>>>>> I realize your request is for "intel" MacBooks... but for those of you with PPCs or Developers...
I'm pretty sure Mac On Linux (MOL) won't work for intel machines, but if it did it would more or less do what you want. A short search shows it probably doesn't work, maybe someone should look at porting it to intel hardware (if its doable).
I think for now the VMWare (answer already given by other posters below) is as good as its going to get. That is simply the problem with closed source stuff.
For those of you reading this post looking for solutions for PPCs though, MOL is probably the way to go.
Mac On Linux supports all of the PPC architectures well, and I've got linux and Mac OS X co-existing nicely by booting into Ubuntu linux (6.10) and then running Mac On Linux with my OS X install.
Effectively I have Mac OS X in a window on my second workbench and can switch from one OS to the other easily. I use both linux and mac apps depending which one I like better.
Having a 12" PPC with NVidia closed source crap, I cant run the os in a separate screen yet but with SDL drivers and a screen sized window I get pretty close.
The only thing that doesn't work well in Mac OS X for me right now is sound, (but the MOL team is working on it). Network etc. is all available (with some configuration, through a TUN device), and a Samba drive lets me access my linux drives from inside MAC OS X (running in MOL).
The only reason I don't boot only into linux is that Sleep, and Video out don't work courtesy of NVIDIA closed source crap... (Admittedly they make nice graphics cards, but I will be choosing my set of hardware based on how well they support open source, which likely means it likely won't be an NVIDIA card, given my current experiences, grumble, grumble;) ).
You are correct that Patents and Copyright protection allows the owner of those patents or copyrights exclusive rights to distribute their product for a certain period. In the case of a patent in the US its 20 years. These are preexisting exclusive rights.
These are protections that allow a company to set prices regardless of any other laws. If the company already has a product with patent protection where the idea is so special that the patent cannot be "engineered around" by competition, then it is irrelevant that the company can also set a price floor.
They will be able to set whatever price they wish anyways, since they control the supply of the product (they make it and the patent rights prevent competition). This of course will end once the patent expires.
In most cases though products protected by patents may provide a certain feature but other products provide an alternative and can be used as a substitute. For example lets say you have a patent on orange juice that can not be circumvented. As a consumer if I want orange juice I have to buy from you. However I may chose to buy apple juice instead though (a substitute) if your prices are too high, since apple juice still meets my needs. In that way I still affect the pricing of orange juice by lowering demand (thereby creating a surplus, which affects your profits and pricing strategy).
The purpose of patents is to give exclusivity to reward the inventor, and encourage invention. The fact that patents and copyright may have gotten out of hand is a separate issue.
This simply reeks of protectionism for big US manufacturers...
But as any economist will tell you price fixing generally doesn't work well for the economy or consumers as a whole. It may temporarily benefit one industry or sector but is generally undesirable. It is better to let uncompetitive companies face the pressure of competition and either become competitive or go out of business.
If people have a finite amount of money to spend and prices are higher they simply buy less. They may buy less of different products, for example if the price of gas goes up and people still need to buy the same amount gas, but may not go on vacation or buy a new TV (this is why the price of oil is so important).
Basic concepts of supply and demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand)
drive pricing. Price elasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand#El asticity) will determine what happens as prices rise. In fact artificially high prices may cause additional suppliers to enter the market to compete (an increase in supply) which will cause a surplus of the product which in turn will lead to lower prices as manufactures try to entice consumers to buy. Ultimately unless you impose tariffs or other trade barriers, or all manufacturers collude (and fix prices) the market will solve the problem.
Tariffs and other trade barriers are coming down with globalization, and price fixing involving collusion is highly unlikely between a competitive manufacturer, and an uncompetitive one. The competitive (ie lower cost) manufacture is better off selling at a lower price and taking the business for themselves and putting their competition out of business.
Besides the internet puts global manufacturers within reach of US customers. If prices go up in retail stores in the US because of all US manufacturers setting bottom prices, people will simply buy from outside of the US, and a huge gray import market will open up. At least for high value items, where the difference in price is significant.
If anything this is just one more nail in the coffin of US manufacturing. The legal changes may give them a temporary false sense of security, but realistically companies that fail to please the market (ie consumer) by providing good value simply don't last.
Just think what artificially high CD prices have caused people to do. They've found their music online (legal or otherwise).
Or think region codes and DVDs. Many Europeans buy their DVDs online from the US because they don't want to wait for the European release.
This is no different. Shipping costs are not that high (especially not for large volume gray market imports).
This just means that no other major distro is dumb enough to cut a deal with MS.
Last time I checked (http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major)
Xandros isn't exactly a major distro.
MS is scraping the bottom to get someone to sign on...
I think someone at Xandros decided its time to cash in and exit. maybe the Xandros CEO is thinking: "with the MS payout I will exceed my targets and get a big bonus next quarter... Then I can move on to the next company right after my Mediterranean holiday..."
There are individual cases like your uncles which occur, as any system our health care system can be improved.
I don't know the particulars of your uncles case, and as such will simply acknowledge that he received faster service in the United States, and sympathize with his unfortunate situation.
However if we are to be reasonable in the evaluation health care of two countries we cannot rely on one individual case.
We must choose clear criteria like: -cost of care per citizen -accessible/affordable -quality of care / health of the population
etc...
There are many more criteria which you should feel free to look at in making your decision.
An interesting page exists at wikipedia that does just that: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_America n_health_care_systems_compared)
Admittedly wikipedia is not an academic source, however it provides a nice starting point for understanding the differences. If you care to confirm the validity of the article's data you only need to follow references provided to look at peer reviewed sources).
Rather than repeating the argument presented I will simply summarize (and quote from wikipedia) based on the above criteria:
-cost of care per citizen (Canada cheaper)
"Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations' budgets. The United States spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2003, the government of Canada spent $1886 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2548."
