Any nation foolhardy enough to attack in such a manner would, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist thirty minutes later.
Could you help publish a list of "optional" cities in the United States? Perhaps we could list these as preferred "first strike" targets for those countries developing nukes. Could we make sure none of the cities where my family are living are included on that list.
I honestly can't believe people are naive enough to believe that other countries (China included) aren't building up their own nuclear arsenal. Do you really think they are paying attention to the treaty? They'll continue to quietly build (under cover) until they have enough arms to be a significant threat.
Now, I agree that building a missile defense shield can lead to another sort of arms race. I'd rather see somebody come up with a technology that can detect ANY nuclear armaments in the world regardless of where they are stored. But that's not likely to happen. There's just no way to police compliance with the treaty. At least instead of developing more nuclear arms, the US is now trying to render existing arms less effective.
I also really like the way people criticize the Bush administration for this whole thing. Let's remember that the SDI concept started under Reagan, and missile interception testing began with Clinton in office. The only thing the Bush administration has done is accelerate what was already in progress.
I have two email accounts which I use for new friends, the first one is a throwaway hotmail account which doesn't matter if it gets flooded with spam....
The only problem with that is that you still have to wade through all the crap in the "purgatory" account to see if new friends are worthy of making the "real" account.
I'd like it to be done so you could still do annoymous emails etc, because privacy is important, and I don't want to have to pay for each message either. I dunno how they can do this but there must be a way.
I think the best bet is to require -- by law -- some sort of "unsolicited mail" indicator on e-mail messages. Then, if an anonymous user sends unsolicited SPAM without the indicator, authorities can demand that whatever gateway allowed them to be anonymous reveal the identity. It's not quite as private as you'd like, obviously, but it's probably the best it'll ever get. Of course, such laws would have to be agreed upon by pretty much every country on the 'net to make them worth anything....
Wish the judges in the Microsoft case were that strict...
You know, the parent post is modded as "funny" but it really isn't. If I had "mod" today, I'd make it "Insightful." Think about the implications. If Napster was a wealthy powerhouse like Microsoft, would they have received this kind of ruling? I bet not. This, of course, is not to defame Microsoft, but rather the justice system that lets large rich corporations get by with a slap on the wrist while punishing smaller companies until they are dead -- then giving them an extra kick in the ribs for good measure.
I just realized something. Only half of the junk in my Inbox comes from spammers. The other half of the junk comes from clueless friends and family who feel the need to constantly forward those "send this to 6 people... and earn $$$" messages. Or other various hoaxes. Maybe we should educate them before we go after the spammers. I've got it. We can require a training class before anybody is allowed to use e-mail. Of course, it'll have to be free -- wouldn't want to discriminate based on income. Any volunteer teachers?
It also appears that MySQL.org is clearly violating the GPL by distributing a modified version without source code for the mods.
This may or may not be true. I didn't check deeply enough. If they didn't actually alter the source of MySQL (providing a separate download for their extensions), then they aren't violating the GPL. On the other hand, if they made source modifications, they had better start shoveling fast.
Hey guys, quit arguing for a minute and actually look at the contents of the mySQL.org website. They even have a download for Nusphere MySQL. If the product name, MySQL, is trademarked, then these guys have definitely violated it.
Also remember, MySQL has to defend its trademark, or run the risk of losing it. (IANAL)
IMHO, it's far better to learn OOA/OOD first, in a manner independent of language.
Absolutely agreed. However, I learned the OO concepts independent of the language, but still had trouble wrapping my brain around it when I started learning a language. It was really odd the way I suddenly "got it." It was like my brain decided to stop fighting and give in. (Resistance was futile)
Another downside is that the features, limitations, and mechanics of the language you choose will color your perception of OO.
That's what I thought you meant. It doesn't make any sense.
Well, yeah, it does -- maybe. If you take the server being on a dial-up connection and the client being on a T-1 as the example, and the server is doing something over that connection besides just sending VNC images, then that little tiny dialup pipe will have much more impact on the server than if the situation were reversed. Usually, a client will be doing nothing over the connection except VNC, while the server may be doing many other things (including file sharing, web server, etc).
Perhaps what you're observing is the 33Kb ceiling on upstream traffic with 56Kb modems on analog POTS lines.
