The closest living relative to human beings is not the common chimpanzee. It's the bonobo, also known as the pigmy chimpanzee. Interesting creatures, with even more interesting sex lives.
Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of owners who would NOT trade the handling for the extra speed. That's also why I mentioned the option of choosing less batteries. I don't get much chance to drive on too many windy roads in my Elise, so I'd probably be willing to give up a little handling for some boosted torque. Luckily I can't afford the extra $35K, so I don't have to spend much time thinking about it.
Oh, you said "Tesla Roadster". I thought you said "Testarossa". I wonder if the name is supposed to sound similar.
From the pictures, it is apparent that the car is a modified Lotus Elise. The base Elise costs $45K, so the modifications are only $35K. Not all that bad for cutting edge, actually. I'm sure there are plenty of Elise drivers who would spend that kind of money to get an even more exotic car, and to improve the 0-60 mph from 4.7 seconds to 3.1 or so. (There's an $18K kit that one tuner is working on.) They'd probably even order it with less batteries to lighten the car and improve the speed/acceleration.
OK, now I feel dumb. As well I should. I'll admit that I only skimmed the article, because I've actually read the book it is reviewing; so I didn't think I'd get all that much out of the review. I read your comment -- about the way you learn -- out of context, thinking that the "type 3" was about the way you learn, not the third group of people who might be interested in the book. I did search the article before posting, and couldn't find any mention of "type" or "3".
Duh! Sorry!
I also like the Anonymous Coward comment about searching Wikipedia before reading the article. I think it should have gotten a mod point or 2.
OK, I couldn't find it in Wikipedia, and I've never heard the term. What is a type 3? I learn much better when I understand why. Does that make me a type 3 or a type 4 or something?
It's right there at the bottom of the Wikipedia page you referenced -- solution stack. It's been there since May, merged in from the page on computer stacks.
While performance is important, it's not even remotely the most important factor when deciding upon an API stack. It's much more important to have an environment that will help/let you code quickly. And other factors like flexibility, correctness, security, and reliability generally come before performance.
I hate Notes. Its my absolute, all time, most hated application (for any OS). It has the most mega-goofy, non-intutive interface and requires gigabytes of RAM just to start itself.
The water issue (like many worldwide problems) is more about transport than filtration. There's plenty of water in the ocean, but it's a lot more expensive to filter that than fresh water. I expect oil to be replaced by nuclear power. I'm not sure we'd be able to get enough energy out of just (direct) solar, wind, and crop energy. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper at least. The land issue isn't just about "storing" people. It's about having enough aerable land to grow food for everyone. And dispose of waste properly. Or at least keep it away from where people live. And the problem with losing land to rising sea levels isn't so much where to put them as the expense of moving them, and losing all the buildings and other infrastrucuture.
Throughout history, the rate of technology has at times sped up and at times slowed down. While I expect technology growth to continue to be exponential, I think that it's unlikely that it will remain as high as it currently is. Plus, when talking about food and waste, there's only so much space and raw materials to work with.
Wow, you have the most uninformative web site I've ever seen -- a blank page! I had to read the source, and all it told me was the one piece of information I was looking for. Now I understand your claim of having never been to a major US city despite having lived in the US for a couple years.
I've been to San Francisco a few times, and I love it. My first thought the first time driving up there was that I thought it was odd that they didn't build any higher up the mountain just south of the city. Then I got to the city with all the streets at 45 degree slopes and understood why. Anyway, I don't think that the city itself is that beautiful. (For the most part, it's not ugly, just average.) At least not from the south. I suppose it's nice from the east and north. It's more the views of the ocean/bay from the city. Imagine standing at the top of a 2-mile 45-degree slope, with nice old 3-story buildings lining the street, a church at the bottom, right in front of the bay, and across the bay, green mountains. Or a view of the Golden Gate Bridge, with green mountains on one side, big old buildings on the other, and fog below. And there are so many interesting places to go and see in such a small area. When I've been there, it hasn't been foggy all that much. And the one time it was really foggy on the ocean side, it was clear and sunny a couple miles east on the bay side.
I'd urge you to get out and see the country. I've never been to Minneapolis, but I think it's pretty big, and it's the closest big city to you. Looks like you can get there in less than 5 hours. It'd make a good weekend trip for you. Omaha, Des Moines, and Kansas City would be good for 3-day weekend trips, but wouldn't have as much big-city feel.
