Come on, this technology is well proven, there's been a testtrack running for over twenty years at Siemens in Germany, a stretch of track has been taken into production between Hamburg and someplace else (can't remember) and a line between Shanghai and Pudong airport has been running for some years now.
At the moment, it's still to expensive, and all countries/continents where passenger trains are common have extensive networks of traditional tracks... and let's face it, the French technology in this case, the TGV, is almost as fast and runs on conventional tracks ( which, admittely, have to be purpose built for the TGV with shallower turns etc but still ).
The technology is nice, proven but at the moment there's not really a business case to be made for longer stretches of MagLev tracks.
I mean, what else would you use to connect Disneyland to Las Vegas? Flying carpets?
On a side note, the MagLev in Shanghai was good fun... the cars on the highway it runs next to seemed to move backwards when it hit peak speed of 437 km/h. However, that was only a twenty minute ride, somewhat like a rollercoaster... a two hour ride would wear the novelty pretty quick.
It isn't. Generally, disposable goods are less enviromentally friendly than more durable goods. However, this depends on the cost of production ( in terms of energy, resources ) of the disposable vs. the durable and the number of times the durable item can be reused.
E.g. plastic cups can be more eco friendly compared to traditional ceramic cups due to the large amounts of energy needed to create the ceramics and the energy and chemicals needed to clean the cup. It all depends on the number of times the ceramic cup is reused.
Moreover, downloading films might not even be more enviromentally friendly than buying these things... don't forget, all those data-centers and your own computer are using loads of electricity...
Thing is, the most eco friendly option is not always what people would guess... sometimes it's quite counter intuitive.
"Flexplay® discs are fully recyclable and conform to all applicable EPA environmental standards. Flexplay has partnered with GreenDisk and local environmental organizations to develop several closed-loop recycling options to test with consumers. As distribution of Flexplay discs increases, Flexplay will continue to work proactively with content providers and recycling partners to broaden the collection and recycling program."
Read: technically, we could recycle them, but this has not been important enough for use to develop. We have not come beyond some pilot programs that could have been tested by consumers if we bothered to actually implement them. We will keep telling you the discs are recyclable till people notice we're not actually recycling them.
Sooo, it seems Microsoft has set itself up for a PR disaster and given the remote control to any content-provider that knows how to use the broadcast flags.
There is no better way to illustrate what restrictions DRM will have on the users day-to-day life, and Vista users will not like these demonstrations of Microsofts built-in Big Brother TM.
Not saying that it wasn't the russian government, it would have been easy to create a scapegoat for them, but not mentioning this in the article makes it very easy to doubt if the author actually considered if this was really a government run attack or just some Chinese individual being pissed off with India.
His conclusion: "Linux wonâ(TM)t truly be ready for the desktop until someone computer illiterate can sit down at a the computer and with little effort do what they want to do. Erinâ(TM)s intelligent, quick to learn and is reasonably well-acquainted with modern technology. If she had as much trouble as she did, what chance to the elderly or at least the middle-aged stand?"
Only his GF isn't at all computer illiterate, she's quite literate... in the windows ecosystem.
Almost all his objections and his GF problems with Ubuntu are like "GF looks for Limewire, can't find it, eventually starts the program BlaBla. Why didn't they say BlaBla was a torrent program?"
This is just a learning curve, just like his GF had to do to learn windows... so if Linux isn't ready for the desktop, neither is windows by his standards.
Striving for better treatment of animals is not mutually exclusive with striving for better treatment of humans.
I'd even go as far as to say the one amplifies the other, as humans ARE animals after all, something the 'old-man-who-rules-in-the-sky' crew often forget.
"The question I always had about this- if they can take one sample from one animal and clone it in a vat and feed this world, will the vegans be ok with that?"
They're not very rational. They'll probably demand you release the sample from its captivity.
All kidding aside, I'm a veggie myself and have a hard time being sympathetic to the vegan cause -- it's just so unrealistic.
Free farm animals will only result in the demise of the particular species... ever seen a farm pig or a farm cow in the wild?
Current biological thinking is that domesticated animals were drawn into human habitat because their own habitat was taken over by more fit animals. Humans simply domesticated these animals, but otherwise they wouldn't have stood a chance in the wild. Following this reasoning, releasing farm animals would just condemn them to starvation, a horrible death.
Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly opposed to using farm animals as an industrial product, as this is what is common in bioindustry at the moment, but we're in symbiosis with these species... freeing them is not the answer. Treating them well and with respect is.
So he's a comedian, a writer, a white-house speech writer, a law professor and a believer in intelligent design.