US is more expensive despite leaving 45 million people without proper care.. (the uninsured)
-accessible/affordable (Canada better)
same for insured Americans and all Canadians
poor or unaffordable for uninsured Americans (45 million people!, 15% of population)
-quality of care / health of the population (about the same in Canada)
"While Canada's health system is cheaper, some have claimed that it compares well with the American one based on the fact that Canadians are, overall, statistically healthier than Americans. Life expectancy in 2005 was about two and a half years lower in the United States than in Canada, with Canadians living to an average of 80.1 years and Americans 77.7 (US Census Bureau). Infant and child mortality rates are also higher in the United States. This may be due in part to the different way agencies compile their statistics, although Canada's healthcare performance is regularly as good as or better than that of the US system in major comprehensive comparisons."
It seems that looking at these three points suggests that the Canadian system is cheaper per person (NOTE: healthcare is not FREE, we pay for it through taxes), equally effective (on average), and more accessible.
Treatment waiting times are a real issue and are the source of major debate in Canada. Perhaps the major difference is that in the US if you are rich you can get faster treatment at home rather than having to travel, (admittedly as your uncle illustrated getting private treatment is also open to wealthier Canadians by travelling to the US).
However if you are poor in the US and uninsured you may simply have to do without care.
Personally I remember when I was on a conference in Alaska, and as I was walking in to the lecture hall a maintenance worker fell of his ladder and broke his leg (luckily nothing else). His first concern was that he didn't have health insurance, and wouldn't get paid because he wouldn't be able to work.
I at first didn't understand his thinking, I was more concerned about his leg and his immediate health. In Canada he would receive all the medical care he needs free (already paid for by taxes), and he would receive workers compensation (approximately 80% of regular pay) until he was able to work again.
After I understood I felt really sorry for him, and wished for his sake that he had been Canadian in a Canada.
Every major discovery in science is based on previous scientific work.
Every scientist stands on the shoulders of giants...
As research money has become scarce it has come with more strings attached, usually courtesy of business interests, strings which limit sharing.
Privatization of information and control through restricted access or patents is perhaps one of the biggest threats to science and technology in this century.
As an example, A short look at the state of patent laws and its effects on medical research should terrify almost anyone. New drugs and cures are not being researched because patent rights for possible solutions cannot be acquired. Lawyers are now dictating the direction of research. The results are a staggering decline in the development of new drugs, and a focus on drugs that are profitable, rather than drugs that address a real medical crisis or illness. Artificial monopolies (created through patents) are driving prices through the roof and making medicine unavailable millions of people (including US citizens).
Ultimately you are correct that as information becomes more important people will try to control it. Unfortunately this thinking is due to and outdated and incorrect understanding that thinks of "information" as a physical product.
With real physical products and goods sharing leads to a reduction in wealth of the individual sharing. If I give you half of my sandwich I have less to eat. This is ingrained in every business person in business school (profit = revenue - costs). Any giving away of goods leads to a loss of revenue and hence a decrease in profit.
Unfortunately this model does not hold for information! In most cases sharing information leads to increased understanding by both parties sharing the information, which often leads to new ideas and an increase in wealth for everyone involved.
Sharing information does not lead to a loss of wealth. This is were our leaders (mainly business people) are simply wrong in using an old model for a new problem.
Open source development of software is perhaps the strongest example of where sharing has lead to the enrichment of each of the individual contributers. Apache, Linux and many other extremely successful software projects owe their success to open collaboration and sharing of information.
The scientific process is not different in its dependence on the relatively free flow of information. The evolutionary step by step development of technologies and scientific understanding arises primarily and most efficiently out of the sharing of ideas between capable researchers.
Lack of sharing results in duplicated work, unsolved problems (solved by some one else but not shares), and even worse cases where information is known but cannot be used because of patent liabilities.
All of these inefficiencies will simply mean that countries like the US which are encumbered by outdated patent laws (which need to be changed not struck down) and private research money with strings attached, will simply fall behind.
Lets face it when business people and lawyers start making decisions about technology and science and ignore long term public benefits in favour of short term quarterly results we are in trouble.
The world has become more complex. Short term business thinking and simple models will not work here. Unfortunately business people are usually the last group to understand when things change (Just look at Global Warming and the reaction of business people vs. scientists).
Personally I am learning Chinese... I think as we in the west fight about who should own what information, the east will simply by pass us to take a global leadership role.
"Catholic schools in the Elk Island district outside Edmonton will examine security procedures after a 12-year-old student on a field trip was arrested in British Columbia for carrying a loaded handgun.
The student was one of 20 members of the Holy Redeemer School's band, which was in Whistler last weekend to perform at a festival.
The gun was surrendered without incident after other students told their supervisor about the weapon. The student was arrested, charged with possession of a prohibited weapon, then put on a plane home and released to his father. He has since been suspended from school."
______
I guess we Canadians don't think everyone is a terrorist... Perhaps because we don't have a government and a media establishment with the goal of distracting us from the much more tangible real risks. Like risk of dying due to lack medical care (because our medical insurance won't pay for it), or the fact that we're involved in a war half way around the world.
Maybe it's also because we spend more on education than on keeping people in jail..
I agree Travel Light. You will hate your laptop if you need to carry it everywhere. If you're backpacking for a year you'll probably end up throwing out or sending home stuff as you travel trust me light is right.
If you're addicted to your own electronics pick up a 1 GB USB key and put portable apps suite on it. http://portableapps.com/
Definitely add spybot search and destroy and clamAV so you can give the more dodgy looking computers a quick scan...
Most internet cafes run windows so don't expect anything else... most have no clue about security and I've used my USB key pretty much everywhere, just tell them you're saving a file, or cant speak the language...;)
Put a long neck loop or lanyard on it, and when you plug it in put the neckloop next to the keyboard so that you're less likely to forget it.
