That's great. You don't want to spend a few more dollars to make sure someone doesn't die. How about we compromise. You spend most of your life researching so that you're valuable enough to be sent into space, and then, risk your life to go up into space, and we won't spend a dime to make sure you come back alive. Deal?
Chicken and turkey's aren't mammals, which is probably part of the reason you can't see them harvesting them for human organs. Furthermore, they have size considerations that pigs do not. You probably could picture a cow being used to grow organs though, but I believe (with no substantiation) that pigs are closer to humans then cows.
Besides, I'm a vegetarian, so I don't eat pork either. But the fact that I don't doesn't change society at large, and the fact that they eat pork.
I believe its acceptable to harvest pigs for organs, since we already harvest them for food. Since we're willing to butcher them and eat them, there shouldn't be any ethical objection to butchering them for parts.
On the other hand, we don't eat humans. And somehow, I don't think it would be economically viable to start breeding humans with pig organs, so we could eat them. Thus, you've run into a mental block that people will associate with the progress of growing humans for parts.
Now if you suggested breeding pigs with human organs simply for consumption, you'd probably be forbidden by law, on the grounds that its too much like cannibalism.
Basically, if most people would consider eating it, its acceptable to farm and butcher it for whatever purpose you like, especially if it helps humans. On the other hand, if you don't normally eat the thing, I wouldn't suggest trying to use it as a host for organs.
With a show as old as the Simpsons, it can't be easy to keep the endless jokes coming (or funny for that matter). The article even makes reference as to how bizarre the show has become lately, presumably in attempts to be original and unique. That being said, how on earth do they plan on creating material that is above and beyond the show? For three full two hour movies? (which is equivilant to roughly 4-6 episodes each, in terms of tmie, or 12-18 episodes. That's longer than a normal season of episodes!). Well, to the best of luck. Its a task I couldn't handle.
Which means I have no idea what UO is actually like, but onlike multiplayer RPG type games can't be all that different...but anyway...
I've played Muds for awhile, more than I'd like to admit. And I've come to realize something. The least productive period on a game is the first few levels, where you can't do much of anything, explore anywhere, or look at all respected. And when you have multiple characters in the same system, you tend to sit around doing pointless stuff you've done before with another character just to become halfway decent.
The way this story looks is that they're selling what amounts to mid-level characters. Something that can at least walk around the world and kill a few of the really weak things. At the same time, there is still a lot of upward mobility to be attained. Thus, you still really have to work for your character to make it exceptional. Buying a character off Ebay usually entails starting at the very top and blowing it all away. This is something of a compramise.
Also note, I'd never sell characters on my mud, nor would I ever buy one for Ultima Online. Quite frankly, I'm too poor to buy them, and not poor enough to need the money that badly. However, I do make it a point to try and design my mud so that a starting player doesn't feel completely useless.
Considering Microsoft already has several billion simply in liquid assets, I doubt a billion dollars of Microsoft shares are actually enough to be annoying. Don't forget just how much Mr. Gates himself is worth, and he's just one of many share holders.
If you stay up late enough, you do end up seeing entire programs dedicated to selling just one product. They're called infomercials (I guess, because they're commericals that provide 'info', or something). Anyway...most are actually produced in such a way as to appear as an actual television program, and to draw in the audience and make them want to participate in this show. Generally, its pretty easy to tell its all a sham. But when you can't sleep, you watch strange things.
That's easy. Because its the only easy way to actually get stuff passed. By re-election time, if all you can do is say about how you sat in Congress and talked grand, but never got anything passed, moneyed interests and voters will support someone who is more willing to get stuff done, even if it means getting their hands dirty.
Remember, most interests really don't care for Democracy. They'd much rather just get their own way, at any means required. Democracy was put in place to hamper those efforts, and because of that, democracy tends to piss a lot of people off.
Except they're not folding, they're just filing for bankruptcy. They are profitable, and are only seeking to massively increase their profits primarily through firing workers and ceasing publications of magazines that don't sell enough advertisments. They have no problem getting readers. In fact, they're ceasing the publication of several magazines that have over a million readers.
