iff you can scrape the bacteria, dump it somewhere, and not have it die and release all it's carbon as CO2. Again, sounds like it's going to be very difficult to find a bacteria that can do photosynthesis on such a large scale, and then just get dumped somewhere without simply releasing all the CO2 you just trapped. However, he did say it would probably take about 4 years to get a prototype working.
Not putting carbon into the air isn't a bad solution, but if we can catch it in the stack, then it's not making it to the air. Of course, this does nothing to solve the whole shrtage of fossil fuels problem, but that's a whole 'nother issue...
The CO2 is not being transformed back into pure carbon (coal) and oxygen. If the bacteria assembled the carbon atoms from the carbon dioxide back into coal, you'd have a point, but instead they do something entirely different (photosynthesis) with the carbon dioxide. I tend to agree that finding a bacterium that can do photosynthesis on such a large scale sounds difficult, but it wouldn't violate any conservation principles (Energy or "Matter").
the article suggests they live on some sort of screen in the stack itself. The bug in "Zodiac" could spread freely throughout the water, which is why it was so dangeroues. I get the impression this would be confined to the factory stack, and could not go airborne. They definitely need some careful impact studies though.
by doing what I think he suggests... pay the hardware royalties to the copyright holders in porportion to the number of downloads. There are a number of technical and business problems with this, but this basic system would allow both large record labels and independents to make money in porportion to how much their artists' songs get downloaded... presumably pop labels would make a lot of money because they own the copyright on popular music that will get downloaded often, and independent artists will receive money for their music directly. Record labels would still survive, because popular music will be downloaded much more often, and to get popular, musicians will still need the same advertising/promotional support they receive now from record labels.
Some of the considerable problems with this scheme include:
1. Is it really fair to tax me for hardware that I may or may not be using for the purpose of recreating music?
2. What happens when people just download music to their hard drive and never copy it? Or copy it onto a re-writable medium that is cheap and can be used many times, and therefore won't generate high tax revenue?
3. How is this stuff going to be tracked technically? And how would we deal with, for example, DDoS-type attacks that, instead of bringing down servers, cause massive downloads of a band's music to boost their revenue?
4. Are the record labels willing to trade the high profits they make on physical CDs for this new and untried system?
Basically, this would be difficult to implement, but I still think it's one of the few plans I've heard that sound like they might be able to keep Napster and similar services free, while allowing artists and record companies to make a profit.
to the students, they're just recognizing there isn't always a teacher/parent around to hear the threat. The problem here is not so much kids telling on other kids, but teachers and administrators who can't tell the difference between a serious threat and someone mouthing off. Perosnally, I think if a child feals threatened by another child, they should be able to tell their parents/teachers about it- placing the burden on kids to distinguish between "real" and "perceived" threats is kind of unfair, especially if the threat is coming from someone they don't know well. But the parents and teachers they tell then need to take appropriate action, and expelling someone for a childish threat with no evidence they intended to actually carry it out is certainly not appropriate.
Somehow, I could swear when I was in school (5 years ago) the teachers and administrators could deal with situations like this much better. Has the educational system really broken down this far, or is this just a small group of overreacting teachers and administrators making eberyone else look bad?
for either the employee or his employer. If he didn't sign a legal agreement stating he wouldn't discuss the company after his termination, he has the legal right to talk about the company as long as he doesn't slander them. Likewise, his former company has a right to talk to his current employer, as long as they don't slander him. In either case, if the comments cause measurable harm to someone (his comments hurt his former employer's stock price, or his former employer causes him to lose his current job) AND it can be proven that what was said was untrue, either party could be in legal trouble.
I believe they are looking at only have the POTENTIAL to be expressed. Clearly, carrying a Y chromosome isn't just the "potential" to become a woman, it means you ARE a woman (well, most of the time... )...
If someone already has cancer, they're going to have a tough time getting medical insurance (right or wrong, that's the way it is and it's pretty widely accepted). The issue is, can insurance companies screen you for genetic risk factors, things that may or may not cause health problems later in life? Well, as far as I'm concerned, if they can charge you more because you smoke cigarettes and have a higher potential for lung cancer, they might as well be able to charge you more for genetic problems that give you a higher potential for some disease. And "control" has nothing to do with it... a cancer patient didn't choose to get cancer, but their health insurance is still going to be astronomical.
after the.com bubble finally popped, but apparently not. The recent market crashes had nothing to do with bandwidth, or content, or presentation. They were simply companies with poor business plans who got WAY too much venture capital, and then had generated ridiculous stock prices. It wasn't the content, or the presentation, of their Web sites... their core businesses couldn't POSSIBLY hope to generate enough revenue to give them a realistic P/E ratio. I don't care how cool your site looks, you can't generate $10 billion in revenue selling mail-order dog food. And you CERATAINLY can't generate $100 million in revenue from advertising when there are no barriers to entry (besides $50 to register a domain name and $10/mnth for Web hosting) in your market. Poor business models produce bankrupt businesses, period.