Worst case if you lose it you can buy another one and spend 1hr downloading alls the apps from the web again.
With 2 beacons with angle (and depth) information it could determine its position without knowing the speed of sound in water (time * speed = distance), since the distance between the two beacons is known.
If additional beacons with known positions where placed then with 3 beacons the sub could also triangulate its position without angle information and without sending a ping.
And a directional receiver (antenna)... to determine angle... (just needs two fast enough receivers + processing a known distance apart (think ears). probably also not new technology .
Essentially its a slight variation on sonar triangulation It goes back to basic trig...
This isn't that new and it sounds more like patent trolling to me...
But that's just based on a few minutes of googling and some back of the envelope trig, not the opinion of a qualified expert... and I might be wrong...
Starsbucks brand image is about a "third place" or home where you can go and be yourself and feel special (by buying their high margin drinks).
Being a company that screws coffee farmers (or at least gets caught doing it) is not part of that brand image.
It's the same reason they call their staff baristas, to make the customer and the staff feel like they're special.
Reality is a little different. They are the most profitable company in their industry. As a fast growing shareholder company Starbucks is a classic business case (studied in business schools the world over) for inventing and using every trick to kill small coffee shop competitors and the Walmartization of coffee. In fact most of that profit is used to fuel growth (new outlets).
1) Location: Starbucks pursues a systematic strategy of saturation growth in each city they target, putting up so many Starbucks in (have you ever wondered why there's 3 within walking distance of your office) that they actually start canabalizing (stealing customers from) each other . Why do they do this? After all it costs them money, but it ensures that a Starbucks is almost always closer than the small coffee shop you used to go to.
2) Coffee quality: It is correct that Starbucks did raise the quality of coffee in North America (sorry but this is not a hard thing to do). Starbucks has focused its buying roasting and delivery strategy (and invented specialty vacuum packaging) to deliver a consistent quality that can originate from almost any decent coffee farmer.
Then they have built up a supply chain that cuts out many of the middle man importers and roasters (who the gourmet coffee houses buy from) to buy directly from the farmer. By doing this they have become the Goliath of coffee buyers to the point where they are one of the biggest coffee buyer's period. As a small to medium size coffee farmer you generally do whatever they ask you to or they stop buying from you. Because of their buying volume they have negatively affected market prices. They help define "what a fair price is".
I'm likely to believe the coffee farmers on this one, when they say they are getting screwed.
3) Starbucks staff treatment: Why does Starbucks offer health care? The answer here is simple: Small coffee houses with independent owners cant afford to do so and compete with Starbucks (remember they buy their coffee from a more expensive middle man). This way Starbucks can poach the best staff and create staffing problems for the competitor.
As for treatment of its staff... almost all are part time. Why? because its cheaper. In fact Starbucks uses computer tracking through the till to determine when its staff are most productive and deliberately give them odd hours to work. So if someone is good in the morning with high productivity they will start at 6am and work til 10am when they get less productive, to be sent home and then come in at 3pm again for 2 to 3 hours. In total they all get less work per week than the number of hours that make them eligible for full time benefits (35 hrs in Canada). Look at the staff in Starbucks their all University students and under 35... (because you cant really make a living at Starbucks full time)
Don't doubt it, this is all about one thing: PROFIT. The reason corporations try to look fair is because its part of their BRAND image which helps them make MONEY. Corporations are amoral (don't have morals) entities driven by the bottom line. Anyone that believes differently is naive.
But hey what do I know...
Personally I think their coffee is over priced for what it is.
Good luck on your job search. (Focus on networking!)
Being unemployed for 4 months despite searching every day is not uncommon, and nothing to be ashamed of.
It takes a while to find a decent job. If you're not under financial pressure it is better to take some time to find a job that fits you, where you will be reasonably happy, rather than whatever comes along.
Think about it for a moment, we all spend more time with the people at work than we do with our families and closest friends.
168 hrs (a week) - 7x8=56, 8 hours sleep a night - 5x2x.75=7.5, 45 min commute twice a day 5 days a week - 9x5 =45, 8 work + 1 hr (lunch+breaks) x 5 = time at work
= 59.5 hours left (only 14.5 hours more than time spent at work)
45/59.5 ~ 75.6% (average time spent at work / average free time)
Now be honest do you spend more than 75% of your free time away from work with your family?
If you watch an average amount of TV (20 hrs per week), unless you watch it together it is already impossible... Don't forget you have to spend time eating, showering, grocery shopping, cleaning etc...
Again good luck on your search, and remember pay isn't everything...
I think you're correct in that the record industry will try to block these changes in anyway they can.
Although when one starts to try to "own" original content through derived work ie "fair use" etc... you come to the point where you start try to control thoughts, ideas and their communication.
Although the record industry is powerful, they cannot succeed in taking on everyone, although as you correctly stated they will try and fight to the last man.
At best they can make a big mess and buy some time.
I see this as much more of a symptom of the perversion of the legal system by the special interests of corporations (and their lawyers).
Unfortunately justice is still out of reach for many of us, and I think the number of people who cannot afford to go to court is growing. Corporations take advantage of their wealth and this financial imbalance.
Corporations in their short sightedness rather than competing through innovation and invention seek to compete by controlling the market by suppressing competition where possible.
Copyright and Patent laws were originally created to prevent this and strike a balance between the rights of the user and the creator. The idea was to create a functioning market where innovation is encouraged and sufficiently rewarded, while retaining open competition and consumer choice.
Copyright and IP law is particularly vulnerable since its complexity and the need to seek a balance between content users and content providers makes easy to pervert. That combined with the general lack of knowledge about copyright law and fair use and a systematic public campaign by the content industry to confuse the issue, has lead to the current situation.
It is disappointing that judges, lawyers and politicians (the guardians of our legal system) have failed to protect our legal system from growing greed and corruption.