Fine, another one of those scientist who think that being a scientist, they can have a scientific opinion on any subject out there.
He's a lawyer, he can have scientific stances on law (if that's possible anyway... I've always wondered why law is considered a science), but his opinion on intelligent design and evolution means diddly squat.
Feel free to believe in an Old Man in the Sky, and to embrace ID. Just don't forget to mention that scientific evidence points the other way.
"The reason is to increase yield of meat or milk per animal. Yet it seems that you're bothered by even the possibility that the farmer may benefit..."
Bugger off. I come from a long line of diary farmers.
I have grown up with a love for animals, but also an understanding that farm animals have to be productive. That doesn't mean they are a milk machine, they are living animals which earn respect.
In my personal opinion, giving them growth hormones is uncalled for and blurs the line between a living being and some kind of meatmachine producing milk.
Growth hormones in livestock are banned here in Europe, and I believe with good reason.
I'm no specialist, but one of the problems is that the functioning of growth hormones does not stop in the animal... also the consumers of the meat will be exposed to the growth hormone with all of its medical implications.
Another problem is ethical... there is no reason to give animals growth hormone but to increase the profits of the farmers. There is no medical benefit. We don't go around giving our kids growth hormones, do we?
Slashdot Mirror
C'mon ... worst case scenario for the one is creating a illegal copy of a work.
Worst case scenario for the other is one or more people killed.
Please keep perspective.
Your evilness index has just dropped from 45.8 to 45.3
Keep up the good work!
No, it wasn't. It was a deliberate effort on the part of the British to addict as many Chinese as possible to enlarge their influence there.
What's your point? Not all drugs should be legalized because some are very addictive? I don't think GP ever said we should.
Really usefull, a poll on a Linux biased site asking their visitors what they're running on their eeePC.
"Liberals might make you free in the Khmer Rouge sense of the word, but, ultimately, they make you poor."
.. and freedom is non-existent ...
As seen in Europe, where poverty is rampant
Come on, this technology is well proven, there's been a testtrack running for over twenty years at Siemens in Germany, a stretch of track has been taken into production between Hamburg and someplace else (can't remember) and a line between Shanghai and Pudong airport has been running for some years now.
... and let's face it, the French technology in this case, the TGV, is almost as fast and runs on conventional tracks ( which, admittely, have to be purpose built for the TGV with shallower turns etc but still ).
At the moment, it's still to expensive, and all countries/continents where passenger trains are common have extensive networks of traditional tracks
The technology is nice, proven but at the moment there's not really a business case to be made for longer stretches of MagLev tracks.
I mean, what else would you use to connect Disneyland to Las Vegas? Flying carpets?
... the cars on the highway it runs next to seemed to move backwards when it hit peak speed of 437 km/h. However, that was only a twenty minute ride, somewhat like a rollercoaster ... a two hour ride would wear the novelty pretty quick.
On a side note, the MagLev in Shanghai was good fun
It isn't. Generally, disposable goods are less enviromentally friendly than more durable goods. However, this depends on the cost of production ( in terms of energy, resources ) of the disposable vs. the durable and the number of times the durable item can be reused.
... don't forget, all those data-centers and your own computer are using loads of electricity ...
... sometimes it's quite counter intuitive.
E.g. plastic cups can be more eco friendly compared to traditional ceramic cups due to the large amounts of energy needed to create the ceramics and the energy and chemicals needed to clean the cup. It all depends on the number of times the ceramic cup is reused.
Moreover, downloading films might not even be more enviromentally friendly than buying these things
Thing is, the most eco friendly option is not always what people would guess
"Flexplay® discs are fully recyclable and conform to all applicable EPA environmental standards. Flexplay has partnered with GreenDisk and local environmental organizations to develop several closed-loop recycling options to test with consumers. As distribution of Flexplay discs increases, Flexplay will continue to work proactively with content providers and recycling partners to broaden the collection and recycling program."
Read: technically, we could recycle them, but this has not been important enough for use to develop. We have not come beyond some pilot programs that could have been tested by consumers if we bothered to actually implement them. We will keep telling you the discs are recyclable till people notice we're not actually recycling them.
You sir, are a cold-hearted bastard with no sense for culture, aesthetics and history.
Just because your overly functional mind sees no use for a building doesn't mean other people can't derive pleasure from it.
Patience little one, they've only just become involved ...
"Time to replace the stock firmware on the ipod with one that embeds AES-256 onboard and has to be unlocked before you can play any music from it."