Absolutely, this would have an observable effect. Most connections on a 56K modem are around 46K (downstream, of course). The difference between 46K downstream and 33K upstream (13K) can be pretty significant.
What idiot modded the parent post as "Troll?" This is a perfectly legitimate question. It's also something that many people struggle with.
I'll offer what little I can. I was a C programmer for years. When I left college, there was no C++. Object Oriented languages were just starting to form. Unfortunately, I didn't really learn any of them in school. I wasn't incredibly interested in C++, but I WAS interested in Java. Although I had studied some Object Oriented concepts in school, applying them with a programming language is a completely different ball of wax. I started trying to learn Java, and was very frustrated. My brain just "didn't get it." I think I had actually been hurt by programming in "C" all of those years.
Oddly enough, it was Visual Basic that brought me around. (I can almost hear the gasps from readers). While Visual Basic falls far short of being a true object oriented language, it does employ some of the concepts. At work, I was forced to implement a project in VB because nobody there knew anything else. I first wrote the program by ignoring object oriented concepts. Then, when I was trying to make some of the functions I wrote more reusable for others, the whole object oriented concept suddenly snapped into my brain. I completed the VB program (using what OO concepts VB supports), and was anxious to try my hand at learning Java again. Suddenly, concepts that were foreign to me made sense. It was much easier to learn than before.
In summary, everybody learns things a little differently. If you don't already know any programming languages, it might be easier for you to learn something that doesn't use Object Oriented concepts -- such as BASIC or Pascal. These languages are often more restrictive, but are usually good training tools. The only caution is that if you get used to programming without objects, you may have the same problem I did in starting to use them.
While a seemingly awesome concept, handhelds have seem to come under pressure lately. Their sales are slipping, yet popularity is rising... What is keeping the handhelds from becoming what it was envisioned to be, a usefull device in the hand of every person that does "everything".... in short, why are handhelds f'ing up?
There are several reasons. I'll list a few big ones. Some are interrelated. I base most of this information on my experiences with implementing hand held devices and applications within a large company.
They are too expensive for what they can do. Most people use a handheld to track their contacts and calendar. Quite frankly, that's as far as many people get. There are tons of other pocket organizer devices that can handle those tasks at a much lower price. Some can even share data with their computer.
The screens are too small to make using some would-be-killer applications a real joy. Trying to view a "Word" document or "Excel" spreadsheet on a handheld is about as much fun as a trip to the dentist.
Data entry is slow. Unless you have a full-sized keyboard, data entry is slower than most people like. Nobody is going to carry a keyboard around. The closest I've seen to satisfying this need is the foldup keyboard for the Palm. Handwriting recognition is still not top notch. Speech processing is even further behind. Plus, devices don't have enough memory to properly support these two. But, they're getting closer. An affordable solid state mass storage device (multiple GB) would be a real help.
Here's the big one. The true power to portable devices lies in wireless connectivity. Many many killer applications could be designed that would run over a wireless connection. Unfortunately, wireless data quite literally sucks in the United States. It's not much better in Europe. Users are extremely disappointed with the speeds, patchy availability and cost of wireless networking. Without wireless, you can't even send e-mail from out in the field. Last year, many of the large companies had promised next generation wireless connectivity within six months. Nearly a year later, there's no new dates projected. All of this happened, of course, because capital investments in wireless infrastructure were dramatically curtailed.
Different devices are not very interoperable. It's tough to design applications for one device and make them work on another -- even if they are internet apps.
Few wireless applications transition well between online and offline mode. With such spotty coverage, applications that work well in both modes (and do so seamlessly) are highly desirable.
Most people agree that Microsoft Windows is a good operating system. You're full of shit. Should I believe whatever the masses believe? What if everyone believed jumping off a cliff was beneficial? "Well, it looks like everyone believes it, so it has to have some merit... let's try ourselves!...aaahhhh"
Take a valium, will ya? I never said, "YOU must believe that there is a global warming." If you look at the statistics quoted in the article, you'll clearly see that most Americans (perhaps I should have been that specific before) agree that global warming is happening.
Most Americans have no clue about the constant FUD being spread about global warming.
I made no references to any FUD being spread, nor did I try to argue the validity of such. If you read my post carefully, you'll find that I neither supported nor took a stand against the prospect of global warming. My facts were pretty clear: There are reports and data that indicate that carbon dioxide emissions are having a significant impact on global warming. There are also reports and data to the contrary. The truth is that at this point there is enough evidence for people to believe whatever they want to.