Despite all this the content industry middlemen (RIAA etc...) will lose. The reasons are simple: 1) A new medium, the internet allows anyone to connect with customers. 2) A number of users are no longer interested in working with the content industry middlemen. 3) A large number of users are willing to share their content for free.
This is creating a large pool of accessible content that the content industry middlemen do not own or control in anyway. As this pool grows which it inevitably will the very content "protection" laws lobbied for by the record industry will protect the rights of the creators of this music. Since the creators have the right to distribute their content under any licensing scheme that they see fit (eg. creative commons) they can distribute it for free.
Consumers faced with the choice of easy free to use accessible content and the choice of copy protected digitally managed "official" industry content will simply vote with their feet.
These sorts of legal challenges just help create a hostile climate for traditional industry content users and will hasten the decline of the traditional content industry as these consumers move on.
These are the violent thrashes of a dying beast... (which unfortunately will take time and cause much damage).
We've seen it with software... and we'll see it again...
If the data needed to be on a laptop, why wasn't it encrypted? There's absolutely no reason why a laptop cant be set up to have the entire home partion set up to autoencrypt and decrypt.
Users without proper login credentials wouldn't then be able to access the data (assuming proper encryption algorithms are used).
Again policies that clearly define what information can leave the office and in what form need to exist in parallel with smart use of security technologies.
Unfortunately most people (and that includes many managers and policy makers) don't really understand technology and as a result tend to seek solutions that they do understand, even if they are poor solutions, rather than admit that they don't know and ask qualified people for help.
Personally I believe the market only works to the benefit of the consumer in the long run when there is true competition. This is something that becomes very difficult when the competition is the size of Walmart and shops in China.
I see Walmart as part of the negative side globalization that is leading to a hollowing out of America, and in the long run is a significant part of what is feeding the trade deficit with China. What makes Walmart so profitable is that in many areas it has little or no competition (small town America) and effectively has almost a monopoly. A monopoly is a form of market failure, and in the long run is never good for the consumer (although its great for the shareholder). In the short term it has lowered prices in many areas, but then its lowered wages too.
Hey but don't take my word for it. Get your own facts, and then make a decision. That's what democracy is about, be an informed citizen, not an opinionated one.
As you all know the ISP business is a very competitive business. If I am a paying customer and I am paying for high speed internet access, I will get this from my provider. This suggests that my packets will get these preferential tags for my internet (http, port 80 access).
2) Technology Now if I use a VOIP software program that happens to:
(a) encrypt traffic (err like Skype for example)
(b) happens to run its traffic over an http proxy like mechanism through port 80 (which automatically separates the VOIP traffic from browser traffic), how can the ISP distinguish my VOIP packets from my internet packets?
The answer is as far as I know they cant (I'm not a VOIP expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm guesing they cannot distinguish a long high bandwidth legitimate transaction (which I am paying for) from a VOIP conversation.
It sounds like to me that innovation has changed the business model in the telecomunications industry, and players that missed the boat are now trying to compete by blocking these innovations... However since they're not innovators they don't understand that theses bumps in the road will be simply be innovated around.
We heard this same argument in a different flavor about people being able stopping P2P filesharing before.
This suit has to my knowledge already been settled.
Looks like VoteHere doesn't want more bad PR. A quote from an article at the seatle times:
"We have resolved the matter to our mutual satisfaction and have agreed that we are in pursuit of many of the same goals for election reform," Spillane's attorney, Stan Lippmann, said.
I appreciate your skepticism and critique... bravo.:)
Unfortunately not everything can be supported in a 5 minute post...:)
As for the statistics you're right they can be missused and quite often are, although I haven't found any in my "ass" yet;). I apologize for not giving references, I took the number from Carl Sagan's book, after a rough back of the envelope calculation based on how many people go university for science and engineering came out to a much lower number than 5% of the population.
As for science not being mandatory... I guess it depends on what you define as science... When I went to school you could drop science after grade 10, after a brief introductory course in grade 9, and grade 10 biology. Chemistry wasn't taught until grade 11, and physics until grade 12... I went to what was considered a "good public school" (yes I know this is subjective...)
As far as I'm concerned if you haven't seen Newton's laws or basic chemistry you haven't learned enough science. English and math were mandatory until graduation (grade 13).
Yes, we are making progress... obviously you received a reasonable scientific education.;) Again thanks for the comments.
This is simply an indication that 95% of the population is scientifically illiterate.
Unfortunately science education is not mandatory like english and basic math are. Nor is it taught in a manner that supports curiousity and interest.
Given that we live in an increasingly technical dependent society it's scary to find pseudoscience and scientific ignorance so rapidly on the rise. For those struggling to separate science and pseudoscience, a good book putting science's role into a clearer perspective is Carl Sagan's book: "The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark." I have a few copies and lend it to people when they need it. (Note: there are other good books too this is just one that comes to mind).
The underlying skills of critical thought and a healthy dose of skepticism are the basis of good science. Even basic concepts like Occam's razor are not widely understood or accepted. People need to be made to understand that science is not just ugly formulas in physics class, but that it forms the basis for all things that define our modern high standard of living.
If less than 1% of congress men ever elected have any scientific background how do you expect them to put forth a meaningful policy on scientific education or even understand basic issues.
Rather than sitting here in self congratulatory bliss about other people ignorance, we should take our responsibility as the scientifically literate (to some degree anyway) seriously and do what we can to educate people around us. Take an active role in science outreach programs, or at the very least lobby your elected representatives.
Yes, it is a slow difficult up hill battle, but 300 years ago 95% of the population was illiterate, today most can read and write. This is mostly due to a number of dedicated individuals that convinced their government of the need for literacy.
Ignorance is bliss... Unfortunately for me its to late...
After living in Germany for I while I know what you mean about billing not stopping when you want it to. It's not restricted to Deutsche Telekom.
