Hell, if they sold CDs for $5 from normal looking guys in normal stores, I would buy a ton. I'd probably be more inclined to purchase music I was only sort of interested in, and if I didn't like it, then it would be no big loss. But at the price CDs are currently, I can only afford to buy music that I already know and enjoy.
I don't read blogs either, and the ones I have seemed to be full of rumors and general misinformation. I'd rather get my news from established news sources. Even if the regular news is skewed, it's never as bad as almost all of the blogs out there.
And I find that there are plenty of things to read online that aren't part of a major university or news corporation that are still interesting, and are not drivel written in some parents' basement.
The problem is, women's rights, black rights, gay rights and so on all deal with human rights. A computer is not a human, but a human invention. So even if computers can one day replicate human thought and emotion, I doubt they will be granted any legal status.
Actually, the biggest obstacle is making them efficient in the first place. A solid panel made of crystalline cells can only get between 11% and 14% efficiency (thin film PVs gets even less), when optimally tilted towards the sun. This is because only certain wavelengths are allowed to be converted into energy at the moment. Scientists are still working on a molecule or bunches of molecules (I'm not entirely sure how it all works) that will be able to utilize more of the spectrum. Until then, we are stuck with relatively expensive panels, which are also not terribly eco-friendly to manufacture.
My guess is that they have the electric motors on the outer edge of the place, not on the inside. It could come with two motors per floor at opposing points of the circle. Since the place probably doesn't rotate extremely fast, even at the highest setting, then the motors wouldn't need to drain a ton of power.
This seems more or less to be a gimmick. I bet the people living there will only use their novelty spinning condos for a month or so, and then get sick of it and show it to people when they come to visit and whatnot. If you have an entire floor of a circular building, then you can walk around and get all the views you'd ever like. I think the nicest thing is the fact you can keep it in one spot for a month, and then when you get sick of the view out your bedroom/kitchen/living room window, you can rotate it 90 degrees and get a whole new view for another month.
But is that feature really worth the extra price? And how likely is this thing to break down?
It seems like he may have sort have had a half change of heart, and that's the reason Moto is in on this. It may well technically be branded as a Motorola phone, with Apple-esque design and GUI ease of use, as well as the stuff to empty your wallet.
Either Apple makes money by getting a portion of each phone sold, or they are hoping that people's phones will fill up really quick with music, and then these people will break down and purchase iPods as well, or a combination of both.
I believe that Steve has specifically said in the past that Apple would not be making a cell phone anytime in the near future.
But maybe he's had a change of heart. Afterall, if Apple came out with a phone, people would be drooling over it... stylish and easy to use, plus iTunes support. Who knows.
I am also a student at UIC, and it's full of BS. I'm an architecture student, and we had to take a physics class as a prereq for structures, and I "failed" every exam, I never got better than a 45%, and only turned in the homework occasionally (I never bothered picking it up after it was graded), but I still managed a C in the class with the curve. But the sad thing is, I learned just about nothing.
It would have made more sense for them to make the material understandable to those who aren't physics majors (as this class was specifically for other majors with a required physics course).
This probably isn't much different from other universities, though.
I don't see why this is so distasteful. If a consumer searches for "geico" but then sees cheaper insurance in the sponsored links section, that user ends up getting a better deal.
Sure, maybe Geico doesn't "win" (although, their website was the first search result), but Google wins, and so does the Google user. And when the Google user benefits, that user learns to trust Googles ads, and Google wins again.
But the director still had to get permission to use their trademark. They probably made sure that they weren't portrayed in a bad light before giving permission. At the end, he buys all the stuff he used from the packagaes, and drives around the country returning it to the proper owners, showing that Fedex is a trustworthy company.
The day they start having commercial breaks during the movie is when people are gonna really gonna be pissed. I highly doubt this will ever happen, but who knows.
They seem to have an easier time with product placement, you know, where everyone one drinks Pepsi from a can, with the label facing the camera at all times. No more cans that just say "cola" on them.
Some movies like Castaway or I am Sam are even more blatant, making a company, such as Fedex or Starbucks a main character in and of itself.
Sure, it's blatant advertising, but I also think it ads a level of realism to a movie. It would seem odd if Tom Hanks worked for 'HDS' instead of Fedex, and what would he have named that volleyball?
I think by "fill it up" the grandparent meant to use the browser window to it's full potential. This article did not; it essentially put a pamphlet, which would have been decent for print, directly online.
There were no "dramatic pauses" or clear white space in this. The information itself seemed cluttered, a result of it being restrained to a box of a certain size. This could have definitely benefited from more white space throughout, rather than just a black void around the presentation.
I hope this was originally made for print, and then just put on the web in essentially the same format in order to save time, otherwise, it was a complete design mistake from the get-go. It operates almost exactly like a book, where you have to turn the pages in order to see what you're getting next, at least a description of what the next page is going to be would have been nice.
