Isn't the technical name for such a thing an "inert motor"? I was surprised at the article not using that term, but then made a search and discovered that the name is not so widespread as I thought. Is that the usual way of calling a motor that can work without using ejection of mass, or there is another way, or there is no established way? I had always liked that term, together with "cold light" (light source with no generated heat, do I have to revise that too?). But perhaps I'm old-fashioned, or just plain wrong.
How to say if computers save money to a hospital? Do you take into account reduction in errors, perhaps malpractice errors that could cost millions? Do you take into account expanded possibilities? If you now have a service that wouldn't be possible without computers, are the profits of that service included in the study?
I once made a program for a manufacturing company, that sequenced the production in the different machines. They had at the time one person making the sequence for the machines manually. They had like 14 machines, and things were starting to go a bit out of hand, so the program idea. Now the company has grown, they have two different plants and about 40 machines, that work much faster than before, so the workload is even bigger. There are now two persons making the sequence. They have payed a lot for the program and changes and maintenance through the years. They have saved a lot also by reduced inventories and less errors. They have one person more, but probably they'd have needed more if it weren't for the program. But more important than that, is that they have changed procedures _because_ they had the program. They have reduced the size of manufacturing runs. They have achieved some quality certifications that have won them (who knows how many?) clients. I'm not just trying to say that computers save money, but that I wouldn't know even how to start to measure how much. I much fear that the study is a bit shallow. A similar study could conclude that this company has lost money by getting the program because they have doubled the personnel costs. As the article is skimpy on details of procedure, one is left to wonder, but my main idea is that it's practically impossible to conduct a meaningful study in search of that answer.
I would like to read the disclaimer you have to sign to become a client. Something like "Any relationship between us and people that know what they are doing, is purely coincidental".
Yeah! I tried to install AdBlockPlus to mine loved and honored, and she fighted the idea with tooth and nail. She likes the ads. She wants to be informed of the last offers and like stuff. I suppose that for someone for which shopping is an important part of life, it makes sense. Kind of.
And two months later when you're back at the unemployment office you can chuckle to yourself about the fun you had.
That's a possibility, of course. But you'd be doing your job in the best possible way. In my experience, there is always an element of risk in excellence. Anyway, you can minimize your risks. You can always make a seminar first, give everybody a ten-commandment-sheet, etc. explaining what they cannot do, and then send the traps as tests, after some weeks. If they fail, you can say that anybody following the security measures has nothing to fear from the traps, that way you slyly shift the blame to them victims.
Nobody learns to avoid fire by being told. You have to get near and feel the heat to know you better not do it. So my advice is: make traps. Send them emails signed by other coworker asking for their password. Send them executable files that block their computer and flash a sign telling them that all their files are being erased, just because they executed a file from a unknown origin. All kind of traps, with nasty consequences if possible, you don't want them to click into everything because it can be another amusing idea of you. You want them scared of your ideas so that they look askance to every email or web page to see if it could be a trap. As they might be, so that's the right attitude.
There is a big difference between man-vs-machine and multiplayer games. In multiplayer games, there is certainly the need of a certain handicap to make the game fun to everybody. In man-vs-machine, I'd say that yes, the game can get more difficult, but also that the rewards must increase. So if the enemies get stronger, you have to at least have the option (if you are skilled enough) of getting better weapons or whatever. Also if the measure of the game is the score, for example, then the score should reflect that you have walked a more difficult route.
I bought a small cheap reader, a Cybook. The thing is far from perfect. The screen is worse than others that I've seen, there are no tree structure in the library, and it hangs about once in ten boots. But it's still a wonder. It's thin, light and you can have a thousand books there. I'm now addicted to the thing. Read mostly novels there, no PDF stuff.
Then my brother lent me an SF book from Poul Anderson. Heavy stuff, and I don't mean the plot. The book was heavy, more than seven hundred pages of thick paper. The thing bent my hands down when reading in bed. So I reasoned that the text might be online. Went to the net, found it, downloaded it and presto! it was in the eBook reader. The pleasure of reading was back.