My experience is that German companies don't understand customer service in the same sense we expect it here in North America.
If you need to terminate an account, or contract or insurance or anything else doing it by phone despite them having customer phone service, generally doesn't work.
The billing departments generally aren't up to speed and it can take a few months (if ever) for things to trickle from phone services to them.
>>>> Cancel all contracts etc... in writing with a letter by mail (keep a copy).
All that being said, I've had some nightmare companies here in Canada too... in particular ISPs. A friend of mine fought for months to cancel a particular ISP account...
Slashdot Mirror
>>>>> I realize your request is for "intel" MacBooks... but for those of you with PPCs or Developers...
p /Features doesn't mention anything remotely intel.
;) ).
I'm pretty sure Mac On Linux (MOL) won't work for intel machines, but if it did it would more or less do what you want. A short search shows it probably doesn't work, maybe someone should look at porting it to intel hardware (if its doable).
The feature list for processors http://mac-on-linux.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.ph
I think for now the VMWare (answer already given by other posters below) is as good as its going to get. That is simply the problem with closed source stuff.
For those of you reading this post looking for solutions for PPCs though, MOL is probably the way to go.
Mac On Linux supports all of the PPC architectures well, and I've got linux and Mac OS X co-existing nicely
by booting into Ubuntu linux (6.10) and then running Mac On Linux with my OS X install.
Effectively I have Mac OS X in a window on my second workbench and can switch from one OS to the other easily.
I use both linux and mac apps depending which one I like better.
Having a 12" PPC with NVidia closed source crap, I cant run the os in a separate screen yet but with SDL drivers and a screen sized window I get pretty close.
The only thing that doesn't work well in Mac OS X for me right now is sound, (but the MOL team is working on it).
Network etc. is all available (with some configuration, through a TUN device), and a Samba drive lets me access my linux drives from inside MAC OS X (running in MOL).
The only reason I don't boot only into linux is that Sleep, and Video out don't work courtesy of NVIDIA closed source crap... (Admittedly they make nice graphics cards, but I will be choosing my set of hardware based on how well they support open source, which likely means it likely won't be an NVIDIA card, given my current experiences, grumble, grumble
MOL can be found here: http://mac-on-linux.sourceforge.net/.
My personal thanks to the MOL team.
(Go ahead mod me off topic if you want, but there are still many users reading about this that have PowerPCs)
You are correct that Patents and Copyright protection allows the owner of those patents or copyrights exclusive rights to distribute their product for a certain period. In the case of a patent in the US its 20 years. These are preexisting exclusive rights.
n ited_States, or Filesharing of music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesharing).
These are protections that allow a company to set prices regardless of any other laws. If the company already has a product with patent protection where the idea is so special that the patent cannot be "engineered around" by competition, then it is irrelevant that the company can also set a price floor.
They will be able to set whatever price they wish anyways, since they control the supply of the product (they make it and the patent rights prevent competition). This of course will end once the patent expires.
In most cases though products protected by patents may provide a certain feature but other products provide an alternative and can be used as a substitute. For example lets say you have a patent on orange juice that can not be circumvented. As a consumer if I want orange juice I have to buy from you. However I may chose to buy apple juice instead though (a substitute) if your prices are too high, since apple juice still meets my needs. In that way I still affect the pricing of orange juice by lowering demand (thereby creating a surplus, which affects your profits and pricing strategy).
It's also possible that an illegal black market will come into existence if a need exists and the market does not meet the need (either partially or completely, for an example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_U
The purpose of patents is to give exclusivity to reward the inventor, and encourage invention. The fact that patents and copyright may have gotten out of hand is a separate issue.
This simply reeks of protectionism for big US manufacturers...
l asticity) will determine what happens as prices rise. In fact artificially high prices may cause additional suppliers to enter the market to compete (an increase in supply) which will cause a surplus of the product which in turn will lead to lower prices as manufactures try to entice consumers to buy. Ultimately unless you impose tariffs or other trade barriers, or all manufacturers collude (and fix prices) the market will solve the problem.
But as any economist will tell you price fixing generally doesn't work well for the economy or consumers as a whole. It may temporarily benefit one industry or sector but is generally undesirable. It is better to let uncompetitive companies face the pressure of competition and either become competitive or go out of business.
If people have a finite amount of money to spend and prices are higher they simply buy less.
They may buy less of different products, for example if the price of gas goes up and people still need to buy the same amount gas, but may not go on vacation or buy a new TV (this is why the price of oil is so important).
Basic concepts of supply and demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand)
drive pricing. Price elasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand#E
Tariffs and other trade barriers are coming down with globalization, and price fixing involving collusion is highly unlikely between a competitive manufacturer, and an uncompetitive one. The competitive (ie lower cost) manufacture is better off selling at a lower price and taking the business for themselves and putting their competition out of business.
Besides the internet puts global manufacturers within reach of US customers. If prices go up in retail stores in the US because of all US manufacturers setting bottom prices, people will simply buy from outside of the US, and a huge gray import market will open up. At least for high value items, where the difference in price is significant.
If anything this is just one more nail in the coffin of US manufacturing. The legal changes may give them a temporary false sense of security, but realistically companies that fail to please the market (ie consumer) by providing good value simply don't last.
Just think what artificially high CD prices have caused people to do. They've found their music online (legal or otherwise).
Or think region codes and DVDs. Many Europeans buy their DVDs online from the US because they don't want to wait for the European release.
This is no different. Shipping costs are not that high (especially not for large volume gray market imports).
Looks a lot like a transformer with a large air gap to me...
s fer/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer/
is wireless energy transmission new?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_tran
hmm... maybe not...
30s of wikiing...: the question I have: is what is new here?
Is it that they are using low frequency long wave lengths?
Even then... power constraints will be real, and I wonder about efficiency...
and the 2 foot coil attached to my cell phone or laptop certainly
won't improve its portability...
