can be compensated for.
Note: 30HP on the driveshaft would equal much more than 30HP as advertised by most car companies. Companies generally rate their engines at the engines output, and not the transmissions. Putting 30HP directly into the driveshaft avoids losses through the transmission.
Slashdot Mirror
Katz, this has to be the most misleading mixture of statistics I've ever seen. There may be some support for your point, you may even be right, but your quotes of random statistics prove absolutely nothing.
the number of free adult Web sites grew from 22,100 in l997 to 280,300 last year. Sex-for-pay sites grew from 230 to 1,100 during the same period.
And just what constitutes a Web site? Is it one nudie picture or a whole multimedia adventure? The sex industry uses 'free sites' as a lure to take you to there pay site. Many of these pay sites are just a sub-section of a larger one. These numbers mean nothing.
Despite the explosion of sexual activity online, a Zogby survey found that 65.l per cent of respondents believed finding sexual fulfillment on the Net was "not likely." Duh.
Define 'sexual fulfillment', please. Hell, just define 'fulfillment'. 68 percent of the people I survey believe sexual fulfillment only occurs in a lasting, trusting relationship. That's sort of hard to find on the 'Fuck My Ass Hard' web site.
These robust figures show just how hypocritical and schizophrenic America's attitudes about sex and the Net are, and how much the success of online sex sites reveals about the future of the Web.
How do two unrelated, meaningless numbers reveal anything.
In a l999 CBS.MarketWatch.com poll, 23 per cent of the people surveyed called pornography the Net's worst feature. It's certainly all most politicians want to talk about when it comes to discussing the online world. But somebody isn't telling the truth.
Try cruising for some porn for a while. No other category of sites has as many pop-up banners (except maybe MP3 sites). I would call porn sites the Net's worst feature.
A 1999 report by Alvin Cooper and Coralie R. Scherer of the California- based Marital and Sexuality Centre found that 75 per cent of those who enjoy adult Internet sites don't tell anyone about it.
And here is the worst lie of all. Just because the vast majority of people cruising for porn don't tell anyone, you imply that everyone is doing it. If 4 out of 100 cruise for sex, 3 won't tell anyone, 68 will think there is nothing to be gained by it and 23 will think it's disgusting. Your numbers add up perfectly Katz, but they don't mean anything, and they definitely doesn't imply that people are lying, hypocritical, or schizophrenic.
The popularity of sex sites, especially during a so-called Tech Crash, ought to send a message about technology and applications that work online, or don't. Like Napster, sex sites offer genuine utility for millions of people who want sexual information and activity. Sex, like music and entertainment, is a universal human interest. Technology can make it easier for people to connect with these interests, and when that happens, the technology works. And the Net is rattling old taboos.
Or maybe the net is offering those who would break the taboos anyway a chance to do it without suffering the social stigma. Every culture has activities and views that it finds acceptable and taboo. People who follow the social structure are accepted, those who choose to break the taboos choose not to be part of that social structure. All the Net does is provide people with enough privacy to walk in two worlds at once.
According to the Cooper/Scherer report, 87 per cent of sex- site users said they felt no shame or guilt.
I'm willing to bet that this correlates well with Napster users. Maybe the revolution of the net is that it allows people to break social taboos without incurring the social punishment (the only thing that really keeps the number of murders down).
More than 60 per cent pretended to be a different age than they actually are; 14 per cent admitted that they made up other attributes; another five per cent assumed the opposite gender.
Only 14 percent. My survey shows that every male in every chat room has a 12in wanger, yet a recent study by a condom company (see today's bbspot) says the average length is 5.6in. My conclusion is that the net has a special attraction for people with big wangers. All the 45 year old men are either 18yr old females (36DD, BTW), or 22 yr old, independantly wealthy playboys. Remember, on the Net no one knows that you're a dog.
Really, Katz. Is this the best you can do?
You, sir, are obviously and either an idiot or illiterate.
The things you rant against as if I support them were described as simple solutions to complex problems that do nothing to heal the underlying issues but only disquise the symptoms.