Books are much more pirateable than music, because they are much lighter. You can put ten books in a song. A couple of Gigabytes of books is enough for a lifetime, and you can transfer them in few hours. I have read these ideas of books being an object of love and desire in themselves, and I even thought I was in that camp, till I found out how fast I ditched them paper books. No regrets, no looking back. If I ever miss the sweet smell of paper I can crush a torn page under my nose while reading the odorless ebooks. I just need a better reader and paper books are history for me. And I'd say that also goes for the most of the rest of the world, at least the part that reads anyway. I have to pry my reader from the hands of everybody whom I lent it, for reading something only available online, for example.
Put a good-enough reader out (and no, the Kindle is not yet it), and you can start re-defining best-sellers the platinum disc way. Books will be leaked before they are printed, and almost nobody will make a living writing. Well, that last part is mostly true nowadays too, so perhaps nothing will change that much. But the pirating of books, by being ten times easier to pirate than music, and a thousand times easier than films; and providing a best overall experience IMHO, will be incredible. And now, with the Kindle and others, you'll begin to get better quality from the pirated ebooks. Now is mostly OCR, but soon will be mostly well-corrected for-purchase ebooks, unprotected after buying, and released to the wild masses.
Books napsterized? They'll make Napster look like a joke.
I'd say sell publishing companies' stock and shelve those plans of richness and fame by becoming a best-seller author. Ah! and welcome to the Data Century.
I wonder just why USB3 cannot be used as that one-connector-to-rule-them-all stuff. In fact, anybody knows why monitors aren't offering the USB2 option? It's a bandwidth problem or what? And why is not more widespread the use of USB2 as networking port? Just a matter of speed? USB2 is speedy enough for most networking uses, and USB3 will be faster than most Ethernets. Of course you'd need routers with USB2 connections, but they could start with one or two connections at first and see if people bought it. As I say, perhaps there is perfectly good (read technical) reasons for not having just USB ports in computers nowadays (after all , they *did* remove the mouse connector, so it cannot be a complete conspiracy), but it sounds like one of these standards fights that usually don't end up helping customers.
Anyway, if it's fast, cheap and flexible, welcome. I just hope it doesn't become a second HDMI where you have to pay the cables as if they were solid gold.
Is the Windows Mobile situation caused by an inferior platform? I always had the idea that WM was/is failing because mobile manufacturers don't want to go the way of the PC manufacturers and end up like commodity makers with razor-thin margins, leaving all fat profits, control of the complete experience and user-locking to Microsoft. They somehow, for estrange reasons, seem to mistrust Microsoft and won't put its software on its handsets. It's not a technology reason. Am I wrong? Does WM suck when compared to other mobile development platforms?
a) Slowdown in sales of new handsets. b) Bigger use of independent mp3 players c) Growth of the second-hand handsets market. d) Growth of Internet buys of foreign-made handsets.
All in all, a bad thing for Japanese handset makers
For me is that the original tests were "helped" to better numbers, as they meant billions of dollars in profits. Now the interest is not so big and so the numbers are closer to reality.
Wow, look at the current front page!. It's like an RSS of op-eds. Everything is either an announcement, or covering of some event, or something like that. Now, I don't mind an slashvertisement now and then, but this is becoming too much.
Don't tell me. It'll be ready for mass production in 3 to 5 years. Somehow, I seem to remember stories like this from more than five years ago, and still, nothing happens and the solar cells are more or less the same as always.
unacceptable "control freakery" of DRM and regional coding, to overcharging and exploitation of the very artists the music industry claims to protect
As a first step I suggest they finish up with DRM, regional coding, overcharging and exploitation of artists. That will certainly leave the downloaders without arguments, and much enhance the effect of any campaign they are planning. I for one would pay more attention to any message if there was cheap, non-DRM'd, varied and easily available music and videos, and a big percentage of the money would go to the authors. Until then, the rationalization for downloading is so easy, it can be confounded with reasoning.