So what?
SUSE / Novel... that was news...
This just means that no other major distro is dumb enough to cut a deal with MS.
Last time I checked (http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major)
Xandros isn't exactly a major distro.
MS is scraping the bottom to get someone to sign on...
I think someone at Xandros decided its time to cash in and exit.
maybe the Xandros CEO is thinking:
"with the MS payout I will exceed my targets and get a big bonus
next quarter... Then I can move on to the next company right after
my Mediterranean holiday..."
There are individual cases like your uncles which occur, as any system our health care system can be improved.
a n_health_care_systems_compared)
I don't know the particulars of your uncles case, and as such will simply acknowledge that he received faster service in the United States, and sympathize with his unfortunate situation.
However if we are to be reasonable in the evaluation health care of two countries we cannot rely on one individual case.
We must choose clear criteria like:
-cost of care per citizen
-accessible/affordable
-quality of care / health of the population
etc...
There are many more criteria which you should feel free to look at in making your decision.
An interesting page exists at wikipedia that does just that:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_Americ
Admittedly wikipedia is not an academic source, however it provides a nice starting point for understanding the differences. If you care to confirm the validity of the article's data you only need to follow references provided to look at peer reviewed sources).
Rather than repeating the argument presented I will simply summarize (and quote from wikipedia) based on the above criteria:
-cost of care per citizen (Canada cheaper)
"Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations' budgets. The United States spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2003, the government of Canada spent $1886 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2548."
US is more expensive despite leaving 45 million people without proper care.. (the uninsured)
-accessible/affordable (Canada better)
same for insured Americans and all Canadians
poor or unaffordable for uninsured Americans (45 million people!, 15% of population)
-quality of care / health of the population (about the same in Canada)
"While Canada's health system is cheaper, some have claimed that it compares well with the American one based on the fact that Canadians are, overall, statistically healthier than Americans. Life expectancy in 2005 was about two and a half years lower in the United States than in Canada, with Canadians living to an average of 80.1 years and Americans 77.7 (US Census Bureau). Infant and child mortality rates are also higher in the United States. This may be due in part to the different way agencies compile their statistics, although Canada's healthcare performance is regularly as good as or better than that of the US system in major comprehensive comparisons."
It seems that looking at these three points suggests that the Canadian system is cheaper per person (NOTE: healthcare is not FREE, we pay for it through taxes), equally effective (on average), and more accessible.
Treatment waiting times are a real issue and are the source of major debate in Canada. Perhaps the major difference is that in the US if you are rich you can get faster treatment at home rather than having to travel, (admittedly as your uncle illustrated getting private treatment is also open to wealthier Canadians by travelling to the US).
However if you are poor in the US and uninsured you may simply have to do without care.
Personally I remember when I was on a conference in Alaska, and as I was walking in to the lecture hall a maintenance worker fell of his ladder and broke his leg (luckily nothing else). His first concern was that he didn't have health insurance, and wouldn't get paid because he wouldn't be able to work.
I at first didn't understand his thinking, I was more concerned about his leg and his immediate health. In Canada he would receive all the medical care he needs free (already paid for by taxes), and he would receive workers compensation (approximately 80% of regular pay) until he was able to work again.
After I understood I felt really sorry for him, and wished for his sake that he had been Canadian in a Canada.
Every major discovery in science is based on previous scientific work.
t ml
Every scientist stands on the shoulders of giants...
As research money has become scarce it has come with more strings attached, usually courtesy of business interests, strings which limit sharing.
Privatization of information and control through restricted access or patents is perhaps one of the biggest threats to science and technology in this century.
As an example, A short look at the state of patent laws and its effects on medical research should terrify almost anyone. New drugs and cures are not being researched because patent rights for possible solutions cannot be acquired. Lawyers are now dictating the direction of research. The results are a staggering decline in the development of new drugs, and a focus on drugs that are profitable, rather than drugs that address a real medical crisis or illness. Artificial monopolies (created through patents) are driving prices through the roof and making medicine unavailable millions of people (including US citizens).
eg.:
http://www.aidsnews.org/2005/06/patent-gridlock.h
Ultimately you are correct that as information becomes more important people will try to control it. Unfortunately this thinking is due to and outdated and incorrect understanding that thinks of "information" as a physical product.
With real physical products and goods sharing leads to a reduction in wealth of the individual sharing. If I give you half of my sandwich I have less to eat. This is ingrained in every business person in business school (profit = revenue - costs). Any giving away of goods leads to a loss of revenue and hence a decrease in profit.
Unfortunately this model does not hold for information! In most cases sharing information leads to increased understanding by both parties sharing the information, which often leads to new ideas and an increase in wealth for everyone involved.
Sharing information does not lead to a loss of wealth. This is were our leaders (mainly business people) are simply wrong in using an old model for a new problem.
Open source development of software is perhaps the strongest example of where sharing has lead to the enrichment of each of the individual contributers. Apache, Linux and many other extremely successful software projects owe their success to open collaboration and sharing of information.
The scientific process is not different in its dependence on the relatively free flow of information. The evolutionary step by step development of technologies and scientific understanding arises primarily and most efficiently out of the sharing of ideas between capable researchers.
Lack of sharing results in duplicated work, unsolved problems (solved by some one else but not shares), and even worse cases where information is known but cannot be used because of patent liabilities.
All of these inefficiencies will simply mean that countries like the US which are encumbered by outdated patent laws (which need to be changed not struck down)
and private research money with strings attached, will simply fall behind.
Lets face it when business people and lawyers start making decisions about technology and science and ignore long term public benefits in favour of short term quarterly results we are in trouble.
The world has become more complex. Short term business thinking and simple models will not work here. Unfortunately business people are usually the last group to understand when things change (Just look at Global Warming and the reaction of business people vs. scientists).