I'd also urge you to go to Chicago. A 10-hour drive each way isn't too bad for a 3-4 night stay. If you can afford it, stay downtown. (Priceline can help.) Chicago has so much to do within a few miles. I went 2 weeks ago. We walked from the hotel to the new Millennium Park, Grant Park, the Magnificent Mile, Lake Michigan, and the Navy Pier. We also caught a baseball game. All told, the 2 nights and 2 days cost us about $350, including gas from St. Louis.
If you can afford to fly, or get lucky to have your company send you on a business trip, there are plenty of other places to visit. You should take that opportunity whenever you can.
One problem with your post-scarcity theory: it won't last. The world population is expected to double over the next 100 years. I'm not sure technology will be able to deal with the scarcity issues that quickly. Especially for things like clean water, oil, and land. I expect there to at least be some serious wars as these resources become more scarce.
I'd also like to mention humanity's penchant for powerful people to create scarcity in order to increase their power. While technology has helped us counteract that nicely over the past 50 years, I'm not confident that it will continue to do so long term.
I wrote a whole big post on interdependence. But I like this guy's answer better: "learning from the past". I can't believe he hasn't gotten any mod points yet.
This is in the YRO section. What are the online rights involved in this case? Was there a warrantless intrusion into a private chat room? Was there torture involved? I didn't see anything in the article to indicate anything to be concerned about. (Including that the plot might be successful, or that anyone's civil right had been threatened.) This just looks like another feeble attempt at an attack, good FBI investigation, and politicians trying to look like they're winning the war on terror before the elections.
That we're hearing about these is a good indication that they're the first significant attempts at attacks. Why would the government publicize these but not more serious attempted attacks?
I think a big part of the answer is to become interdependent upon one another. It's pretty difficult to go to war with someone with whom you are interdependent. The USA might not get agree with a lot of what China does, but it seems pretty unlikely that we'd come to blows. (I suppose part of that is mutual assured destruction, too.) Our economies are too intertwined. Can you imagine the US stopping Chinese imports all of a sudden? The impact to our own interests would be unthinkable. I'm not sure if it's a sad reflection or positive reflection on the nature of people, that selfish economic reasons can now largely override the main reasons we've historically gone to war. (Note that a large portion of wars have been for economic reasons. Even parts of WWII -- Japan attacked the USA because we were blocking their access to oil.)
That said, I'm not sure whether these interdependencies will keep the larger countries from continuing to go to war against smaller countries. In fact, I think there may be more wars over resources as some things (oil, clean water, land) become more scarce.
I think a better world government system would also help. Most people in most countries seem to be against the idea. But I think the US and the EU provide good examples that formerly sovereign states getting together and giving up some of that soverignty can have very positive outcomes -- mainly because of the interdependence they form with each other. Unfortunately, I don't have any idea how to go about changing people's minds on the issue.
(My answer assumes that a major world war is the most likely threat to humanity over the next 100 years. Given the current weapons available, and the escalation of war over the past several hundred years, I don't think this is unreasonable. The other likely contenders seem less likely to happen in the next 100 years, given historical precedents: virus ourbreak, meteor, alien invasion, etc. Global warming and other threats are likely to have a significant impact, but I think they will cause more fighting over resources than direct impact.)
In my neighborhood we obey the laws of physics! I'd let the planes' momentum carry them past my house. I would be very seriously surprised if they fell straight down to the ground.
The patent does not apply to packet filter firewalls (the majority of all firewalls, including the ones you listed) because it says the packets traverse the application layer. The market for application layer (proxy) firewalls is actually pretty narrow. The main contender (SideWinder) recently bought out the 2 main competitors (Gauntlet and CyberGuard). Whether it would apply to hybrid firewalls (packet filters that do deep inspection, like Checkpoint and Netscreen) is less clear.
I expect that Microsoft will "eat" the cost of the free downloads. As some have pointed out, Microsoft may not have enough leverage to negotiate a sweetheart deal, since they've currently got no market share. (Or maybe the others are correct that Microsoft does have the leverage, but I don't see how the RIAA could get away with that type of collusion.) And I'm pretty sure they'll get in trouble for using such an anti-competitive tactic (again).
Slashdot Mirror
The closest living relative to human beings is not the common chimpanzee. It's the bonobo, also known as the pigmy chimpanzee. Interesting creatures, with even more interesting sex lives.
Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of owners who would NOT trade the handling for the extra speed. That's also why I mentioned the option of choosing less batteries. I don't get much chance to drive on too many windy roads in my Elise, so I'd probably be willing to give up a little handling for some boosted torque. Luckily I can't afford the extra $35K, so I don't have to spend much time thinking about it.