Virtual Machines suggest themselves. Do everything school-related in a VM and reset it from time to time. Also, in my experience, art-oriented institutions are choked full of hot chicks, so stop complaining and try to see this as an opportunity. Computer malware is not the only think that you can interchange with a dumb coed, you know.
Sometimes they get left out because they didn't fit on the record
Well, the other songs of the record did fit on the record. So the left overs were probably considered worse than the others. I do think there is a certain, not evolution, but selection of good music going on. Not always work, but most of the time it does. Good music tends to be kept, bad to be forgotten. I think that's one of the reason why classical music seems better than contemporary. It's just that we are spared the tons of bad classical music that have mercifully been erased from global consciousness. There are other reasons too, having to do with rules and constraints, but that's beside this point. Notice also that I used The Beatles in my example, the idea being that if the songs had kept unreleased for so many years, it's probably just greed and the need to profit from a good trademark, that cause today's publication.
To hear the sounds generated by this re-created instrument, reinforced me in my belief that extinct instruments are extinct with very good reasons. It's like when I hear that they will publish some "previously unreleased" songs from The Beatles, or whoever. I mean, if they didn't release them then, it was probably because they weren't good enough.
What does this say for the wisdom of non-US citizens relying on US companies for their business or communication?
About the same as the wisdom of US citizens relying on US companies for their business or communication. The ones are about as likely as the others, to end up with a strange feeling on their backsides.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the technical name for such a thing an "inert motor"? I was surprised at the article not using that term, but then made a search and discovered that the name is not so widespread as I thought. Is that the usual way of calling a motor that can work without using ejection of mass, or there is another way, or there is no established way? I had always liked that term, together with "cold light" (light source with no generated heat, do I have to revise that too?). But perhaps I'm old-fashioned, or just plain wrong.
How to say if computers save money to a hospital? Do you take into account reduction in errors, perhaps malpractice errors that could cost millions? Do you take into account expanded possibilities? If you now have a service that wouldn't be possible without computers, are the profits of that service included in the study?
I once made a program for a manufacturing company, that sequenced the production in the different machines. They had at the time one person making the sequence for the machines manually. They had like 14 machines, and things were starting to go a bit out of hand, so the program idea. Now the company has grown, they have two different plants and about 40 machines, that work much faster than before, so the workload is even bigger. There are now two persons making the sequence. They have payed a lot for the program and changes and maintenance through the years. They have saved a lot also by reduced inventories and less errors. They have one person more, but probably they'd have needed more if it weren't for the program. But more important than that, is that they have changed procedures _because_ they had the program. They have reduced the size of manufacturing runs. They have achieved some quality certifications that have won them (who knows how many?) clients. I'm not just trying to say that computers save money, but that I wouldn't know even how to start to measure how much. I much fear that the study is a bit shallow. A similar study could conclude that this company has lost money by getting the program because they have doubled the personnel costs. As the article is skimpy on details of procedure, one is left to wonder, but my main idea is that it's practically impossible to conduct a meaningful study in search of that answer.
I would like to read the disclaimer you have to sign to become a client. Something like "Any relationship between us and people that know what they are doing, is purely coincidental".
Yeah! I tried to install AdBlockPlus to mine loved and honored, and she fighted the idea with tooth and nail. She likes the ads. She wants to be informed of the last offers and like stuff. I suppose that for someone for which shopping is an important part of life, it makes sense. Kind of.
And two months later when you're back at the unemployment office you can chuckle to yourself about the fun you had.
That's a possibility, of course. But you'd be doing your job in the best possible way. In my experience, there is always an element of risk in excellence. Anyway, you can minimize your risks. You can always make a seminar first, give everybody a ten-commandment-sheet, etc. explaining what they cannot do, and then send the traps as tests, after some weeks. If they fail, you can say that anybody following the security measures has nothing to fear from the traps, that way you slyly shift the blame to them victims.