Basically, expect less real reporting, more ads, more fluff, and more money for ZD. In this situation, the market supports the fluff (because its what those with money want) more than it supports actual knowledge (since those people rarely want to sit through ads).
Sorting through the NY Times Article here were some interesting tid-bits I picked up.
* Willis Stein & Partners paid $780 million for the company during the bull market.
* The company's earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization are projected to be $6.5 million in 2002
Translation: At the current rate of profit, it will take over a hundred years to make up the initial investment. Ouch.
* (Earnings) are expected to rise to $34.4 million in 2003 if the restructuring goes as planned.
* Savings will be gained from the closing of money-losing magazines and the layoff of 700 of the company's 1,150 employees the last year.
Translation: We plan on making close to six times as much money as we were before, primarily by firing over 70% of our workforce, cutting our costs drastically.
Now, here's what bothers me to some extent, and by no means do you have to agree with me on this issue. But according to those numbers, this company is profitable. Granted, its not profitable enough to justify the high price it was bought back in April of 2000, but its in the positive, and appears to be staying there for awhile. However, it seems that being profitable isn't good enough these days. Not only does a company have to be profitable, but it doesn't appear to have any room to do anything that is 'extra-profitable', that is, things that are not done solely for profit.
For example, the article makes mention that the company in question had discontinued its Yahoo! Internet Life Magazina, which had a distribution of over a million. So clearly, some people liked the product. However, it wasn't discontinued due to declining interest, but rather because the number of ad pages had decreased by 50% over the past 2 years. My translation: "If you aren't in a good demographic, you don't get anything published for you."
That's not to say that ZD is under any obligation to operate at a loss for the benefit of the masses. My issue is that ZD is not operating at a loss, but they still plan on putting 700 people out of work, and discontinuing publications that have readership. If there ever was a place where the mythical 'invisible hand' of the market were giving lots of people the finger to enrich the few, this were it. After all, the only people who have to gain from this restructuring are the share holders, while hundreds of workers go unemployed and millions of readers lose their reading material.
So much for the market automatically doing what's best for everyone, eh?
I made a program that could draw random lines and dots one time too. I never thought to submit it to Slashdot.
Actually, on a more serious note, a quick look for a screen shot brought up an image that was a bunch of lines and dots all looking pretty and stuff, and I'm sure it represented an RPM, but absolutely none of it was labled. So there doesn't appear to be any practical use for this at all.
And if you want something for the 'Oh, that looks neat and its meaningful too', I think you should stick to the Linux Kernel. It seems deeper than an RPM to me for some reason.
They are a gazillion-dollar business, already surpassing films in revenues.
A Gazillion-dollar business? Is this fancy new research techniques where you use child like number references instead of looking up the value yourself? "Multi-Billion" I would have bought. I even would have bought "Trillion." "Gazillion" seems a bit over the top.
Just use a client that supports multiple protocols. Under Windows you can use Trillian. It supports MSN, AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, and IRC seamlessly. When you've got all that in one nice client where everything looks similar, why do you need a single protocol?
I quick search (and reference from my sibling) indicates that the World Wildlife Fund brought Suit against the World Wresting Federation in the British House of Lords (a case which the World Wildlife Fund won). Instead of fighting some more, the World Wresting Federation changed its name to World Wresting Entertainment.
I also believe their new slogan is "Get the 'F' out."
Common misconception if I am not mistaken. You are allowed to sell GPL software all you want. However, you cannot stop people from redistributing it. So, if your friend buys Lindows, you can install it on as many computers as you want, legally under the GPL. Also, they are required to provide access to the GPL'd source.
Lindows may also employ proprietary parts that are not directly linked in with the GPL parts of the code, and Lindows is not required to release that freely or with source at all, assuming it isn't GPL'd.
The writeup for this story was, word for word, lifted from the story on CNN, without a single reference made to CNN. Slashdot is very sensitive to such things as copyright (even when it does not agree with them). The submitter should know better that, and the editors should as well. It is suggested that a direct reference to where the quote was lifted be added to this story writeup.