I, for one, believe in this electronic voting machine conspiracy crap. Sure, a few voting machines probably rigged the votes for Bush, but on the other hand, most likely other voting machines rigged it for Kerry.
Look, I voted for Kerry, and was not too pleased that Bush won, but I believed that he did. He won the popular vote by 3 million, and the electoral college by more than 30. I don't think that 3 million votes in favor of Kerry could have been stolen by crooked voting machines, as in my view and the view of the parent, fraud going for Kerry was just as prevalent. Better luck in 4 years.
Anyway, Bush won Florida by a pretty decent majority. ABC News dispelled a concern that many people had with a Floridian county (I forget which one) in which there were more registered Democrats that Republicans, but the county went for Bush. However, that county has voted Republican for the past 6 presidential elections or so.
Berkeley's facts may have been "right," but it doesn't mean they were accurate.
Let's give it up, Kerry lost and Bush won. Yes there were most likely cases of fraud, but overall, they probably cancelled each other out for the most part.
This is very unlikely to happen. If they made links that seemed like actual news items actually lead to advertisers' sites, then people would lose trust in them very quickly. This would lead to fewer hits to the news page, which would lead to fewer people using their search engine, which generates money via advertising dollars.
Google News seems more of a loss-leader, in that people use it for convenience, and are therefore more inclined to use their search engine.
In one case, they are filtering things for China... communist = extreme liberal.
In the other, it is claimed that they are biased towards conservatives, who are at the other end of the spectrum.
In my experience, from Google News being my home page, I have noticed no bias at all. Why, when according to the polls, Kerry won the first debate, it reflected that, along with stories saying that while he won, the race for president was still the same as before, even though a good majority of those articles also said a change has been traditionally unnoticeable until a week or so after the debate.
Maybe the algorithm does show a slight bias towards one side or the other, but I can't honestly tell which side, and I consider myself rather moderate.
Media bias works both ways if you look at it too much. I think it's bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
And remember, the best part about selling kids... is making them.
(thanks, Mr. Dangerfield)
True, they ought to be fixing the problem at hand, rather than adding more to the antiquated system.
Has anything really been done to prevent another blackout like the one back in '03?
Hell, if they sold CDs for $5 from normal looking guys in normal stores, I would buy a ton. I'd probably be more inclined to purchase music I was only sort of interested in, and if I didn't like it, then it would be no big loss. But at the price CDs are currently, I can only afford to buy music that I already know and enjoy.
Only the eMacs still have built-in CRT displays, to keep the cost of them down. Their standalone displays are all of the LCD variety.
Uh....
enzyte.com?
According to their commercials, it also gives you a gigantic grin.
Yeah, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I don't read blogs either, and the ones I have seemed to be full of rumors and general misinformation. I'd rather get my news from established news sources. Even if the regular news is skewed, it's never as bad as almost all of the blogs out there.
And I find that there are plenty of things to read online that aren't part of a major university or news corporation that are still interesting, and are not drivel written in some parents' basement.
Creation? Yes.
Invention? No.
People invented computers. People did not invent people, nor the creation thereof.
The problem is, women's rights, black rights, gay rights and so on all deal with human rights. A computer is not a human, but a human invention. So even if computers can one day replicate human thought and emotion, I doubt they will be granted any legal status.
Actually, the biggest obstacle is making them efficient in the first place. A solid panel made of crystalline cells can only get between 11% and 14% efficiency (thin film PVs gets even less), when optimally tilted towards the sun. This is because only certain wavelengths are allowed to be converted into energy at the moment. Scientists are still working on a molecule or bunches of molecules (I'm not entirely sure how it all works) that will be able to utilize more of the spectrum. Until then, we are stuck with relatively expensive panels, which are also not terribly eco-friendly to manufacture.
lying in bed at night, you'd feel the machinery.
You have the option of turning it off, so I doubt that would be much of an issue.
My guess is that they have the electric motors on the outer edge of the place, not on the inside. It could come with two motors per floor at opposing points of the circle. Since the place probably doesn't rotate extremely fast, even at the highest setting, then the motors wouldn't need to drain a ton of power.
This seems more or less to be a gimmick. I bet the people living there will only use their novelty spinning condos for a month or so, and then get sick of it and show it to people when they come to visit and whatnot. If you have an entire floor of a circular building, then you can walk around and get all the views you'd ever like. I think the nicest thing is the fact you can keep it in one spot for a month, and then when you get sick of the view out your bedroom/kitchen/living room window, you can rotate it 90 degrees and get a whole new view for another month.
But is that feature really worth the extra price? And how likely is this thing to break down?
It seems like he may have sort have had a half change of heart, and that's the reason Moto is in on this. It may well technically be branded as a Motorola phone, with Apple-esque design and GUI ease of use, as well as the stuff to empty your wallet.