Nobody learns to avoid fire by being told. You have to get near and feel the heat to know you better not do it. So my advice is: make traps. Send them emails signed by other coworker asking for their password. Send them executable files that block their computer and flash a sign telling them that all their files are being erased, just because they executed a file from a unknown origin. All kind of traps, with nasty consequences if possible, you don't want them to click into everything because it can be another amusing idea of you. You want them scared of your ideas so that they look askance to every email or web page to see if it could be a trap. As they might be, so that's the right attitude.
There is a big difference between man-vs-machine and multiplayer games. In multiplayer games, there is certainly the need of a certain handicap to make the game fun to everybody. In man-vs-machine, I'd say that yes, the game can get more difficult, but also that the rewards must increase. So if the enemies get stronger, you have to at least have the option (if you are skilled enough) of getting better weapons or whatever. Also if the measure of the game is the score, for example, then the score should reflect that you have walked a more difficult route.
Bet for more. More pirated than music, I'd say.
I bought a small cheap reader, a Cybook. The thing is far from perfect. The screen is worse than others that I've seen, there are no tree structure in the library, and it hangs about once in ten boots. But it's still a wonder. It's thin, light and you can have a thousand books there. I'm now addicted to the thing. Read mostly novels there, no PDF stuff.
Then my brother lent me an SF book from Poul Anderson. Heavy stuff, and I don't mean the plot. The book was heavy, more than seven hundred pages of thick paper. The thing bent my hands down when reading in bed. So I reasoned that the text might be online. Went to the net, found it, downloaded it and presto! it was in the eBook reader. The pleasure of reading was back.
Books are much more pirateable than music, because they are much lighter. You can put ten books in a song. A couple of Gigabytes of books is enough for a lifetime, and you can transfer them in few hours. I have read these ideas of books being an object of love and desire in themselves, and I even thought I was in that camp, till I found out how fast I ditched them paper books. No regrets, no looking back. If I ever miss the sweet smell of paper I can crush a torn page under my nose while reading the odorless ebooks. I just need a better reader and paper books are history for me. And I'd say that also goes for the most of the rest of the world, at least the part that reads anyway. I have to pry my reader from the hands of everybody whom I lent it, for reading something only available online, for example.
Put a good-enough reader out (and no, the Kindle is not yet it), and you can start re-defining best-sellers the platinum disc way. Books will be leaked before they are printed, and almost nobody will make a living writing. Well, that last part is mostly true nowadays too, so perhaps nothing will change that much. But the pirating of books, by being ten times easier to pirate than music, and a thousand times easier than films; and providing a best overall experience IMHO, will be incredible. And now, with the Kindle and others, you'll begin to get better quality from the pirated ebooks. Now is mostly OCR, but soon will be mostly well-corrected for-purchase ebooks, unprotected after buying, and released to the wild masses.
Books napsterized? They'll make Napster look like a joke.
I'd say sell publishing companies' stock and shelve those plans of richness and fame by becoming a best-seller author. Ah! and welcome to the Data Century.
Thanks :o) Interesting data
I wonder just why USB3 cannot be used as that one-connector-to-rule-them-all stuff. In fact, anybody knows why monitors aren't offering the USB2 option? It's a bandwidth problem or what? And why is not more widespread the use of USB2 as networking port? Just a matter of speed? USB2 is speedy enough for most networking uses, and USB3 will be faster than most Ethernets. Of course you'd need routers with USB2 connections, but they could start with one or two connections at first and see if people bought it. As I say, perhaps there is perfectly good (read technical) reasons for not having just USB ports in computers nowadays (after all , they *did* remove the mouse connector, so it cannot be a complete conspiracy), but it sounds like one of these standards fights that usually don't end up helping customers.