Most people agree that a global warming is in progress. A slightly smaller number agrees that humans are contributing to it. But before we go making assumptions about political shortcomings around global warming, let's look at a few of the facts.
The earth has historically gone through cycles of warming and cooling. Studies show that we're currently well overdue for one. The breakup of ice at the poles has happened before.
There is conflicting research and data on just how much of an impact carbon dioxide emissions have contributed to the global warming effect.
The Kyoto accord that the US backed out of placed unequal burden on countries for emissions reduction. Developing nations were not subject to the same restrictions, thus granting them favoritism. You might argue that this is as it should be, but there were no clear definitions of when a nation would no longer be considered "developing." Furthermore, there was no plan considered for transitioning a country that was previously not burdened by the treaty into a situation of burden. In that event, all of the countries would probably get together and argue for about 10 years over how it would be done. Meanwhile, emerging country X would get a stranglehold on the rest of the world.
The US is currently having trouble meeting the energy demands of the nation. Adhering to the Kyoto accord would place further strain on already taxed energy supplies -- at least in the short term.
Now, you can argue that current energy problems in the US are their own fault. This is true, but doesn't change the fact that the problem exists. You can also argue that placing tighter emissions restrictions on energy development would ultimately yield a greener and more cost effective energy solution. This would be true for the long run, but not the short run. I'm sure it wasn't easy for the President to decide to back out of Kyoto. Unfortunately, he's stuck with the legacy (translate "mess") left to him by Clinton and his own father.
This could help Amazon OR put them out of business. If the local bookstores start using this invention, people won't have much use for ordering the books online. This machine will already provide the lower costs people seek.
On the other hand, if Amazon uses the same technology, while at the same time partnering with publishers to provide a storage and licensing system that bookstores can tap into, it could put them in the black for a long time.
Imagine this. Not only does Amazon manage to get rid of a large portion of their inventory (very costly) while still providing speedy service, they can tap into the instant gratification market that bookstores enjoy. You go to your local bookstore, tell them the title you want. They go to their "book press" and search through the online database at Amazon to find the correct book, then request that the book be made. This action automatically downloads the text from the Amazon database, and logs a record for that bookstore. The publisher of the book gets a record of who printed what book and simply invoices the stores for what they printed. Imagine the cost savings to EVERYONE! No more overprinting of books that just won't sell. Incredible.
Mark it up to arrogance or stupidty, but they are on a path of desctruction. Years ago, Apple Computer worked tightly with educational institutions (mostly universities) to get their hardware (and software) installed for students. Many times, their products were provided at little or no cost. This investment paid off big time. Many college students ended up buying Macintosh computers when they left college. Why? Because it was what they were used to.
Now, Microsoft is irritating the people that educate young minds. They are very clearly handing the very places where people are first exposed to computers a darn good reason for jumping on the Open Source / Free Software bandwagon. Honestly, somebody with some financial resources should contact these schools and offer to help them transition to Free Software that will prevent them from ever being hassled over licenses again.
After reading all of these latest releases about Microsoft bullying people, I can't help but think that they are either incredibly stupid (not likely), or they have an ace up their sleeve that nobody knows about yet. All of this sheds light on an experience a company I used to work at had. A few years ago, Microsoft did a license audit at the site (a hospital, BTW), and mysteriously discovered that they weren't in compliance. Now, I wondered how that could possibly be true, as we had more licenses than were being used. Anyway, under the disguise of benevolence, Microsoft agreed to forget the penalities from being "underlicensed," as long as the institution agreed to purchase an "Enterprise License." So, many many budget dollars were redirected to purchase the Enterprise License so that the institution wouldn't get sued. Quite a few high profile projects had to be scaled back or dropped altogether. I wonder what effect that might have had on patient outcomes....
It is against the law to withhold a persons mail. (In the US.) Including unsolicited mail.
By that token, should it be unlawful to withhold a person's phone calls?
What about voicemail?
Pages?
SMS messages? ...email?
If the US courts behave liked their theory implies (act on precedent), we have a couple of results:
A) It will be illegal to withhold a person's sent mail because it would be withholding some other person's email.
B) (This one's chancy) It will be illegal to ban the sending of any email, because to ban the creation of an email message which would have been created had it not been banned is the same as withholding the receiver's email because the email would have been received otherwise.