Of course, it is true that it's up to the corporate sector rather than the geeks to make the Internet a better experience for the average user, and they did it. They just couldn't make the ridiculous amount of money they projected. That's the fault of the executives, not the geeks.
I have no doubt that many late teens/early 20s are just as, if not more, technically competent than their older peers. That doesn't mean they have the experience they need to make good business judgements. I know many programmers who come up with wonderful, intelligent, innovative, and completely unmarketable ideas. If your boss is ignoring your opinion on purely technical subjects, you're probably facing some age discrimination. If your boss is ignoring your opinion on business related issues (i.e. what operating system the company should be using) keep in mind he may be looking at things from a slightly different angle.
I work in an engineering firm where 75% of the engineers are over 40 and most have been with the company 20+ years. Once I established myself with my supervisors (took about 3 months) I never had a problem getting anyone to take my opinion seriously. Present yourself well, show that you're organized, businesslike, and that you understand the fundamental aspects of the business, and you shouldn't have a problem. If your management still won't take you seriously, consider switching companies, because there's no sense in waiting 10 years to move up the chain if you really are ready now.
I don't think the point of the XFL is stunning, technically precise football... some players aren't bad, the defenses are slow, and overall it's like watching a college game. But that's not the point... this is "sports entertainment" (Vince McMahon's category describing pro wrestling) and the idea is simply to entertain. I think it will get better as the players get used to the idea (five years ago no one in wrestling could cut a decent promo either, now anyone who wrestles has at least SOME small level of acting ability). The XFL will eventually be fun to watch if it survives more than a season, but it's never going to offer the level of play you find in the NFL.
Slashdot Mirror
iff you can scrape the bacteria, dump it somewhere, and not have it die and release all it's carbon as CO2. Again, sounds like it's going to be very difficult to find a bacteria that can do photosynthesis on such a large scale, and then just get dumped somewhere without simply releasing all the CO2 you just trapped. However, he did say it would probably take about 4 years to get a prototype working.
Not putting carbon into the air isn't a bad solution, but if we can catch it in the stack, then it's not making it to the air. Of course, this does nothing to solve the whole shrtage of fossil fuels problem, but that's a whole 'nother issue...
The CO2 is not being transformed back into pure carbon (coal) and oxygen. If the bacteria assembled the carbon atoms from the carbon dioxide back into coal, you'd have a point, but instead they do something entirely different (photosynthesis) with the carbon dioxide. I tend to agree that finding a bacterium that can do photosynthesis on such a large scale sounds difficult, but it wouldn't violate any conservation principles (Energy or "Matter").
the article suggests they live on some sort of screen in the stack itself. The bug in "Zodiac" could spread freely throughout the water, which is why it was so dangeroues. I get the impression this would be confined to the factory stack, and could not go airborne. They definitely need some careful impact studies though.
by doing what I think he suggests... pay the hardware royalties to the copyright holders in porportion to the number of downloads. There are a number of technical and business problems with this, but this basic system would allow both large record labels and independents to make money in porportion to how much their artists' songs get downloaded... presumably pop labels would make a lot of money because they own the copyright on popular music that will get downloaded often, and independent artists will receive money for their music directly. Record labels would still survive, because popular music will be downloaded much more often, and to get popular, musicians will still need the same advertising/promotional support they receive now from record labels.
Some of the considerable problems with this scheme include:
1. Is it really fair to tax me for hardware that I may or may not be using for the purpose of recreating music?
2. What happens when people just download music to their hard drive and never copy it? Or copy it onto a re-writable medium that is cheap and can be used many times, and therefore won't generate high tax revenue?
3. How is this stuff going to be tracked technically? And how would we deal with, for example, DDoS-type attacks that, instead of bringing down servers, cause massive downloads of a band's music to boost their revenue?
