I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I suspect that MOST environmentalists who are/were opposed to nuclear power were opposed on the grounds *safety*, not superstition.
The proponents of nuclear power killed nuclear by jamming it down the throats of communities who didn't want it. Mostly these were subburbanites (who tend not to vote green BTW) who don't want these things near population centers (probably not a good place in my opinion, too)
Non-fossil fuels will never take off so long as the prices remain artificially low.
Want to encourage nuclear and alternative power? To borrow a phrase, "let the market decide": ask your senator to sponsor a bill that designates ALL federal roadbuilding, oil-related waste cleanup, and oil-related wars must be paid for either by the oil companies OR through direct gas taxes.
At $50 a barrel, I don't think the oil companies and airlines need a cash transfusions from the taxpayer in order to remain "profitable".
Trust me, if the average Joe in the US paid the TRUE price of energy (roads, war, cleanup, and national security), AND we had a president less pro-oil, then we'd do a lot more planning for the future oil crunch.
Seriously, do yourself a favor and just say something on the website like "not much status to report; check back in about 3 months for the next News item".
You want to at least differentiate yourself from projects that really are abandoned, if only to reduce noise emails and list postings.
There is NO correct way to render Slashdot. Slashdot uses an obsolete DTD, and renders in both FireFox and IE6 in Quirks Mode.
The designers of Slashdot HTML obviously targeted IE when they designed it. Meaning, they did not target W3C specs for HTML 3.2 (and then apply hacks to workaround IE rendering bugs) they simply hacked HTML & pressed Reload. No wonder the web is so bad.
If Slashdot ever moves into something modern, like XHTML + CSS, and I mean VALID code, then it might be fair for the grandparent poster to say FireFox gets it wrong.
Microsoft's just not interested in fixing their rendering bugs: corrupting the standard is a win for them.
Re:The question every firefox user is asking
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 1
I've always wondered why software companies are allowed to get away with charging more money for multi-CPU systems anyway. I mean, there's still only one copy of the software on the system, so where's the justification in charging for more than one CPU?
Afterall, you don't have to pay twice as much to run the software on a system that has a CPU with twice the clockspeed...
A good question. I've supported and tested and used per-cpu licensed software, so here's the theory:
it's how much use you get out of the software.
For example: If I have a render farm of 6 computers, I may have 6 licenses. (This example is OBSOLETE - most render-only licenses are free now).
If I upgrade my hardware so i need only new workstation to do the same amount of work, I lost 5 sales units.
So the trick is to keep sales income flat with the hardware curve.
I'm not advocating this -- just pointing out the why behind the what.
>The only difference with what you describe is that in the US is the contract bundle phones (if you go that route) aren't complete utter crap.
Um, no. You missed the parent poster's central point.
In the US, you can NOT buy your phone, and then plug it into ANY wireless carrier. In an open wireless market, you can switch providers ANY TIME and keep the same physical phone.
You can't do that in the US. That's why in the US the "new" cool phones are last year's clearance model for the rest of the world. The wireless cartel in the US is holding technology back. It's anti-competitive.
Porting Quicktime would be a lot of extra work on top of the special UI things they already do when they port programs. They could use a media framework that is already present on Linux, but I doubt [it]
You overestimate the porting effort. Quicktime's backend was designed to be crossplatform to begin with.
The UI was also designed to be crossplatform. The QT UI does not use Win32 directly and it does not depend on MFC. The QT UI is well abstracted and designed for portability.
I think the biggest reason Apple has not ported QT to Linux is because: *) there is no money in it for them *) Supporting various Linux distros with a binary-only release...
There's money in iTunes, but not enough margin to justify porting QT to Linux, even though it may be an EASY port. Like you said, not economically sound. Technically however, most of the portability problems are worked out of the code.
QT and iTunes will happen on Linux when someone like Novell or Linspire pays Apple for a version.
on't worry about porting the nice Windows apps over to Linux though. Nope, we're fine...We'll just run them at half speed with WINE or something...
I'm pretty sure most open sourced Windows apps have already been ported to Windows. And Novell is becoming serious about bringing proprietary client and server software to Linux.
I hope you told the attorney that any patent attorney is a candidate for scum of the week.