Anyway, if it's fast, cheap and flexible, welcome. I just hope it doesn't become a second HDMI where you have to pay the cables as if they were solid gold.
Is the Windows Mobile situation caused by an inferior platform? I always had the idea that WM was/is failing because mobile manufacturers don't want to go the way of the PC manufacturers and end up like commodity makers with razor-thin margins, leaving all fat profits, control of the complete experience and user-locking to Microsoft. They somehow, for estrange reasons, seem to mistrust Microsoft and won't put its software on its handsets. It's not a technology reason. Am I wrong? Does WM suck when compared to other mobile development platforms?
I'm one of the mediocre colleagues, you insensitive clod!
The like consequences would be:
a) Slowdown in sales of new handsets.
b) Bigger use of independent mp3 players
c) Growth of the second-hand handsets market.
d) Growth of Internet buys of foreign-made handsets.
All in all, a bad thing for Japanese handset makers
For me is that the original tests were "helped" to better numbers, as they meant billions of dollars in profits. Now the interest is not so big and so the numbers are closer to reality.
Wow, look at the current front page!. It's like an RSS of op-eds. Everything is either an announcement, or covering of some event, or something like that. Now, I don't mind an slashvertisement now and then, but this is becoming too much.
How does this works with the Microsoft-Nokia deal to have Office in the Nokia phones? Don't tell me we are going to have Office in Linux!
The result of providing a more challenging environment, within five short months, Lovley notes, was evolution of a beefed-up microorganism
Evolution..., well, in this case, we could be a partly right if we speak of intelligent design.
I thought that they had found out that people will leave their true love if they are paid that amount. _That_ would have been interesting.
Don't tell me. It'll be ready for mass production in 3 to 5 years. Somehow, I seem to remember stories like this from more than five years ago, and still, nothing happens and the solar cells are more or less the same as always.
I wonder if he'll manage to make that a boring subject.
"Gosh! Butt's test again! I'm sick of this subject!"
unacceptable "control freakery" of DRM and regional coding, to overcharging and exploitation of the very artists the music industry claims to protect
As a first step I suggest they finish up with DRM, regional coding, overcharging and exploitation of artists. That will certainly leave the downloaders without arguments, and much enhance the effect of any campaign they are planning. I for one would pay more attention to any message if there was cheap, non-DRM'd, varied and easily available music and videos, and a big percentage of the money would go to the authors. Until then, the rationalization for downloading is so easy, it can be confounded with reasoning.
Virtual Machines suggest themselves. Do everything school-related in a VM and reset it from time to time. Also, in my experience, art-oriented institutions are choked full of hot chicks, so stop complaining and try to see this as an opportunity. Computer malware is not the only think that you can interchange with a dumb coed, you know.
Sometimes they get left out because they didn't fit on the record
Well, the other songs of the record did fit on the record. So the left overs were probably considered worse than the others. I do think there is a certain, not evolution, but selection of good music going on. Not always work, but most of the time it does. Good music tends to be kept, bad to be forgotten. I think that's one of the reason why classical music seems better than contemporary. It's just that we are spared the tons of bad classical music that have mercifully been erased from global consciousness. There are other reasons too, having to do with rules and constraints, but that's beside this point. Notice also that I used The Beatles in my example, the idea being that if the songs had kept unreleased for so many years, it's probably just greed and the need to profit from a good trademark, that cause today's publication.
To hear the sounds generated by this re-created instrument, reinforced me in my belief that extinct instruments are extinct with very good reasons. It's like when I hear that they will publish some "previously unreleased" songs from The Beatles, or whoever. I mean, if they didn't release them then, it was probably because they weren't good enough.
What does this say for the wisdom of non-US citizens relying on US companies for their business or communication?
About the same as the wisdom of US citizens relying on US companies for their business or communication. The ones are about as likely as the others, to end up with a strange feeling on their backsides.