Oh, you said "Tesla Roadster". I thought you said "Testarossa". I wonder if the name is supposed to sound similar.
From the pictures, it is apparent that the car is a modified Lotus Elise. The base Elise costs $45K, so the modifications are only $35K. Not all that bad for cutting edge, actually. I'm sure there are plenty of Elise drivers who would spend that kind of money to get an even more exotic car, and to improve the 0-60 mph from 4.7 seconds to 3.1 or so. (There's an $18K kit that one tuner is working on.) They'd probably even order it with less batteries to lighten the car and improve the speed/acceleration.
Well, the bed has traditionally been a good place to get screwed....
OK, now I feel dumb. As well I should. I'll admit that I only skimmed the article, because I've actually read the book it is reviewing; so I didn't think I'd get all that much out of the review. I read your comment -- about the way you learn -- out of context, thinking that the "type 3" was about the way you learn, not the third group of people who might be interested in the book. I did search the article before posting, and couldn't find any mention of "type" or "3".
Duh! Sorry!
I also like the Anonymous Coward comment about searching Wikipedia before reading the article. I think it should have gotten a mod point or 2.
OK, I couldn't find it in Wikipedia, and I've never heard the term. What is a type 3? I learn much better when I understand why. Does that make me a type 3 or a type 4 or something?
It's right there at the bottom of the Wikipedia page you referenced -- solution stack. It's been there since May, merged in from the page on computer stacks.
While performance is important, it's not even remotely the most important factor when deciding upon an API stack. It's much more important to have an environment that will help/let you code quickly. And other factors like flexibility, correctness, security, and reliability generally come before performance.
Actually, new people at Google are known as Nooglers.
Only on slashdot could you be completely wrong and Insightful at the same time.
But like a real publication, the correction of the error sits in small print on page 8, unnoticed.
I hate Notes. Its my absolute, all time, most hated application (for any OS). It has the most mega-goofy, non-intutive interface and requires gigabytes of RAM just to start itself.
You've obviously never had to use SAP.
I went into #linux, and got yelled at for having this "Windows" installed. They said it was total crap and nothing would work right with it.
At this point, fuck Linux. Sick of dealing with the bullshit.
I once watched 9 1/2 Weeks on TV. Not much point -- there was little left of the movie.
The water issue (like many worldwide problems) is more about transport than filtration. There's plenty of water in the ocean, but it's a lot more expensive to filter that than fresh water. I expect oil to be replaced by nuclear power. I'm not sure we'd be able to get enough energy out of just (direct) solar, wind, and crop energy. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper at least. The land issue isn't just about "storing" people. It's about having enough aerable land to grow food for everyone. And dispose of waste properly. Or at least keep it away from where people live. And the problem with losing land to rising sea levels isn't so much where to put them as the expense of moving them, and losing all the buildings and other infrastrucuture.
Good dicusssion, though.
Throughout history, the rate of technology has at times sped up and at times slowed down. While I expect technology growth to continue to be exponential, I think that it's unlikely that it will remain as high as it currently is. Plus, when talking about food and waste, there's only so much space and raw materials to work with.
Wow, you have the most uninformative web site I've ever seen -- a blank page! I had to read the source, and all it told me was the one piece of information I was looking for. Now I understand your claim of having never been to a major US city despite having lived in the US for a couple years.
I've been to San Francisco a few times, and I love it. My first thought the first time driving up there was that I thought it was odd that they didn't build any higher up the mountain just south of the city. Then I got to the city with all the streets at 45 degree slopes and understood why. Anyway, I don't think that the city itself is that beautiful. (For the most part, it's not ugly, just average.) At least not from the south. I suppose it's nice from the east and north. It's more the views of the ocean/bay from the city. Imagine standing at the top of a 2-mile 45-degree slope, with nice old 3-story buildings lining the street, a church at the bottom, right in front of the bay, and across the bay, green mountains. Or a view of the Golden Gate Bridge, with green mountains on one side, big old buildings on the other, and fog below. And there are so many interesting places to go and see in such a small area. When I've been there, it hasn't been foggy all that much. And the one time it was really foggy on the ocean side, it was clear and sunny a couple miles east on the bay side.
I'd urge you to get out and see the country. I've never been to Minneapolis, but I think it's pretty big, and it's the closest big city to you. Looks like you can get there in less than 5 hours. It'd make a good weekend trip for you. Omaha, Des Moines, and Kansas City would be good for 3-day weekend trips, but wouldn't have as much big-city feel.