Attorney's don't make patent law. The media might dumb down the world for you, and it's trendy on the conservative lists to blame lawyers. It's your job to be a critical thinker and see through the smokescreen.
Who made the laws? Who can undo them?
Write to your congressman. Do it on paper no an email.
The cell phone companies may be listening, but they don't care. Customers like you aren't worth anything to them. Competition between providers continues to force them to provide more and more airtime for less and less money. If all you want to do is talk on your phone they aren't going to make much profit off of you.
Your point about where carriers make the most value is fine, but it's not fair to suffest this is the primary reason.
It goes back to what you said... they don't care. They don't have to. The cellphone services in the US are a cartel. They mirror each other's behavior and policies.
Worst of all, they all engage in anticompetitive restrictions such as requiring you to buy a phone that only works with their service. People take the path of least resistance... if their cell provider locks their phone to the network, then switching providers is much more complicated than making a phone call.
So we cant easily shop around for deals on the phone WE bought. As a side effect of all this, the us is Third World when it comes to cell phone technology. All the cool phones in Asia won't be found here for another 18 months (I expect some delay since that is the point of origin, but it won't take 18 months to get a new Sony gizmo here).
Before you burst a blood vessel, this appears to only be a patent application, not a granted patent.
Sure, I agree. And lots of posters seem to miss the point... it's an APPLICATION FOLKS!
BUT...
These are legal documents.. isnt the signer claiming under penalty of perjury that to the best of their knowledge there is no prior art? That would seem to be the case.
I don't think they ever enforce the law in this context, obviously. I'm sure the fellow has done some work in school in C or whatever and himself has been exposed to prior art... thus claiming otherwise would be fraud.
The *only* entity you're helping when you purchase used music is the store you're buying from. Might as well just download the music for what it's worth.
I would disagree. This was how it was for me a few years ago anyways.. I wasnt out to "collect" as many CD's as I can... my music tastes would change, and over the time I'd trade in less listened to CD's for something new.
Yes, the artist would "sell more" if everyone only bought new, but then I would have offset my used-cd purchases by buying fewer. Fewer people buying used CD's helps deflate the price you would get trading in music, making the whole thing less attractive.
Gray markets do have a positive impact on sales - it's just not as obvious an impact.
The price of writable DVD's is much too high for me, I think I'll stick with my cheap-o CD-R's for now:D
I pay about $30 for a 100-pc spindle of RITEK/Ridata (a premium brand).
Sure, you can get a "spindle of 100 cd's" for 30% less, but with a DVD aren't you getting more than 30% extra space? 300% 600%?
It's a *lot* easier to find archived data when it's not spread out on many discs... if DVD's really did cost more - and they don't - I'd still find DVD-R more valuable.
If this was RedHat, encouraging people to report GPL violations with the promise of a similar amount of free stuff, would it still be evil?
Are we really comparing apples to apples?
Is Redhat a convicted monopolist? Does Redhat have a history of serious privacy violations? Does Redhat make it difficult to interoperate with competing OS vendors? Under Microsoft, do you really "own" your data?
All they're doing is trying to enforce their licence; or is that not allowed, as "they already have plenty of money"?
Microsoft licenses do in fact generate serious legal, financial, and IT issues for many groups. They even force you to accept license changes in so-called Service Packs.
Technically, even installing VNC will void your Windows license. Read the clause about "remote management" in the MS licensing.
I know this is a rant about licensing, but I don't think you can say "License is irrelevant... what about this license validator"?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I suspect that MOST environmentalists who are/were opposed to nuclear power were opposed on the grounds *safety*, not superstition.
The proponents of nuclear power killed nuclear by jamming it down the throats of communities who didn't want it. Mostly these were subburbanites (who tend not to vote green BTW) who don't want these things near population centers (probably not a good place in my opinion, too)
Non-fossil fuels will never take off so long as the prices remain artificially low.
Want to encourage nuclear and alternative power? To borrow a phrase, "let the market decide": ask your senator to sponsor a bill that designates ALL federal roadbuilding, oil-related waste cleanup, and oil-related wars must be paid for either by the oil companies OR through direct gas taxes.
At $50 a barrel, I don't think the oil companies and airlines need a cash transfusions from the taxpayer in order to remain "profitable".