The article was more about using these devices to display onto a transparent screen of whatever size you want. That is, they're not talking as much about directly sending this information to your eyes (on a cell phone), but instead making a box that looks just like a television, but has greater resolution, is non-toxic to make, and (supposedly) very cheap and light.
However, there's something seriously lacking in this article. They claim the current civilian devices cost upwards of $10,000 dollars. But they also claim that the price will drop to $40 dollars. That sounds wonderful. But I don't see something losing 99.6% of its production cost in a short amount of time. Certainly not if this company is seeking to maintain its profits.
My short summary: sounds interesting, not very probable until there are some economical changes to the devices.
There's also a long-standing notion that piracy is good for the business. In an odd twist, tacitly allowing people to watch pirated TV is a way to gain market share, since many pirates eventually give in and convert to paying customers.
I hadn't expected to hear that on MSNBC. In fact, I'm led to wonder if the 'higher ups' even know of this policy. The management of media companies seem to be more prone to saying things like "Ad skipping is theft!" "Napster costs us billions each year." etc, etc. One really has to wonder why big media is really cracking down on piracy, if they have people in their ranks who have been encouraging pirates all along.
Yes, lets talk Mira, based on the very article that you sent.
But the most exciting possibility for Mira awaits its second iteration, which might occur with the "Longhorn" release of Windows, due in 2004. Mira version 2, Ballmer promised, will do away with the one user limit imposed by Windows XP, allowing up to two people to access the same desktop PC at the same time, one via the main display, and one via a remote Mira secondary display. "The [Mira] concept doesn't make sense otherwise, so that will be a version two feature," Ballmer said during a Q & A with the at CeBIT. "Well, it will be now." I spoke with Microsoft representatives about this, and they were unclear about the specifics, but indeed promised that the next version would support at least two concurrent users per desktop.
So, based on what's been said there, SP1 to XP only allows a single person to access a Mira device at any given time. Not only that, it seems you've been locked out of using your desktop as well, since XP disallows more than one user to use the machine at any given time. As such, I don't see this as any great 'revolution' in home electronics. Maybe a neat thing for a bachelor pad, yes, but hardly something that could be useful in corporate settings, where multiple people could have displays for a single machine.
The Anime that ran on Cartoon Network a year or two ago called Gundam Wing delt with the implications for war when you use unmanned machines to do all the fighting for you. While you may or may not see taking lessons away from cartoons with giant city smashing robots, its still an interesting perspective on the matter. It basically makes the claim that any war that isn't fought between people is meaningless. While many political leaders feel war serves on the purpose of getting them what they want, soldiers often have a very different perspective of what they're doing and why.
What having boarder patrols would do...
on
Zeppelins on Patrol?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Quite simply, it would watch for people who are crossing the boarder at non-designated boarder crossings. The boarder between Canada and the US, from what I recall, is highly unguarded, and allows for basically anyone to pass over with no real effort. Furthermore, I believe any Canadian can waltz through legitimate checkpoints whenever they want, as long as they're not carring prohibited materials.
Thus, anyone who intentionally avoids those checkpoints may be assumed to be transporting prohibited materials or prohibited people from Canada into the US. Legitimate people who wished to visit the US would cross through the boarder crossing, the 'terrorists' would skip those checkpoints, and these blimps would be better suited to spot such activity from high above for long periods of time.
This operates under the assumption that Canadian customs processes aren't secure enough for the US, and thus we need to double check their work. For example, Canadians may freely come and go to Cuba, while members of the US may not. Thus, it stands to reason, that it'd be easier for a Cuban terrorist to enter Canada, and then sneak across the boarder to the US with his vile intentions.
Of course, this does very little to stop new terrorist attacks, however the US political mindset right now seems to be 'any minor improvement should be done.' Flying blimps across the boarder decreases the chance of terrorists by a fraction of a fraction of a percent? Do it. Running around declaring people you don't like an Axis of Evil and invading them might stop the family of a suicide bomber from getting some money, go for it. I guess they thing every minor amount will eventually add up.
Slashdot Mirror
So you mean Lexx?
That's great. You don't want to spend a few more dollars to make sure someone doesn't die. How about we compromise. You spend most of your life researching so that you're valuable enough to be sent into space, and then, risk your life to go up into space, and we won't spend a dime to make sure you come back alive. Deal?