Personally I am learning Chinese... I think as we in the west fight about who should own what information, the east will simply by pass us to take a global leadership role.
When you take this incident and compare it to a recent one in Canada (involving a gun not a hammer!), and the comparable measured response...
2 /gun-bandtrip.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2007/05/0
The CBC writes:
"Catholic schools in the Elk Island district outside Edmonton will examine security procedures after a 12-year-old student on a field trip was arrested in British Columbia for carrying a loaded handgun.
The student was one of 20 members of the Holy Redeemer School's band, which was in Whistler last weekend to perform at a festival.
The gun was surrendered without incident after other students told their supervisor about the weapon. The student was arrested, charged with possession of a prohibited weapon, then put on a plane home and released to his father. He has since been suspended from school."
______
I guess we Canadians don't think everyone is a terrorist... Perhaps because we don't have a government and a media establishment with the goal of distracting us from the much more tangible real risks. Like risk of dying due to lack medical care (because our medical insurance won't pay for it), or the fact that we're involved in a war half way around the world.
Maybe it's also because we spend more on education than on keeping people in jail..
I agree Travel Light. You will hate your laptop if you need to carry it everywhere.
;)
If you're backpacking for a year you'll probably end up throwing out or sending home
stuff as you travel trust me light is right.
If you're addicted to your own electronics pick up a 1 GB USB key and put
portable apps suite on it.
http://portableapps.com/
Definitely add spybot search and destroy and clamAV so you can give the more dodgy looking computers a quick scan...
I'd also throw on putty.exe, winscp and skype.
checkout this site for other good tips:
http://www.runpcrun.com/usb-flash-key-2006
you can create your own menu with Pstart
http://www.pegtop.net/start/
If you have personal data set up the key with truecrypt (I still have to do this)
http://www.truecrypt.org/
more on encyption:
http://www.madirish.net/?article=156
Most internet cafes run windows so don't expect anything else... most have no clue about
security and I've used my USB key pretty much everywhere, just tell them you're saving a file, or cant speak the language...
Put a long neck loop or lanyard on it, and when you plug it in put the neckloop next to the keyboard so that you're less likely to forget it.
Worst case if you lose it you can buy another one and spend 1hr downloading alls the apps from the web again.
Have fun.
http://www.desertstar.com/FAQ/getattachment.php?da ta=MTZ8U3BvcnRfUmV2MkIucGRm
With 2 beacons with angle (and depth) information it could determine its position without knowing the speed of sound in water (time * speed = distance), since the distance between the two beacons is known.
t s.htm
u ndersea-sub-sea.asp
If additional beacons with known positions where placed then with 3 beacons the sub could also triangulate its position without angle information and without sending a ping.
Systems like this already exist:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/184601.html
Using a GPS underwater exists too:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6807127.html
http://www.longbeachdive.com/und-water-gps-produc
Add a modem
Sonar communication (sonar modems):
http://www.benthos.com/acoustic-telesonar-modems-
And a directional receiver (antenna)... to determine angle...
(just needs two fast enough receivers + processing a known distance apart
(think ears). probably also not new technology .
Essentially its a slight variation on sonar triangulation
It goes back to basic trig...
This isn't that new and it sounds more like patent trolling to me...
But that's just based on a few minutes of googling and some back of the envelope trig,
not the opinion of a qualified expert... and I might be wrong...
Starsbucks brand image is about a "third place" or home where you can go and be yourself and feel special (by buying their high margin drinks).
Being a company that screws coffee farmers (or at least gets caught doing it) is not part of that brand image.
It's the same reason they call their staff baristas, to make the customer and the staff feel like they're special.
Reality is a little different. They are the most profitable company in their industry. As a fast growing shareholder company Starbucks is a classic business case (studied in business schools the world over) for inventing and using every trick to kill small coffee shop competitors and the Walmartization of coffee. In fact most of that profit is used to fuel growth (new outlets).
1) Location:
Starbucks pursues a systematic strategy of saturation growth in each city they target, putting up so many Starbucks in (have you ever wondered why there's 3 within walking distance of your office) that they actually start canabalizing (stealing customers from) each other . Why do they do this? After all it costs them money, but it ensures that a Starbucks is almost always closer than the small coffee shop you used to go to.
2) Coffee quality:
It is correct that Starbucks did raise the quality of coffee in North America (sorry but this is not a hard thing to do). Starbucks has focused its buying roasting and delivery strategy (and invented specialty vacuum packaging) to deliver a consistent quality that can originate from almost any decent coffee farmer.
Then they have built up a supply chain that cuts out many of the middle man importers and roasters (who the gourmet coffee houses buy from) to buy directly from the farmer. By doing this they have become the Goliath of coffee buyers to the point where they are one of the biggest coffee buyer's period. As a small to medium size coffee farmer you generally do whatever they ask you to or they stop buying from you. Because of their buying volume they have negatively affected market prices. They help define "what a fair price is".
I'm likely to believe the coffee farmers on this one, when they say they are getting screwed.
3) Starbucks staff treatment:
Why does Starbucks offer health care? The answer here is simple: Small coffee houses with independent owners cant afford to do so and compete with Starbucks (remember they buy their coffee from a more expensive middle man). This way Starbucks can poach the best staff and create staffing problems for the competitor.
As for treatment of its staff... almost all are part time. Why? because its cheaper. In fact Starbucks uses computer tracking through the till to determine when its staff are most productive and deliberately give them odd hours to work. So if someone is good in the morning with high productivity they will start at 6am and work til 10am when they get less productive, to be sent home and then come in at 3pm again for 2 to 3 hours. In total they all get less work per week than the number of hours that make them eligible for full time benefits (35 hrs in Canada). Look at the staff in Starbucks their all University students and under 35... (because you cant really make a living at Starbucks full time)
Don't doubt it, this is all about one thing: PROFIT.