Bear in mind that this law you are stating applies only to mail through the US Postal Service, which is a branch of the federal government. Interfering with the USPS is a federal offense. The same is not true with email. Email is distributed by private companies, government agencies and universities. It is not illegal, nor is is likely to become illegal, to ban sending of any email or to withhold email.
I don't understand the real value. Net2phone already offers long-distance service at, I believe, 3.9 cents per minute. It's a prepaid deal, and you don't have to worry about being billed 1.5 times the amount if you run over. You can just set it up to automatically charge your credit card for a specified amount. The per minute rate remains the same.
Check out the facts:
For 99 cents a month, you get national long distance for as little as 3.9 cents per minute.
International long distance is as little as 7.9 cents per minute. (I've made tons of calls from Germany to US for 10 cents/min)
You don't need any special equipment. Just pick up your phone and dial the local access number. If no local access number is available in your area, dial the toll-free access number (for a slightly higher charge).
Now, if you want Rave, you pay for the device, the monthly fee. Extra money if you run over your monthly alotment. You also pay for a router or whatever and broadband access.
What are brain waves? Most of these studies are done with MRI or CT scans, as far as I know. I'm curious what sophisticated techniques they're using for collecting their data.
I'm pretty sure they used electrodes located at various points on the scalp and measured potentials between those points. They were measuring brain activity, and not mapping the physical constructs of the brain (as would happen with MRI or CT). I think the technique they used was closer to an EEG.
My grandparents (who live in East Point, an Atlanta suburb) found WebVan to be quite convenient. Grandpa has macular degeneration and can't see well enough to drive anymore; Grandma has muscular atrophy and doesn't get around much either.
Well, they'll now have to use one of the other (non web-based) delivery services. But it'll cost a bit more, probably.
It makes you wonder how the old practice of delivering milk door-to-door worked. I remember as recently as fifteen years ago my grandparents had their milk delivered every morning in glass quart bottles.
This probably worked because the dairy was local. One of the reasons you don't see it much today is because local dairy farms are rare now. They have collapsed into just a few massive dairy farms. Based on what I'm reading, I think this is where Webvan screwed up. They tried to build huge distribution centers, and then ship the goods eighty or more miles to individual customers. Imagine what it would cost to handle such shipping with just a few hours turnaround time. They'd have probably been better off if they'd partnered with local grocery stores, and then hired local drivers to shop and drop off the goods. Since most grocery stores now have their inventory computerized, it should theoretically be possible to partner with an online service -- but they'll have to do a lot better job of keeping their inventory clean.
It was a service that allowed you to shop for your groceries online, and then delivered them to your home at only a modest premium. Many times, they offered same day delivery.
I can't help but think that a major part of failures of these companies (like priceline and webvan) is mostly related to poor management strategies. It should honestly be possible to make money this way. I, for one, enjoy the convenience of being able to shop by internet and have things delivered to my door. It, obviously, works great for the non-perishable items.
There are plenty of surviving home-delivery services out there that either accept a shopping list via the phone, or come to your house and pick it up. Then, they shop for you and deliver your groceries, charging you a premium for the service. I would think that webvan could have struck a deal with the local grocery stores that allowed them to charge a lower premium than the non-web-based services. Most people would still pay the premium to have their shopping done for them. In fact, I know of plenty of satisfied customers from the Atlanta area, before it shut down.
So what's the scoop here? Why are businesses like this having so much trouble? No ENOUGH business? Or just stupid management?
New Zealand has a privatised electricity production industry and it keeps electricity prices down. It's a little thing called competition.
And therein lies the problem. Too often, politicians listen to the mindless screaming of citizens to either "break up" corporate monopolies or make government controlled utilities private. They don't consider the ramifications and necessities for a successful venture. If there is no direct competition in a market segment, making a utility private or breaking up a corporation will usually have no positive effect.
Consider the breakup of AT&T in the United States. They formed a bunch of regional telephone operators and a long distance company. Each of the regional companies has a monopoly in their own area. But they required new long distance companies to be formed that would provide competition. Now what we have is lower long distance costs (where the competition is), and local costs that haven't improved much with incredibly poor service.