4. Are the record labels willing to trade the high profits they make on physical CDs for this new and untried system?
Basically, this would be difficult to implement, but I still think it's one of the few plans I've heard that sound like they might be able to keep Napster and similar services free, while allowing artists and record companies to make a profit.
to the students, they're just recognizing there isn't always a teacher/parent around to hear the threat. The problem here is not so much kids telling on other kids, but teachers and administrators who can't tell the difference between a serious threat and someone mouthing off. Perosnally, I think if a child feals threatened by another child, they should be able to tell their parents/teachers about it- placing the burden on kids to distinguish between "real" and "perceived" threats is kind of unfair, especially if the threat is coming from someone they don't know well. But the parents and teachers they tell then need to take appropriate action, and expelling someone for a childish threat with no evidence they intended to actually carry it out is certainly not appropriate.
Somehow, I could swear when I was in school (5 years ago) the teachers and administrators could deal with situations like this much better. Has the educational system really broken down this far, or is this just a small group of overreacting teachers and administrators making eberyone else look bad?
for either the employee or his employer. If he didn't sign a legal agreement stating he wouldn't discuss the company after his termination, he has the legal right to talk about the company as long as he doesn't slander them. Likewise, his former company has a right to talk to his current employer, as long as they don't slander him. In either case, if the comments cause measurable harm to someone (his comments hurt his former employer's stock price, or his former employer causes him to lose his current job) AND it can be proven that what was said was untrue, either party could be in legal trouble.
I believe they are looking at only have the POTENTIAL to be expressed. Clearly, carrying a Y chromosome isn't just the "potential" to become a woman, it means you ARE a woman (well, most of the time... )...
If someone already has cancer, they're going to have a tough time getting medical insurance (right or wrong, that's the way it is and it's pretty widely accepted). The issue is, can insurance companies screen you for genetic risk factors, things that may or may not cause health problems later in life? Well, as far as I'm concerned, if they can charge you more because you smoke cigarettes and have a higher potential for lung cancer, they might as well be able to charge you more for genetic problems that give you a higher potential for some disease. And "control" has nothing to do with it... a cancer patient didn't choose to get cancer, but their health insurance is still going to be astronomical.
after the .com bubble finally popped, but apparently not. The recent market crashes had nothing to do with bandwidth, or content, or presentation. They were simply companies with poor business plans who got WAY too much venture capital, and then had generated ridiculous stock prices. It wasn't the content, or the presentation, of their Web sites... their core businesses couldn't POSSIBLY hope to generate enough revenue to give them a realistic P/E ratio. I don't care how cool your site looks, you can't generate $10 billion in revenue selling mail-order dog food. And you CERATAINLY can't generate $100 million in revenue from advertising when there are no barriers to entry (besides $50 to register a domain name and $10/mnth for Web hosting) in your market. Poor business models produce bankrupt businesses, period.
Of course, it is true that it's up to the corporate sector rather than the geeks to make the Internet a better experience for the average user, and they did it. They just couldn't make the ridiculous amount of money they projected. That's the fault of the executives, not the geeks.
I have no doubt that many late teens/early 20s are just as, if not more, technically competent than their older peers. That doesn't mean they have the experience they need to make good business judgements. I know many programmers who come up with wonderful, intelligent, innovative, and completely unmarketable ideas. If your boss is ignoring your opinion on purely technical subjects, you're probably facing some age discrimination. If your boss is ignoring your opinion on business related issues (i.e. what operating system the company should be using) keep in mind he may be looking at things from a slightly different angle.
I work in an engineering firm where 75% of the engineers are over 40 and most have been with the company 20+ years. Once I established myself with my supervisors (took about 3 months) I never had a problem getting anyone to take my opinion seriously. Present yourself well, show that you're organized, businesslike, and that you understand the fundamental aspects of the business, and you shouldn't have a problem. If your management still won't take you seriously, consider switching companies, because there's no sense in waiting 10 years to move up the chain if you really are ready now.
I don't think the point of the XFL is stunning, technically precise football... some players aren't bad, the defenses are slow, and overall it's like watching a college game. But that's not the point... this is "sports entertainment" (Vince McMahon's category describing pro wrestling) and the idea is simply to entertain. I think it will get better as the players get used to the idea (five years ago no one in wrestling could cut a decent promo either, now anyone who wrestles has at least SOME small level of acting ability). The XFL will eventually be fun to watch if it survives more than a season, but it's never going to offer the level of play you find in the NFL.