"Peer-to-Peer," he exults,"is the next great thing for the Internet."
Ummm...no. 'P2P' is just a different way of describing what the Internet always has been. OOooh, now I can distribute my own stuff!! I can be my own publisher!! I can even let other people contribute and talk back!!
Basically the same thing with the same motivations that drove amatuer radio, CBs, and BBS phenomenons.
How much training did they give to a gradeschool teacher that they couldn't give to this guy?
Make no mistake about it, NASA's problem with this is all about PR. They want/need to be the heroes/heroines. Putting civilians in space was cast as 'NASA defeating space'. Letting a civilian buy his way into the same program robs NASA administrators of the pleasure of being the high priest that hands down the word of God.
The problem is that the executives of NASA have spent too much time reading their own press. They are on a great mission to keep space pristine and pure. But as happens in all religious movements, they get their own goals confused with those of God.
this is one of the coolest ideas I've heard of.
Why the hell ain't it on the front page? It's is much more 'new for nerds' that a 0.0.X release of a kernal PC kernel that refuses to include PC features (like swsup).
Stop to consider this for a moment. The western world is rich, with little need for the average human to have to do strenuous work for a living. They can afford to eat all they want, without having to do anything to work that food off. They keep adding fuel, without ever reving their engine. Digestion is a simple system really.
The human body is designed through years of evolutionary development to want to store up fuel as fat. Cyclical weather patterns with the accompanying cyles of feast and famine, insured that those who could store up more energy during the feast periods would fare better during the famine. The problem is, you can't continually add food without burning it off. You can't keep storing up for ever. The western world sees a continuous feast, without ever seeing the famine.
Enter these guys who have a goal of putting a hole in the fuel tank. Instead of stopping the pump, or driving the car for a while, their goal is to let the fuel pour out on the ground. This is ludicrous in its simple-minded short sightedness.
This may be a good technique for some troubling cases, but a much better solution for the majority of people is to push back from the table and get off their fat asses. I say this as a person who has lost 50lbs in the past year, and went from barely being able to run a mile in 12 minutes to running a 6:30 mile and winning a wrestling tournament this past weekend.
Westerners need to drop the idea of loosing weight, and start concentrating on making the body burn the fuel it takes in. This type of solution may make you tip the scales at a lower point, but it won't make you any healthier. There is a lot of evidence that increase flow rate of the blood does a lot of the work of cleaning arteries. How will sitting on the couch eating '0-calory' chips increase blood flow.
In summary, this type of drug is the type of 'no-pain' cure-all that my fellow American like. It hides the current, annoying symptoms, while totally ignoring the overall systemic problems. For those who doubt this, here are other examples of simple, cure-alls for systemic problems:
Yes, its rude to reply to your own post, but:
I meant that I couldn't use my land next year in order to insure that your seeds don't grow back. 8*)
On second thought, I couldn't sue Monsanto, unless it was their field could I. I mean, Monsanto wouldn't be responsible for contaminating my field if they just sold the seed to a neighboring farmer. I would have to sue my neighbor. Of course, I could force my neighbor into bankruptcy for using this seed and then take over his fields and eliminate the offensive material in the process. Would serve him right, wouldn't it?
This sounds just as cool as the GPL as far as hacks of the legal system are concerned.
If you don't want me to use your genetically engineered seeds, then make damn sure that you don't let it 'contaminate' my fields. You can sue me for using your seeds, but then you'll have to pay me
-for paying you,
-plus the cost I incurred from being sued by you,
-plus lossed profits because I couldn't use my land the next year in order to insure that your seeds grow back (ie, I get a year off at your expense)
-plus punitive damages for mental anguish
-plus anything else creative lawyers can think of
All in all, Monsanto sounds to me like the guy who lost all his change through a whole in his pocket, and now wants to beat up all the kids in the neighborhood to get his money back.
One starts at exactly 11am the other starts at exactly 11pm? One of the guys gets some CC numbers off the net and calls the 1-800 number on the back to see how much money is on the card? Western Union gives out $250 in cash? One of the guys has stolen merchandise sent to his "friend's" house?