I'd also urge you to go to Chicago. A 10-hour drive each way isn't too bad for a 3-4 night stay. If you can afford it, stay downtown. (Priceline can help.) Chicago has so much to do within a few miles. I went 2 weeks ago. We walked from the hotel to the new Millennium Park, Grant Park, the Magnificent Mile, Lake Michigan, and the Navy Pier. We also caught a baseball game. All told, the 2 nights and 2 days cost us about $350, including gas from St. Louis.
If you can afford to fly, or get lucky to have your company send you on a business trip, there are plenty of other places to visit. You should take that opportunity whenever you can.
Excellent post.
One problem with your post-scarcity theory: it won't last. The world population is expected to double over the next 100 years. I'm not sure technology will be able to deal with the scarcity issues that quickly. Especially for things like clean water, oil, and land. I expect there to at least be some serious wars as these resources become more scarce.
I'd also like to mention humanity's penchant for powerful people to create scarcity in order to increase their power. While technology has helped us counteract that nicely over the past 50 years, I'm not confident that it will continue to do so long term.
I wrote a whole big post on interdependence. But I like this guy's answer better: "learning from the past". I can't believe he hasn't gotten any mod points yet.
This is in the YRO section. What are the online rights involved in this case? Was there a warrantless intrusion into a private chat room? Was there torture involved? I didn't see anything in the article to indicate anything to be concerned about. (Including that the plot might be successful, or that anyone's civil right had been threatened.) This just looks like another feeble attempt at an attack, good FBI investigation, and politicians trying to look like they're winning the war on terror before the elections.
That we're hearing about these is a good indication that they're the first significant attempts at attacks. Why would the government publicize these but not more serious attempted attacks?
I think a big part of the answer is to become interdependent upon one another. It's pretty difficult to go to war with someone with whom you are interdependent. The USA might not get agree with a lot of what China does, but it seems pretty unlikely that we'd come to blows. (I suppose part of that is mutual assured destruction, too.) Our economies are too intertwined. Can you imagine the US stopping Chinese imports all of a sudden? The impact to our own interests would be unthinkable. I'm not sure if it's a sad reflection or positive reflection on the nature of people, that selfish economic reasons can now largely override the main reasons we've historically gone to war. (Note that a large portion of wars have been for economic reasons. Even parts of WWII -- Japan attacked the USA because we were blocking their access to oil.)
That said, I'm not sure whether these interdependencies will keep the larger countries from continuing to go to war against smaller countries. In fact, I think there may be more wars over resources as some things (oil, clean water, land) become more scarce.
I think a better world government system would also help. Most people in most countries seem to be against the idea. But I think the US and the EU provide good examples that formerly sovereign states getting together and giving up some of that soverignty can have very positive outcomes -- mainly because of the interdependence they form with each other. Unfortunately, I don't have any idea how to go about changing people's minds on the issue.
(My answer assumes that a major world war is the most likely threat to humanity over the next 100 years. Given the current weapons available, and the escalation of war over the past several hundred years, I don't think this is unreasonable. The other likely contenders seem less likely to happen in the next 100 years, given historical precedents: virus ourbreak, meteor, alien invasion, etc. Global warming and other threats are likely to have a significant impact, but I think they will cause more fighting over resources than direct impact.)
In my neighborhood we obey the laws of physics! I'd let the planes' momentum carry them past my house. I would be very seriously surprised if they fell straight down to the ground.
...cars that are pissing me off on the highway.
...cell phones of people in the grocery store with those stupid BlueTooth headsets.
...push-to-talk on cell phones.
...Blackberries.
Is there any reason why ABC should be allowed to disable someone else's equipment that they don't like, and that I should not be allowed?
The patent does not apply to packet filter firewalls (the majority of all firewalls, including the ones you listed) because it says the packets traverse the application layer. The market for application layer (proxy) firewalls is actually pretty narrow. The main contender (SideWinder) recently bought out the 2 main competitors (Gauntlet and CyberGuard). Whether it would apply to hybrid firewalls (packet filters that do deep inspection, like Checkpoint and Netscreen) is less clear.
I expect that Microsoft will "eat" the cost of the free downloads. As some have pointed out, Microsoft may not have enough leverage to negotiate a sweetheart deal, since they've currently got no market share. (Or maybe the others are correct that Microsoft does have the leverage, but I don't see how the RIAA could get away with that type of collusion.) And I'm pretty sure they'll get in trouble for using such an anti-competitive tactic (again).