Trust me, if the average Joe in the US paid the TRUE price of energy (roads, war, cleanup, and national security), AND we had a president less pro-oil, then we'd do a lot more planning for the future oil crunch.
Heh... nicely put! :-)
Seriously, do yourself a favor and just say something on the website like "not much status to report; check back in about 3 months for the next News item".
You want to at least differentiate yourself from projects that really are abandoned, if only to reduce noise emails and list postings.
There is NO correct way to render Slashdot. Slashdot uses an obsolete DTD, and renders in both FireFox and IE6 in Quirks Mode.
The designers of Slashdot HTML obviously targeted IE when they designed it. Meaning, they did not target W3C specs for HTML 3.2 (and then apply hacks to workaround IE rendering bugs) they simply hacked HTML & pressed Reload. No wonder the web is so bad.
If Slashdot ever moves into something modern, like XHTML + CSS, and I mean VALID code, then it might be fair for the grandparent poster to say FireFox gets it wrong.
Microsoft's just not interested in fixing their rendering bugs: corrupting the standard is a win for them.
Run Sqiud+adblock (search Freshmeat.net)
Because he is a puppet?
I've always wondered why software companies are allowed to get away with charging more money for multi-CPU systems anyway. I mean, there's still only one copy of the software on the system, so where's the justification in charging for more than one CPU?
Afterall, you don't have to pay twice as much to run the software on a system that has a CPU with twice the clockspeed...
A good question. I've supported and tested and used per-cpu licensed software, so here's the theory:
it's how much use you get out of the software.
For example: If I have a render farm of 6 computers, I may have 6 licenses. (This example is OBSOLETE - most render-only licenses are free now).
If I upgrade my hardware so i need only new workstation to do the same amount of work, I lost 5 sales units.
So the trick is to keep sales income flat with the hardware curve.
I'm not advocating this -- just pointing out the why behind the what.
>The only difference with what you describe is that in the US is the contract bundle phones (if you go that route) aren't complete utter crap.
Um, no. You missed the parent poster's central point.
In the US, you can NOT buy your phone, and then plug it into ANY wireless carrier. In an open wireless market, you can switch providers ANY TIME and keep the same physical phone.
You can't do that in the US. That's why in the US the "new" cool phones are last year's clearance model for the rest of the world. The wireless cartel in the US is holding technology back. It's anti-competitive.
Porting Quicktime would be a lot of extra work on top of the special UI things they already do when they port programs. They could use a media framework that is already present on Linux, but I doubt [it]
You overestimate the porting effort. Quicktime's backend was designed to be crossplatform to begin with.
The UI was also designed to be crossplatform. The QT UI does not use Win32 directly and it does not depend on MFC. The QT UI is well abstracted and designed for portability.
I think the biggest reason Apple has not ported QT to Linux is because:
*) there is no money in it for them
*) Supporting various Linux distros with a binary-only release...
There's money in iTunes, but not enough margin to justify porting QT to Linux, even though it may be an EASY port. Like you said, not economically sound. Technically however, most of the portability problems are worked out of the code.
QT and iTunes will happen on Linux when someone like Novell or Linspire pays Apple for a version.
When you re-rip, you recompress (unless you rip only to WAV and never create MP3's).
The method you outline will inject some distortion into the file, much as you would get if you tooka JPEG file and re-compressed it again.
Not everyone who is "legally blind", is "totally blind".
While I don't think the demo was intended to be accessible, larger images and text DO help vision impared people...
While I previously understood the points the parent poster outlined, I think this is one of the more insightful posts I've seen here in a long time.
He could have simply flamed the parent like is so common to do.
most open sourced Windows apps have already been ported to Windows.
Meant to say:
most open sourced Windows apps have already been ported to Linux.
on't worry about porting the nice Windows apps over to Linux though. Nope, we're fine...We'll just run them at half speed with WINE or something...
I'm pretty sure most open sourced Windows apps have already been ported to Windows. And Novell is becoming serious about bringing proprietary client and server software to Linux.
So what are you complaining about?
I hope you told the attorney that any patent attorney is a candidate for scum of the week.