This bullshit is worse than those hollywood movies showing a 16yr old breaking into the NSA and breaking their strongest encryption in 3mins with a full GUI animation sequence. At least the hollywood bullshit doesn't claim to be true. (It only claims to be entertaining, which is enough lying in itself).
(and root dir, but who would have executables there?)
Think COMMAND.COM
but as a Yankee fan in Ohio I don't have much of a choice and I'll pay it.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to flame, but I find this statement indicative of the mindset of a lot of my fellow Americans. I just have to say,
"BULLSHIT!!!"
You have a great deal of choice. We're talking about paying to hear someone talk about a bunch of grown men being payed to play a child's game. We're not talking about listening to a discussion on what politicians are doing to regulate our lives. We're not talking about listening to someone discuss how science and technology are changing how we live and work. We're talking about paying to hear someone talk about a bunch of grown men being payed to play a child's game.
I doubt you meant your statement as I've interpreted it. I'm sure you realize that your life would go on tomorrow without MLB. But I run into so many people who think I'm from another planet because I don't give a shit about who won the 'World Series' (which only allows American teams?), or who is playing in the 'Final Four' (oh, how I really wish it were the final four so that everyone would shut the hell up about it!)
People, these are grown men (or nearly so) playing games. They are not 'local' teams (how many of the players from the 'local' team are even from your state), and they will not let you play. What stake do you have in the outcome of any of the games?
Stop appointing yourselves kings and rulers. Entertainers are not royalty, and do not deserve to live like it.
because you are a standard Slashdotter,
The big draw back right now seems to be the useful life of the display. The numbers given by the article are a current maximum of around 1,000 hours for the blue, 100,000 for the red and 30,000(?) for the green.
My question is, would it be possible to make the displays cheap enough that they would be disposable? The article talks about advances that may make it possible to print the displays on presses much like a newspaper is printed. Would it be possible to put the control circuitry in a holder, with the OLED and substrate being on a removable plate that slid in and out? If the display replacement could be dropped to around $20, I would replace it every few months (and get used to a red/green display when funds are low 8*)
Notice how astronomers allways say that we need to spend money investigating the sky because there is a 1 in 10000000000000000000000000 chance that it could fall and kill us all in the next 100000000 years. Biologist always say that we need to spend money investigating viruses because there is a 1 in 10000000000000000000000000 chance that an formerly unknown one could pop up and kill us all in the next 100000000 years. Geologist always say that we need to spend money investigating earthquakes because there is a 1 in 10000000000000000000000000 chance that one could hit a population center and kill us all in the next 100000000 years.
Meanwhile, life goes on.
Geesh, guys. Get a new tune. Isn't there any other way to campaign for an increased budget? And you wonder why people get desensitized and just ignore you after a while. Most people realize that the chances of humanity being able to stop any of these scenarios is about 1 in 10000000000000000000000000.
The problem with any encryption system, neigh any protection system at all, is the point at which they break.
They super heavy deadbolts on my front door are useless if I pass out they key. The electronic security system is just a bunch of lights and buzzers if I give out the passcode or everyone ignores it. The extra heavy combination lock is just dead weight if the hinges of the safe are on the outside of the door.
Public Key cryptography is only as strong as the security on the key. The article says that this doesn't fit the strict definition of a security vulnerability, presumably because it doesn't break the software. Well, I'd like to disagree. Part of the product, part of what M$ sells with the promotion of signed inActiveX controls, is that the pieces of code are trusted. This is not a piece of software they are selling, it's an entire system. The software is only part of it. The system has been broken. This makes it a security vulnerability in the same way that giving out keys to my front door and the combination to my safe are security vulnerabilities.
The gist of my rant, and the point I'm trying to convey, is that systems are more than just the software. To concentrate only on one part of the system when defining terms to describe the safety of the whole system is foolish.
Ok, I hit the link and read about half of it. Many of the things seem to be nit-picking of someone with a slightly different accent. The old attitude that anyone with a southern accent is stupid and slow of wit.