I honestly don't understand where the confusion is. The capitalist model is actually quite simple. If you have direct competition, prices go down and service improves. If you don't have competition or government regulation, prices go up and service gets crappy. Greed only works when two different greedy people are after the same pile of money. If only the government(s) understood this concept....
Maybe now they'll have more opportunity to do this to their customers.
But seriously, I used to live in a Comcast area. Most of the people there thought the service was pretty good. Just like any other tech company, if you needed support, the level of proficiency depended on who you were lucky (or unlucky) enough to get on the phone. Speeds were pretty good (usually over 1 Mb/s), and they slowed down to just over modem speeds during "prime time" in the evenings. I noticed the same results over ISDN, so it was probably just the regional network in general.
My only complaint with Comcast is what I considered to be a mishandled "buyout" for the company that USED to control that area. At that time, they were Suburban Cable, and had been promising cable modem access. They kept giving dates when it would be available, and suddenly they were sold to Comcast. To the credit of Comcast, when I called them and asked for an availability date, I got a much more realistic one. It was about one month after I moved.
Now I live in a area that has cable service supplied by a really small company. Cable modem should be available very very soon now. I've been much happier in general with the smaller company, so I can't wait to see how they stack up on cable modem.
As you saw when you read the article, but seem to have forgotten in the intervening time, you don't wash them. they live off the dirt in your clothes.
Perhaps you should read more carefully yourself. Although my memory is fading, and I can't re-read the article because it's giving a JRUN error now, I believe that the bacteria currently don't live off of dirt, or even sweat for that matter. They live off of some nutrients they soaked into the fibers. However, the statement was that they could be ALTERED to live off of sweat and body-odor causing chemicals. This, however, is only about 2/3 of the reason we wash clothing. The other 1/3 would be the grass stains, grape juice, or general mud and dirt that find their way to our clothing. My comment was merely to point out what washing would do, and promote discussion on whether the bacteria could be engineered to feed off of other substances that typically prompt us to wash our clothing.
although there are thousands of strains without which we'd all starve due to our inadequate guts
Yeah, that's one of life's more funny ironies. Your body can't do without something that can kill it. Of course, I guess you could say the same thing about water. As for eating Bart's shorts? Let's get Mikey to eat them.:)
I wonder how well the bacteria would stand up to washing. Or maybe they'll come up with bacteria that feeds on common clothing stains, too. That way, you'd never have to wash them. Imagine: No more shrinking jeans episodes!! That way, if your clothing was too tight, you'd have nothing else to blame but your poor eating habits.
A question: any chance those E. coli bacteria could mutate into a harmful strain?
I definitely applaud the technology, but five seconds is a little unsettling for translation. I can just see the subject staring blankly at you for a few second, and then opening his/her mouth to tell you to go away just as the translation starts. Maybe improved processing power will help this a lot in the future.
But seriously, I was surprised that they actually translate the speech to text, then run it through a translator, and then translate text back to audio. While that's certainly the best approach for getting something out the door quickly, it seems it would be better to take the three technologies and merge them into something that performs the translation from the original speech without turning it into text first. That would surely chop a little off the translation time, don't you think?
Slashdot Mirror
Could you help publish a list of "optional" cities in the United States? Perhaps we could list these as preferred "first strike" targets for those countries developing nukes. Could we make sure none of the cities where my family are living are included on that list.
I honestly can't believe people are naive enough to believe that other countries (China included) aren't building up their own nuclear arsenal. Do you really think they are paying attention to the treaty? They'll continue to quietly build (under cover) until they have enough arms to be a significant threat.
Now, I agree that building a missile defense shield can lead to another sort of arms race. I'd rather see somebody come up with a technology that can detect ANY nuclear armaments in the world regardless of where they are stored. But that's not likely to happen. There's just no way to police compliance with the treaty. At least instead of developing more nuclear arms, the US is now trying to render existing arms less effective.
I also really like the way people criticize the Bush administration for this whole thing. Let's remember that the SDI concept started under Reagan, and missile interception testing began with Clinton in office. The only thing the Bush administration has done is accelerate what was already in progress.
GreyPoopon
--
The only problem with that is that you still have to wade through all the crap in the "purgatory" account to see if new friends are worthy of making the "real" account.
I'd like it to be done so you could still do annoymous emails etc, because privacy is important, and I don't want to have to pay for each message either. I dunno how they can do this but there must be a way.