Chicken and turkey's aren't mammals, which is probably part of the reason you can't see them harvesting them for human organs. Furthermore, they have size considerations that pigs do not. You probably could picture a cow being used to grow organs though, but I believe (with no substantiation) that pigs are closer to humans then cows.
Besides, I'm a vegetarian, so I don't eat pork either. But the fact that I don't doesn't change society at large, and the fact that they eat pork.
I believe its acceptable to harvest pigs for organs, since we already harvest them for food. Since we're willing to butcher them and eat them, there shouldn't be any ethical objection to butchering them for parts.
On the other hand, we don't eat humans. And somehow, I don't think it would be economically viable to start breeding humans with pig organs, so we could eat them. Thus, you've run into a mental block that people will associate with the progress of growing humans for parts.
Now if you suggested breeding pigs with human organs simply for consumption, you'd probably be forbidden by law, on the grounds that its too much like cannibalism.
Basically, if most people would consider eating it, its acceptable to farm and butcher it for whatever purpose you like, especially if it helps humans. On the other hand, if you don't normally eat the thing, I wouldn't suggest trying to use it as a host for organs.
I don't see why there's any difficulty in changing your number? They change telephone numbers all the time when people move.
With a show as old as the Simpsons, it can't be easy to keep the endless jokes coming (or funny for that matter). The article even makes reference as to how bizarre the show has become lately, presumably in attempts to be original and unique. That being said, how on earth do they plan on creating material that is above and beyond the show? For three full two hour movies? (which is equivilant to roughly 4-6 episodes each, in terms of tmie, or 12-18 episodes. That's longer than a normal season of episodes!). Well, to the best of luck. Its a task I couldn't handle.
Which means I have no idea what UO is actually like, but onlike multiplayer RPG type games can't be all that different...but anyway...
I've played Muds for awhile, more than I'd like to admit. And I've come to realize something. The least productive period on a game is the first few levels, where you can't do much of anything, explore anywhere, or look at all respected. And when you have multiple characters in the same system, you tend to sit around doing pointless stuff you've done before with another character just to become halfway decent.
The way this story looks is that they're selling what amounts to mid-level characters. Something that can at least walk around the world and kill a few of the really weak things. At the same time, there is still a lot of upward mobility to be attained. Thus, you still really have to work for your character to make it exceptional. Buying a character off Ebay usually entails starting at the very top and blowing it all away. This is something of a compramise.
Also note, I'd never sell characters on my mud, nor would I ever buy one for Ultima Online. Quite frankly, I'm too poor to buy them, and not poor enough to need the money that badly. However, I do make it a point to try and design my mud so that a starting player doesn't feel completely useless.
Considering Microsoft already has several billion simply in liquid assets, I doubt a billion dollars of Microsoft shares are actually enough to be annoying. Don't forget just how much Mr. Gates himself is worth, and he's just one of many share holders.
Its hard enough getting people to stand in patterns in real life...how do you organize people to stand like that online?
If you stay up late enough, you do end up seeing entire programs dedicated to selling just one product. They're called infomercials (I guess, because they're commericals that provide 'info', or something). Anyway...most are actually produced in such a way as to appear as an actual television program, and to draw in the audience and make them want to participate in this show. Generally, its pretty easy to tell its all a sham. But when you can't sleep, you watch strange things.
Re: Why?
That's easy. Because its the only easy way to actually get stuff passed. By re-election time, if all you can do is say about how you sat in Congress and talked grand, but never got anything passed, moneyed interests and voters will support someone who is more willing to get stuff done, even if it means getting their hands dirty.
Remember, most interests really don't care for Democracy. They'd much rather just get their own way, at any means required. Democracy was put in place to hamper those efforts, and because of that, democracy tends to piss a lot of people off.
Except they're not folding, they're just filing for bankruptcy. They are profitable, and are only seeking to massively increase their profits primarily through firing workers and ceasing publications of magazines that don't sell enough advertisments. They have no problem getting readers. In fact, they're ceasing the publication of several magazines that have over a million readers.