A good percentage seem to be quotes from impromtu speakings/shooting from the hip type of responses to questions. Watch CSpan sometime. You'll find a lot of these type statements. They all sound ludicrous when taken out of context.
The President's method of using parenthetical phrases doesn't seem to sit well with the person making this collection, but I don't find anything silly about them.
Some of the statements appear quite ludicrous, but out of context I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. Were they prepared statements? Or was he distracted by something else while trying to answer several questions at once?
I'm sorry, but I'm from the southern United States, and I have often dealt with the "we talk better than you" snobbery. If this is the extent of your criteria for considering the man a buffoon, then I must discount your opinion as that of a political opponent who is upset that someone with opposing ideas was selected by the American people through the constitutionally mandated process as President.
You'll have to forgive me my ignorance, but I lost interest in tracking all the ins and outs of our nations capital when it was decided that lying to a grand jury was not an impeachable defense.
I'd just like to know where does this elitist outlook about the President came from? Everyone seems to think it's funny to act like the man is one step above retarded. My question is, what has he done to deserve this? I do know that he was only a C student (whether high school or college, I'm not sure). While that doesn't make him a nobel laureate, it doesn't make him an idiot either. And from the Katz' Columbine pieces, I would expect that most Slashdotter's would agree that high school grades shouldn't be considered a measure of intelligence (besides, I know several PhD who are dumb as dirt).
So, riddle me this: In what instance has the REAL President of the United States (not the one in the Saturday Night Live script) demonstrated a sever lack of intelligence?
Please don't cite policy decisions that you don't like as lack of intelligence. Scratching the back of his corporate buddies made be bad public policy, but not necessarily bad private policy. So, please just the facts.
"I could have bought a Harley for the money I've blown on it," he said.
A problem that could easily be fixed with a 'loser pays' court system. There is no way a company like this would survive if they had to pay for harassing people with bullshit claims. As it stands, all they have to lose is a little time.
public's dissatisfaction with the gTLD process is finally getting to them
ICANN isn't responsive to the public. They're responsive to companies paying to register domains. More likely they're moving to stem the rising tide of alternate naming organizations.
On the trivial part:
Why can't the patent reviewer call ??SU, with a which has a department that is well known for the technology that the patent covers. The reviewer ask to speak to a professor in that department. He ask the professor how (s)he would solve a problem covered by the patent. If the professor can describe within a ten-minute cold call the method covered by the patent, then it is trivial.
I think this would kill most of the high tech patents being given out today, because the patents only describe the obvious way to do something with a computer. (ie, it's patentable just because it is done by a computer seems to be acceptable by the USPTO)
The laser melts the rock, some of which then cools to form a ceramic pipe (RTFA). You make the the fiber optic cable with a sheath that you pump water through. This clears out extra debris and makes a lubricant to slide the cable through. With a flexible cable, turning a corner is just a matter of pumping more water to one side than the other. This will reduce resistance on the side with more water and make the cable bend in that direction. Talk to some of the guys who use newer equipment to lay fiber optics without digging a trench.
For example, let's say the Linux Standard's Orginization says RPM is the standard format that will be used for installation of software. Who has to listen?
You forget that social norms, while limiting society, actually frees the individual citizen. Think about it. It used to be universally accepted in the Western world that a man opening the door for a lady was a sign of politeness. The women's liberation movement in the 70's did much to destroy this norm. Now if a man takes a girl on a date he won't know for sure if he's being polite or insulting her. Where once he was free to act, he now has to worry over a decision. At one time there was a standard that everyone agreed to use. Now there is confusion.
Yes, that example was frivilous, I know. But think of the things that distribution do differently for no good reason at all, usually resulting in widespread confusion. Mandrake recently changed the install directory for their version of Wine if I'm not mistaken. Why? Well, was it just that someone thought it was a good idea, and there wasn't anyone saying no. Or, could it be that they just didn't know any better because there was no standard to turn to?