I think the best bet is to require -- by law -- some sort of "unsolicited mail" indicator on e-mail messages. Then, if an anonymous user sends unsolicited SPAM without the indicator, authorities can demand that whatever gateway allowed them to be anonymous reveal the identity. It's not quite as private as you'd like, obviously, but it's probably the best it'll ever get. Of course, such laws would have to be agreed upon by pretty much every country on the 'net to make them worth anything....
GreyPoopon
--
You know, the parent post is modded as "funny" but it really isn't. If I had "mod" today, I'd make it "Insightful." Think about the implications. If Napster was a wealthy powerhouse like Microsoft, would they have received this kind of ruling? I bet not. This, of course, is not to defame Microsoft, but rather the justice system that lets large rich corporations get by with a slap on the wrist while punishing smaller companies until they are dead -- then giving them an extra kick in the ribs for good measure.
GreyPoopon
--
I just realized something. Only half of the junk in my Inbox comes from spammers. The other half of the junk comes from clueless friends and family who feel the need to constantly forward those "send this to 6 people ... and earn $$$" messages. Or other various hoaxes. Maybe we should educate them before we go after the spammers. I've got it. We can require a training class before anybody is allowed to use e-mail. Of course, it'll have to be free -- wouldn't want to discriminate based on income. Any volunteer teachers?
GreyPoopon
--
This may or may not be true. I didn't check deeply enough. If they didn't actually alter the source of MySQL (providing a separate download for their extensions), then they aren't violating the GPL. On the other hand, if they made source modifications, they had better start shoveling fast.
GreyPoopon
--
Also remember, MySQL has to defend its trademark, or run the risk of losing it. (IANAL)
GreyPoopon
--
Absolutely agreed. However, I learned the OO concepts independent of the language, but still had trouble wrapping my brain around it when I started learning a language. It was really odd the way I suddenly "got it." It was like my brain decided to stop fighting and give in. (Resistance was futile)
Another downside is that the features, limitations, and mechanics of the language you choose will color your perception of OO.
Definitely very very true.
GreyPoopon
--
Well, yeah, it does -- maybe. If you take the server being on a dial-up connection and the client being on a T-1 as the example, and the server is doing something over that connection besides just sending VNC images, then that little tiny dialup pipe will have much more impact on the server than if the situation were reversed. Usually, a client will be doing nothing over the connection except VNC, while the server may be doing many other things (including file sharing, web server, etc).
Perhaps what you're observing is the 33Kb ceiling on upstream traffic with 56Kb modems on analog POTS lines.
Absolutely, this would have an observable effect. Most connections on a 56K modem are around 46K (downstream, of course). The difference between 46K downstream and 33K upstream (13K) can be pretty significant.
GreyPoopon
--
I'll offer what little I can. I was a C programmer for years. When I left college, there was no C++. Object Oriented languages were just starting to form. Unfortunately, I didn't really learn any of them in school. I wasn't incredibly interested in C++, but I WAS interested in Java. Although I had studied some Object Oriented concepts in school, applying them with a programming language is a completely different ball of wax. I started trying to learn Java, and was very frustrated. My brain just "didn't get it." I think I had actually been hurt by programming in "C" all of those years.
Oddly enough, it was Visual Basic that brought me around. (I can almost hear the gasps from readers). While Visual Basic falls far short of being a true object oriented language, it does employ some of the concepts. At work, I was forced to implement a project in VB because nobody there knew anything else. I first wrote the program by ignoring object oriented concepts. Then, when I was trying to make some of the functions I wrote more reusable for others, the whole object oriented concept suddenly snapped into my brain. I completed the VB program (using what OO concepts VB supports), and was anxious to try my hand at learning Java again. Suddenly, concepts that were foreign to me made sense. It was much easier to learn than before.
In summary, everybody learns things a little differently. If you don't already know any programming languages, it might be easier for you to learn something that doesn't use Object Oriented concepts -- such as BASIC or Pascal. These languages are often more restrictive, but are usually good training tools. The only caution is that if you get used to programming without objects, you may have the same problem I did in starting to use them.
GreyPoopon
--
There are several reasons. I'll list a few big ones. Some are interrelated. I base most of this information on my experiences with implementing hand held devices and applications within a large company.
GreyPoopon
--
Take a valium, will ya? I never said, "YOU must believe that there is a global warming." If you look at the statistics quoted in the article, you'll clearly see that most Americans (perhaps I should have been that specific before) agree that global warming is happening.