Attorney's don't make patent law. The media might dumb down the world for you, and it's trendy on the conservative lists to blame lawyers. It's your job to be a critical thinker and see through the smokescreen.
Who made the laws? Who can undo them?
Write to your congressman. Do it on paper no an email.
Your point about where carriers make the most value is fine, but it's not fair to suffest this is the primary reason.
It goes back to what you said... they don't care. They don't have to. The cellphone services in the US are a cartel. They mirror each other's behavior and policies.
Worst of all, they all engage in anticompetitive restrictions such as requiring you to buy a phone that only works with their service. People take the path of least resistance... if their cell provider locks their phone to the network, then switching providers is much more complicated than making a phone call.
So we cant easily shop around for deals on the phone WE bought. As a side effect of all this, the us is Third World when it comes to cell phone technology. All the cool phones in Asia won't be found here for another 18 months (I expect some delay since that is the point of origin, but it won't take 18 months to get a new Sony gizmo here).
>In almost all electronics stores I patronize, you could just take the monitor back for a refund, even if it wasn't actually defective.
Yeah, and pay a 15% restocking fee...
Your statement is untrue. "Forced" means coercion, which you interpret can only be delivered through violence (an Uzi) but is not a true definition.
Your narrow definition of forced is plain wrong.
Try this new software.. it's called a dictionary:
forced. Come back when you finish your homework. Other suggested reading.
works on my machine
... and take out the perp immediately.
;-)
(irony)
Seems like these could be deployed all over the place then. They'd be useful in Iraq
(/irony)
Of course, some technology shouldnt be done just because ITS POSSIBLE..
Ever heard of port-blocking?
Many ISP's block incoming and outgoing port 25
Your only choice is a port relay service like TZO, or to pay the ISP for their own commercial class mail hosting.
Same thing?
Before you burst a blood vessel, this appears to only be a patent application, not a granted patent.
Sure, I agree. And lots of posters seem to miss the point... it's an APPLICATION FOLKS!
BUT...
These are legal documents.. isnt the signer claiming under penalty of perjury that to the best of their knowledge there is no prior art? That would seem to be the case.
I don't think they ever enforce the law in this context, obviously. I'm sure the fellow has done some work in school in C or whatever and himself has been exposed to prior art... thus claiming otherwise would be fraud.
TZO.COM automatically locks domains for their customers (and unlike the other registrars, they have real human beings staffing the phones).
I suspect all registrars offer domain locking as a feature. Some may not enable it by default.
The *only* entity you're helping when you purchase used music is the store you're buying from. Might as well just download the music for what it's worth.
I would disagree. This was how it was for me a few years ago anyways.. I wasnt out to "collect" as many CD's as I can... my music tastes would change, and over the time I'd trade in less listened to CD's for something new.
Yes, the artist would "sell more" if everyone only bought new, but then I would have offset my used-cd purchases by buying fewer. Fewer people buying used CD's helps deflate the price you would get trading in music, making the whole thing less attractive.
Gray markets do have a positive impact on sales - it's just not as obvious an impact.
The price of writable DVD's is much too high for me, I think I'll stick with my cheap-o CD-R's for now :D
I pay about $30 for a 100-pc spindle of RITEK/Ridata (a premium brand).
Sure, you can get a "spindle of 100 cd's" for 30% less, but with a DVD aren't you getting more than 30% extra space? 300% 600%?
It's a *lot* easier to find archived data when it's not spread out on many discs... if DVD's really did cost more - and they don't - I'd still find DVD-R more valuable.
If this was RedHat, encouraging people to report GPL violations with the promise of a similar amount of free stuff, would it still be evil?
Are we really comparing apples to apples?
Is Redhat a convicted monopolist?
Does Redhat have a history of serious privacy violations?
Does Redhat make it difficult to interoperate with competing OS vendors?
Under Microsoft, do you really "own" your data?
All they're doing is trying to enforce their licence; or is that not allowed, as "they already have plenty of money"?
Microsoft licenses do in fact generate serious legal, financial, and IT issues for many groups. They even force you to accept license changes in so-called Service Packs.
Technically, even installing VNC will void your Windows license. Read the clause about "remote management" in the MS licensing.
I know this is a rant about licensing, but I don't think you can say "License is irrelevant... what about this license validator"?