With a standard in place that everyone can point at and say, "That's the way this community likes to do it," many things get simpler. Fewer trivial questions have to be worried over. The mind is freed to move on to more important subjects (like, When on a date do you eat the fried chicken with your fingers or your fork?) Even diverging from the standards will be simplified. Mandrake won't have to list where everything is in their distribution; they'll only need to point out what is different from the standard.
No one will stop you from distributing your project as a tarball. But if everyone else is using RPMs, you may find more acceptance we you go along with the rest of the community. The way it is now, some distribute RPMs, some use apt-get, and some distribute tarballs (with different compression formats). Each has some small strenght over the others, but in the end they are all more similar than different. The end result is that the poor newbie is just confused. One distribution format would give him one less thing to worry over. Standards are a good thing.
NO.NO.NO.
You misunderstand. I don't want to REPLACE my engine. I want an ADDITIONAL 30hp.
I'm suggesting a motor that straps onto the driveshaft to assist the dinosaur burner. That way you jump from 170 to 200 for a somewhat average vehicle. No, it's not an incredible jump. But it would save a lot of that energy used to stop a vehicle into energy used to accelerate it. The main benefit is fuel economy, with some secondary performance enhancements to boot.
NO.NO.NO.
You misunderstand. I don't want to REPLACE my engine. I want an ADDITIONAL 30hp.
I'm suggesting a motor that straps onto the driveshaft to assist the dinosaur burner. That way you jump from 170 to 200 for a somewhat average vehicle. No, it's not an incredible jump. But it would save a lot of that energy used to stop a vehicle into energy used to accelerate it. The main benefit is fuel economy, with some secondary performance enhancements to boot.
I'd like to see a lot of hardware vendors with their own distribution. A lot of the problems with installs and "user-friendliness" in current distributions is the need to include support for every piece of hardware in existence. This often causes complex error scenarios when trying to autodetect hardware.
However, if Dell, for example, were to do a distribution for Dell computers, they would only include support for the chipsets that they were currently shipping. There would be no need to include code that would make sure that there wasn't a SuperCollosalXX00 Video Controller installed before checking for a VIA 200KX Romtroller (just to make up a bogus example).
People keep saying that 'Linux' can't do everything, but then they don't define 'Linux'. KDE/Gnome may not go everywhere, but there is no reason that the kernel can't be used in most computers, be they server, destop or appliance. And with that basic foundation, computing in general is simplified because all the systems will start behaving similarly. Where we need to differeniate is at the DISTRIBUTION level. Red Hat Linux isn't the solution to all problems. Maybe Mandrake is better for your home destop, Red Hat fits the corporate desktop and Suse is best for the server. (No flame wars please. All examples are contrived.) Currently Red Hat, Mandrake, et.al., have tried to be all things to all people, leading to the idea that Linux is complicated. Linux is not ocmplicated and can do everything if the distributers would catch a clue, define a market, and then design their distribution as a solution for that market.
The point is that all distributions should take the parts of what's being developed out there and package them in an appropriate way for the appropriate application. It will still be Linux, it will just be the parts that apply to the problem space.
So here's KUDOs to Transmeta and any other hardware vendor building a problem space specific distribution. May you live long and prosper.
I'd settle for a retro-fit electric motor that fit around my drive-shaft. Control from the brake could provide regenerative braking, and return extra excelleration at startup. The electric motor could run till the cells are nearly depleted, and leave the rest to the old dinosour burner. Solar cells could provide additional energy, though charge times would require all day to get an apprecialbe amount of energy. This would give a large portion of the benefits of EV, at a fraction of the cost.
How feasible would it be to add a 30HP electric motor to the driveshaft (basically, convert the drive shaft into a rotor), and throw in a few batteries to capture braking energy? Rotational speed of the driveshaft is a factor, I know, but I believe that can be compensated for.
Note: 30HP on the driveshaft would equal much more than 30HP as advertised by most car companies. Companies generally rate their engines at the engines output, and not the transmissions. Putting 30HP directly into the driveshaft avoids losses through the transmission.