Most Americans have no clue about the constant FUD being spread about global warming.
I made no references to any FUD being spread, nor did I try to argue the validity of such. If you read my post carefully, you'll find that I neither supported nor took a stand against the prospect of global warming. My facts were pretty clear: There are reports and data that indicate that carbon dioxide emissions are having a significant impact on global warming. There are also reports and data to the contrary. The truth is that at this point there is enough evidence for people to believe whatever they want to.
GreyPoopon
--
Now, you can argue that current energy problems in the US are their own fault. This is true, but doesn't change the fact that the problem exists. You can also argue that placing tighter emissions restrictions on energy development would ultimately yield a greener and more cost effective energy solution. This would be true for the long run, but not the short run. I'm sure it wasn't easy for the President to decide to back out of Kyoto. Unfortunately, he's stuck with the legacy (translate "mess") left to him by Clinton and his own father.
GreyPoopon
--
On the other hand, if Amazon uses the same technology, while at the same time partnering with publishers to provide a storage and licensing system that bookstores can tap into, it could put them in the black for a long time.
Imagine this. Not only does Amazon manage to get rid of a large portion of their inventory (very costly) while still providing speedy service, they can tap into the instant gratification market that bookstores enjoy. You go to your local bookstore, tell them the title you want. They go to their "book press" and search through the online database at Amazon to find the correct book, then request that the book be made. This action automatically downloads the text from the Amazon database, and logs a record for that bookstore. The publisher of the book gets a record of who printed what book and simply invoices the stores for what they printed. Imagine the cost savings to EVERYONE! No more overprinting of books that just won't sell. Incredible.
GreyPoopon
--
Now, Microsoft is irritating the people that educate young minds. They are very clearly handing the very places where people are first exposed to computers a darn good reason for jumping on the Open Source / Free Software bandwagon. Honestly, somebody with some financial resources should contact these schools and offer to help them transition to Free Software that will prevent them from ever being hassled over licenses again.
After reading all of these latest releases about Microsoft bullying people, I can't help but think that they are either incredibly stupid (not likely), or they have an ace up their sleeve that nobody knows about yet. All of this sheds light on an experience a company I used to work at had. A few years ago, Microsoft did a license audit at the site (a hospital, BTW), and mysteriously discovered that they weren't in compliance. Now, I wondered how that could possibly be true, as we had more licenses than were being used. Anyway, under the disguise of benevolence, Microsoft agreed to forget the penalities from being "underlicensed," as long as the institution agreed to purchase an "Enterprise License." So, many many budget dollars were redirected to purchase the Enterprise License so that the institution wouldn't get sued. Quite a few high profile projects had to be scaled back or dropped altogether. I wonder what effect that might have had on patient outcomes....
GreyPoopon
--
By that token, should it be unlawful to withhold a person's phone calls?
What about voicemail?
Pages?
SMS messages?
If the US courts behave liked their theory implies (act on precedent), we have a couple of results:
A) It will be illegal to withhold a person's sent mail because it would be withholding some other person's email.
B) (This one's chancy) It will be illegal to ban the sending of any email, because to ban the creation of an email message which would have been created had it not been banned is the same as withholding the receiver's email because the email would have been received otherwise.
Bear in mind that this law you are stating applies only to mail through the US Postal Service, which is a branch of the federal government. Interfering with the USPS is a federal offense. The same is not true with email. Email is distributed by private companies, government agencies and universities. It is not illegal, nor is is likely to become illegal, to ban sending of any email or to withhold email.
GreyPoopon
--
Check out the facts:
Now, if you want Rave, you pay for the device, the monthly fee. Extra money if you run over your monthly alotment. You also pay for a router or whatever and broadband access.
GreyPoopon
--
I'm pretty sure they used electrodes located at various points on the scalp and measured potentials between those points. They were measuring brain activity, and not mapping the physical constructs of the brain (as would happen with MRI or CT). I think the technique they used was closer to an EEG.
GreyPoopon
--
Well, they'll now have to use one of the other (non web-based) delivery services. But it'll cost a bit more, probably.
It makes you wonder how the old practice of delivering milk door-to-door worked. I remember as recently as fifteen years ago my grandparents had their milk delivered every morning in glass quart bottles.