Either Apple makes money by getting a portion of each phone sold, or they are hoping that people's phones will fill up really quick with music, and then these people will break down and purchase iPods as well, or a combination of both.
I believe that Steve has specifically said in the past that Apple would not be making a cell phone anytime in the near future.
But maybe he's had a change of heart. Afterall, if Apple came out with a phone, people would be drooling over it... stylish and easy to use, plus iTunes support. Who knows.
That's why I'm not studying to become an engineer.
However, I passed structures without a problem.
I am also a student at UIC, and it's full of BS. I'm an architecture student, and we had to take a physics class as a prereq for structures, and I "failed" every exam, I never got better than a 45%, and only turned in the homework occasionally (I never bothered picking it up after it was graded), but I still managed a C in the class with the curve. But the sad thing is, I learned just about nothing.
It would have made more sense for them to make the material understandable to those who aren't physics majors (as this class was specifically for other majors with a required physics course).
This probably isn't much different from other universities, though.
I don't see why this is so distasteful. If a consumer searches for "geico" but then sees cheaper insurance in the sponsored links section, that user ends up getting a better deal.
Sure, maybe Geico doesn't "win" (although, their website was the first search result), but Google wins, and so does the Google user. And when the Google user benefits, that user learns to trust Googles ads, and Google wins again.
Hmmm, maybe they brush their teeth.
But the director still had to get permission to use their trademark. They probably made sure that they weren't portrayed in a bad light before giving permission. At the end, he buys all the stuff he used from the packagaes, and drives around the country returning it to the proper owners, showing that Fedex is a trustworthy company.
The day they start having commercial breaks during the movie is when people are gonna really gonna be pissed. I highly doubt this will ever happen, but who knows.
They seem to have an easier time with product placement, you know, where everyone one drinks Pepsi from a can, with the label facing the camera at all times. No more cans that just say "cola" on them.
Some movies like Castaway or I am Sam are even more blatant, making a company, such as Fedex or Starbucks a main character in and of itself.
Sure, it's blatant advertising, but I also think it ads a level of realism to a movie. It would seem odd if Tom Hanks worked for 'HDS' instead of Fedex, and what would he have named that volleyball?
I think by "fill it up" the grandparent meant to use the browser window to it's full potential. This article did not; it essentially put a pamphlet, which would have been decent for print, directly online.
There were no "dramatic pauses" or clear white space in this. The information itself seemed cluttered, a result of it being restrained to a box of a certain size. This could have definitely benefited from more white space throughout, rather than just a black void around the presentation.
I hope this was originally made for print, and then just put on the web in essentially the same format in order to save time, otherwise, it was a complete design mistake from the get-go. It operates almost exactly like a book, where you have to turn the pages in order to see what you're getting next, at least a description of what the next page is going to be would have been nice.
I, for one, believe in this electronic voting machine conspiracy crap. Sure, a few voting machines probably rigged the votes for Bush, but on the other hand, most likely other voting machines rigged it for Kerry.
Look, I voted for Kerry, and was not too pleased that Bush won, but I believed that he did. He won the popular vote by 3 million, and the electoral college by more than 30. I don't think that 3 million votes in favor of Kerry could have been stolen by crooked voting machines, as in my view and the view of the parent, fraud going for Kerry was just as prevalent. Better luck in 4 years.
Anyway, Bush won Florida by a pretty decent majority. ABC News dispelled a concern that many people had with a Floridian county (I forget which one) in which there were more registered Democrats that Republicans, but the county went for Bush. However, that county has voted Republican for the past 6 presidential elections or so.
Berkeley's facts may have been "right," but it doesn't mean they were accurate.
Let's give it up, Kerry lost and Bush won. Yes there were most likely cases of fraud, but overall, they probably cancelled each other out for the most part.
PBS has a few of their more recent episodes of Nova on their website.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs.html
It's a shame they don't have a better online selection like they do with the Frontline documentaries.
This is very unlikely to happen. If they made links that seemed like actual news items actually lead to advertisers' sites, then people would lose trust in them very quickly. This would lead to fewer hits to the news page, which would lead to fewer people using their search engine, which generates money via advertising dollars.
Google News seems more of a loss-leader, in that people use it for convenience, and are therefore more inclined to use their search engine.
Showing bias towards which?
In one case, they are filtering things for China... communist = extreme liberal.
In the other, it is claimed that they are biased towards conservatives, who are at the other end of the spectrum.
In my experience, from Google News being my home page, I have noticed no bias at all. Why, when according to the polls, Kerry won the first debate, it reflected that, along with stories saying that while he won, the race for president was still the same as before, even though a good majority of those articles also said a change has been traditionally unnoticeable until a week or so after the debate.
Maybe the algorithm does show a slight bias towards one side or the other, but I can't honestly tell which side, and I consider myself rather moderate.
Media bias works both ways if you look at it too much. I think it's bullshit.
Sorry, folks, they're all used up.