Basically, expect less real reporting, more ads, more fluff, and more money for ZD. In this situation, the market supports the fluff (because its what those with money want) more than it supports actual knowledge (since those people rarely want to sit through ads).
Sorting through the NY Times Article here were some interesting tid-bits I picked up.
* Willis Stein & Partners paid $780 million for the company during the bull market.
* The company's earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization are projected to be $6.5 million in 2002
Translation: At the current rate of profit, it will take over a hundred years to make up the initial investment. Ouch.
* (Earnings) are expected to rise to $34.4 million in 2003 if the restructuring goes as planned.
* Savings will be gained from the closing of money-losing magazines and the layoff of 700 of the company's 1,150 employees the last year.
Translation: We plan on making close to six times as much money as we were before, primarily by firing over 70% of our workforce, cutting our costs drastically.
Now, here's what bothers me to some extent, and by no means do you have to agree with me on this issue. But according to those numbers, this company is profitable. Granted, its not profitable enough to justify the high price it was bought back in April of 2000, but its in the positive, and appears to be staying there for awhile. However, it seems that being profitable isn't good enough these days. Not only does a company have to be profitable, but it doesn't appear to have any room to do anything that is 'extra-profitable', that is, things that are not done solely for profit.
For example, the article makes mention that the company in question had discontinued its Yahoo! Internet Life Magazina, which had a distribution of over a million. So clearly, some people liked the product. However, it wasn't discontinued due to declining interest, but rather because the number of ad pages had decreased by 50% over the past 2 years. My translation: "If you aren't in a good demographic, you don't get anything published for you."
That's not to say that ZD is under any obligation to operate at a loss for the benefit of the masses. My issue is that ZD is not operating at a loss, but they still plan on putting 700 people out of work, and discontinuing publications that have readership. If there ever was a place where the mythical 'invisible hand' of the market were giving lots of people the finger to enrich the few, this were it. After all, the only people who have to gain from this restructuring are the share holders, while hundreds of workers go unemployed and millions of readers lose their reading material.
So much for the market automatically doing what's best for everyone, eh?
I made a program that could draw random lines and dots one time too. I never thought to submit it to Slashdot.
Actually, on a more serious note, a quick look for a screen shot brought up an image that was a bunch of lines and dots all looking pretty and stuff, and I'm sure it represented an RPM, but absolutely none of it was labled. So there doesn't appear to be any practical use for this at all.
And if you want something for the 'Oh, that looks neat and its meaningful too', I think you should stick to the Linux Kernel. It seems deeper than an RPM to me for some reason.
They are a gazillion-dollar business, already surpassing films in revenues.
A Gazillion-dollar business? Is this fancy new research techniques where you use child like number references instead of looking up the value yourself? "Multi-Billion" I would have bought. I even would have bought "Trillion." "Gazillion" seems a bit over the top.
Just use a client that supports multiple protocols. Under Windows you can use Trillian. It supports MSN, AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, and IRC seamlessly. When you've got all that in one nice client where everything looks similar, why do you need a single protocol?
I quick search (and reference from my sibling) indicates that the World Wildlife Fund brought Suit against the World Wresting Federation in the British House of Lords (a case which the World Wildlife Fund won). Instead of fighting some more, the World Wresting Federation changed its name to World Wresting Entertainment.
I also believe their new slogan is "Get the 'F' out."
Well, its slashdotted, so you're excused.
But BS = Buckling Spring.
Common misconception if I am not mistaken. You are allowed to sell GPL software all you want. However, you cannot stop people from redistributing it. So, if your friend buys Lindows, you can install it on as many computers as you want, legally under the GPL. Also, they are required to provide access to the GPL'd source.
Lindows may also employ proprietary parts that are not directly linked in with the GPL parts of the code, and Lindows is not required to release that freely or with source at all, assuming it isn't GPL'd.
Then again, I'm not a GPL expert.
Quote: "Plagiarism is using others' ideas and words without clearly acknowledging the source of that information."
Source: http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/wts/plagiarism.html
The writeup for this story was, word for word, lifted from the story on CNN, without a single reference made to CNN. Slashdot is very sensitive to such things as copyright (even when it does not agree with them). The submitter should know better that, and the editors should as well. It is suggested that a direct reference to where the quote was lifted be added to this story writeup.