You can't. Starting with the 6th gen iPods, apple's already encrypted the firmware for you, so you can't update it anymore with your own.
I downgraded to a 5,5th generation iPod just to be able to run rockbox.
This is the first and the last product I've ever purchased from Apple, thank you.
Sooo, it seems Microsoft has set itself up for a PR disaster and given the remote control to any content-provider that knows how to use the broadcast flags.
There is no better way to illustrate what restrictions DRM will have on the users day-to-day life, and Vista users will not like these demonstrations of Microsofts built-in Big Brother TM.
The writer of the article also refers to the Estonian Cyberattack:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/17/1248215&tid=172
He states it was a targetted attack by the Russian government, but fails to mention that a 20 year old student was fined for the whole affair:
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/25/0120221
Not saying that it wasn't the russian government, it would have been easy to create a scapegoat for them, but not mentioning this in the article makes it very easy to doubt if the author actually considered if this was really a government run attack or just some Chinese individual being pissed off with India.
His conclusion:
... in the windows ecosystem.
... so if Linux isn't ready for the desktop, neither is windows by his standards.
"Linux wonâ(TM)t truly be ready for the desktop until someone computer illiterate can sit down at a the computer and with little effort do what they want to do. Erinâ(TM)s intelligent, quick to learn and is reasonably well-acquainted with modern technology. If she had as much trouble as she did, what chance to the elderly or at least the middle-aged stand?"
Only his GF isn't at all computer illiterate, she's quite literate
Almost all his objections and his GF problems with Ubuntu are like "GF looks for Limewire, can't find it, eventually starts the program BlaBla. Why didn't they say BlaBla was a torrent program?"
This is just a learning curve, just like his GF had to do to learn windows
NASA budget 2008: $15.861 Billion
Total defense budget: $439.3 Billion
Find the difference!
PETA is not Singer, and Singer is not PETA.
It's only a paradox if you believe a foetus to be a complete human being instead of a developing lump of cells.
Striving for better treatment of animals is not mutually exclusive with striving for better treatment of humans.
I'd even go as far as to say the one amplifies the other, as humans ARE animals after all, something the 'old-man-who-rules-in-the-sky' crew often forget.
How can you disagree with something I didn't say?
I said his opinions are not scientific, not that his opinions are worthless.
Vegans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan
Vegetarians (veggies)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian
It's not the same.
"The question I always had about this- if they can take one sample from one animal and clone it in a vat and feed this world, will the vegans be ok with that?"
... ever seen a farm pig or a farm cow in the wild?
... freeing them is not the answer. Treating them well and with respect is.
They're not very rational. They'll probably demand you release the sample from its captivity.
All kidding aside, I'm a veggie myself and have a hard time being sympathetic to the vegan cause -- it's just so unrealistic.
Free farm animals will only result in the demise of the particular species
Current biological thinking is that domesticated animals were drawn into human habitat because their own habitat was taken over by more fit animals. Humans simply domesticated these animals, but otherwise they wouldn't have stood a chance in the wild. Following this reasoning, releasing farm animals would just condemn them to starvation, a horrible death.
Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly opposed to using farm animals as an industrial product, as this is what is common in bioindustry at the moment, but we're in symbiosis with these species
I though, and then googled him.
... I've always wondered why law is considered a science), but his opinion on intelligent design and evolution means diddly squat.
So he's a comedian, a writer, a white-house speech writer, a law professor and a believer in intelligent design.
Fine, another one of those scientist who think that being a scientist, they can have a scientific opinion on any subject out there.
He's a lawyer, he can have scientific stances on law (if that's possible anyway
Feel free to believe in an Old Man in the Sky, and to embrace ID. Just don't forget to mention that scientific evidence points the other way.
"The reason is to increase yield of meat or milk per animal. Yet it seems that you're bothered by even the possibility that the farmer may benefit..."
Bugger off. I come from a long line of diary farmers.
I have grown up with a love for animals, but also an understanding that farm animals have to be productive. That doesn't mean they are a milk machine, they are living animals which earn respect.
In my personal opinion, giving them growth hormones is uncalled for and blurs the line between a living being and some kind of meatmachine producing milk.
Growth hormones in livestock are banned here in Europe, and I believe with good reason.
I'm no specialist, but one of the problems is that the functioning of growth hormones does not stop in the animal ... also the consumers of the meat will be exposed to the growth hormone with all of its medical implications.
... there is no reason to give animals growth hormone but to increase the profits of the farmers. There is no medical benefit. We don't go around giving our kids growth hormones, do we?
Another problem is ethical