This probably worked because the dairy was local. One of the reasons you don't see it much today is because local dairy farms are rare now. They have collapsed into just a few massive dairy farms. Based on what I'm reading, I think this is where Webvan screwed up. They tried to build huge distribution centers, and then ship the goods eighty or more miles to individual customers. Imagine what it would cost to handle such shipping with just a few hours turnaround time. They'd have probably been better off if they'd partnered with local grocery stores, and then hired local drivers to shop and drop off the goods. Since most grocery stores now have their inventory computerized, it should theoretically be possible to partner with an online service -- but they'll have to do a lot better job of keeping their inventory clean.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
There are plenty of surviving home-delivery services out there that either accept a shopping list via the phone, or come to your house and pick it up. Then, they shop for you and deliver your groceries, charging you a premium for the service. I would think that webvan could have struck a deal with the local grocery stores that allowed them to charge a lower premium than the non-web-based services. Most people would still pay the premium to have their shopping done for them. In fact, I know of plenty of satisfied customers from the Atlanta area, before it shut down.
So what's the scoop here? Why are businesses like this having so much trouble? No ENOUGH business? Or just stupid management?
GreyPoopon
--
And therein lies the problem. Too often, politicians listen to the mindless screaming of citizens to either "break up" corporate monopolies or make government controlled utilities private. They don't consider the ramifications and necessities for a successful venture. If there is no direct competition in a market segment, making a utility private or breaking up a corporation will usually have no positive effect.
Consider the breakup of AT&T in the United States. They formed a bunch of regional telephone operators and a long distance company. Each of the regional companies has a monopoly in their own area. But they required new long distance companies to be formed that would provide competition. Now what we have is lower long distance costs (where the competition is), and local costs that haven't improved much with incredibly poor service.
I honestly don't understand where the confusion is. The capitalist model is actually quite simple. If you have direct competition, prices go down and service improves. If you don't have competition or government regulation, prices go up and service gets crappy. Greed only works when two different greedy people are after the same pile of money. If only the government(s) understood this concept....
GreyPoopon
--
But seriously, I used to live in a Comcast area. Most of the people there thought the service was pretty good. Just like any other tech company, if you needed support, the level of proficiency depended on who you were lucky (or unlucky) enough to get on the phone. Speeds were pretty good (usually over 1 Mb/s), and they slowed down to just over modem speeds during "prime time" in the evenings. I noticed the same results over ISDN, so it was probably just the regional network in general.
My only complaint with Comcast is what I considered to be a mishandled "buyout" for the company that USED to control that area. At that time, they were Suburban Cable, and had been promising cable modem access. They kept giving dates when it would be available, and suddenly they were sold to Comcast. To the credit of Comcast, when I called them and asked for an availability date, I got a much more realistic one. It was about one month after I moved.
Now I live in a area that has cable service supplied by a really small company. Cable modem should be available very very soon now. I've been much happier in general with the smaller company, so I can't wait to see how they stack up on cable modem.
GreyPoopon
--
Perhaps you should read more carefully yourself. Although my memory is fading, and I can't re-read the article because it's giving a JRUN error now, I believe that the bacteria currently don't live off of dirt, or even sweat for that matter. They live off of some nutrients they soaked into the fibers. However, the statement was that they could be ALTERED to live off of sweat and body-odor causing chemicals. This, however, is only about 2/3 of the reason we wash clothing. The other 1/3 would be the grass stains, grape juice, or general mud and dirt that find their way to our clothing. My comment was merely to point out what washing would do, and promote discussion on whether the bacteria could be engineered to feed off of other substances that typically prompt us to wash our clothing.
although there are thousands of strains without which we'd all starve due to our inadequate guts
Yeah, that's one of life's more funny ironies. Your body can't do without something that can kill it. Of course, I guess you could say the same thing about water. As for eating Bart's shorts? Let's get Mikey to eat them. :)
GreyPoopon
--
A question: any chance those E. coli bacteria could mutate into a harmful strain?
GreyPoopon
--
But seriously, I was surprised that they actually translate the speech to text, then run it through a translator, and then translate text back to audio. While that's certainly the best approach for getting something out the door quickly, it seems it would be better to take the three technologies and merge them into something that performs the translation from the original speech without turning it into text first. That would surely chop a little off the translation time, don't you think?
GreyPoopon
--