The article was more about using these devices to display onto a transparent screen of whatever size you want. That is, they're not talking as much about directly sending this information to your eyes (on a cell phone), but instead making a box that looks just like a television, but has greater resolution, is non-toxic to make, and (supposedly) very cheap and light.
However, there's something seriously lacking in this article. They claim the current civilian devices cost upwards of $10,000 dollars. But they also claim that the price will drop to $40 dollars. That sounds wonderful. But I don't see something losing 99.6% of its production cost in a short amount of time. Certainly not if this company is seeking to maintain its profits.
My short summary: sounds interesting, not very probable until there are some economical changes to the devices.
From the article:
There's also a long-standing notion that piracy is good for the business. In an odd twist, tacitly allowing people to watch pirated TV is a way to gain market share, since many pirates eventually give in and convert to paying customers.
I hadn't expected to hear that on MSNBC. In fact, I'm led to wonder if the 'higher ups' even know of this policy. The management of media companies seem to be more prone to saying things like "Ad skipping is theft!" "Napster costs us billions each year." etc, etc. One really has to wonder why big media is really cracking down on piracy, if they have people in their ranks who have been encouraging pirates all along.
Yes, lets talk Mira, based on the very article that you sent.
But the most exciting possibility for Mira awaits its second iteration, which might occur with the "Longhorn" release of Windows, due in 2004. Mira version 2, Ballmer promised, will do away with the one user limit imposed by Windows XP, allowing up to two people to access the same desktop PC at the same time, one via the main display, and one via a remote Mira secondary display. "The [Mira] concept doesn't make sense otherwise, so that will be a version two feature," Ballmer said during a Q & A with the at CeBIT. "Well, it will be now." I spoke with Microsoft representatives about this, and they were unclear about the specifics, but indeed promised that the next version would support at least two concurrent users per desktop.
So, based on what's been said there, SP1 to XP only allows a single person to access a Mira device at any given time. Not only that, it seems you've been locked out of using your desktop as well, since XP disallows more than one user to use the machine at any given time. As such, I don't see this as any great 'revolution' in home electronics. Maybe a neat thing for a bachelor pad, yes, but hardly something that could be useful in corporate settings, where multiple people could have displays for a single machine.
Move along, nothing to see here.
The Anime that ran on Cartoon Network a year or two ago called Gundam Wing delt with the implications for war when you use unmanned machines to do all the fighting for you. While you may or may not see taking lessons away from cartoons with giant city smashing robots, its still an interesting perspective on the matter. It basically makes the claim that any war that isn't fought between people is meaningless. While many political leaders feel war serves on the purpose of getting them what they want, soldiers often have a very different perspective of what they're doing and why.
Quite simply, it would watch for people who are crossing the boarder at non-designated boarder crossings. The boarder between Canada and the US, from what I recall, is highly unguarded, and allows for basically anyone to pass over with no real effort. Furthermore, I believe any Canadian can waltz through legitimate checkpoints whenever they want, as long as they're not carring prohibited materials.
Thus, anyone who intentionally avoids those checkpoints may be assumed to be transporting prohibited materials or prohibited people from Canada into the US. Legitimate people who wished to visit the US would cross through the boarder crossing, the 'terrorists' would skip those checkpoints, and these blimps would be better suited to spot such activity from high above for long periods of time.
This operates under the assumption that Canadian customs processes aren't secure enough for the US, and thus we need to double check their work. For example, Canadians may freely come and go to Cuba, while members of the US may not. Thus, it stands to reason, that it'd be easier for a Cuban terrorist to enter Canada, and then sneak across the boarder to the US with his vile intentions.
Of course, this does very little to stop new terrorist attacks, however the US political mindset right now seems to be 'any minor improvement should be done.' Flying blimps across the boarder decreases the chance of terrorists by a fraction of a fraction of a percent? Do it. Running around declaring people you don't like an Axis of Evil and invading them might stop the family of a suicide bomber from getting some money, go for it. I guess they thing every minor amount will eventually add up.