The reason corporations try to look fair is because its part of their BRAND
image which helps them make MONEY. Corporations are amoral (don't have morals) entities driven by the bottom line. Anyone that believes differently is naive.
But hey what do I know...
Personally I think their coffee is over priced for what it is.
If someone will provide me with two 30 inch monitors from Apple I will happily test the one screen or two screen setup. :D
Good luck on your job search. (Focus on networking!)
Being unemployed for 4 months despite searching every day is not uncommon, and nothing to be ashamed of.
It takes a while to find a decent job. If you're not under financial pressure it is better to take some time to find a job that fits you, where you will be reasonably happy, rather than whatever comes along.
Think about it for a moment, we all spend more time with the people at work than we do with our families and closest friends.
168 hrs (a week)
- 7x8=56, 8 hours sleep a night
- 5x2x.75=7.5, 45 min commute twice a day 5 days a week
- 9x5 =45, 8 work + 1 hr (lunch+breaks) x 5 = time at work
= 59.5 hours left (only 14.5 hours more than time spent at work)
45/59.5 ~ 75.6% (average time spent at work / average free time)
Now be honest do you spend more than 75% of your free time away from work with your family?
If you watch an average amount of TV (20 hrs per week), unless you watch it together it is already impossible... Don't forget you have to spend time eating, showering, grocery shopping, cleaning etc...
Again good luck on your search, and remember pay isn't everything...
You make a number of good points, Thank you.
1 /30/1739226) and
I think you're correct in that the record industry will try to block
these changes in anyway they can.
Although when one starts to try to "own" original content through derived work
ie "fair use" etc... you come to the point where you start try to control
thoughts, ideas and their communication.
At this point you start interfering with freedom of speech and other fundamental
democratic rights. In this they play a very dangerous game, as we've already
seen with other uses of the DMCA in suppressing security research
(http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/1
more (http://www.eff.org/legal/victories/more.php).
Although the record industry is powerful, they cannot succeed in taking on everyone,
although as you correctly stated they will try and fight to the last man.
At best they can make a big mess and buy some time.
I see this as much more of a symptom of the perversion of the legal
system by the special interests of corporations (and their lawyers).
Unfortunately justice is still out of reach for many of us, and I
think the number of people who cannot afford to go to court is growing.
Corporations take advantage of their wealth and this financial imbalance.
Corporations in their short sightedness rather than competing through
innovation and invention seek to compete by controlling the market by
suppressing competition where possible.
Copyright and Patent laws were originally created to prevent this and
strike a balance between the rights of the user and the creator. The idea
was to create a functioning market where innovation is encouraged and
sufficiently rewarded, while retaining open competition and consumer choice.
Copyright and IP law is particularly vulnerable since its complexity and
the need to seek a balance between content users and content providers
makes easy to pervert. That combined with the general lack of knowledge
about copyright law and fair use and a systematic public campaign by the
content industry to confuse the issue, has lead to the current situation.
It is disappointing that judges, lawyers and politicians (the guardians of
our legal system) have failed to protect our legal system from growing
greed and corruption.
Despite all this the content industry middlemen (RIAA etc...) will lose.
The reasons are simple:
1) A new medium, the internet allows anyone to connect with customers.
2) A number of users are no longer interested in working with
the content industry middlemen.
3) A large number of users are willing to share their content for free.
This is creating a large pool of accessible content that the content industry
middlemen do not own or control in anyway. As this pool grows which it inevitably will
the very content "protection" laws lobbied for by the record industry will
protect the rights of the creators of this music. Since the creators have
the right to distribute their content under any licensing scheme that they
see fit (eg. creative commons) they can distribute it for free.
Consumers faced with the choice of easy free to use accessible content and the
choice of copy protected digitally managed "official" industry content
will simply vote with their feet.
These sorts of legal challenges just help create a hostile climate for traditional
industry content users and will hasten the decline of the traditional content industry
as these consumers move on.
These are the violent thrashes of a dying beast...
(which unfortunately will take time and cause much damage).
We've seen it with software... and we'll see it again...
What's vi ? ;)
(I'd put my bets on Word or Notepad)...
Agreed, good policies are important.
If the data needed to be on a laptop, why wasn't it encrypted?
There's absolutely no reason why a laptop cant be set up to
have the entire home partion set up to autoencrypt and decrypt.
Users without proper login credentials wouldn't then be able to
access the data (assuming proper encryption algorithms are used).
Again policies that clearly define what information can leave the
office and in what form need to exist in parallel with smart
use of security technologies.
Unfortunately most people (and that includes many managers and policy makers)
don't really understand technology and as a result tend to seek solutions
that they do understand, even if they are poor solutions, rather than admit
that they don't know and ask qualified people for help.
I suspect reading some of the points of view in this series of postings
p er.html
m l
y .cfm?Story_ID=2593089
0 /b3852001_mz001.htm
m art/china/trade.html
the facts will likely be lightly treated...
Here are some interesting articles and other sources of information I've come across that have helped me form my opinion of Walmart.
Do your homework before having an opinion. Google, some judgement and
chosing reputable sources goes a long way.
The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/open_snap
The Wal-Mart You Don't Know
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.ht
Wal-Mart
How big can it grow?
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStor
Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_4
Is Walmart good for America? US Trade with China: Expectations vs. Reality.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wal
For those of you that don't read, check out:
Walmart the high cost of low price.
http://www.walmartmovie.com/
Personally I believe the market only works to the benefit of the consumer in the long run when there is true competition. This is something that becomes very difficult when the competition is the size of Walmart and shops in China.
I see Walmart as part of the negative side globalization that is leading to a hollowing out of America, and in the long run is a significant part of what is feeding the trade deficit with China. What makes Walmart so profitable is that in many areas it has little or no competition (small town America) and effectively has almost a monopoly. A monopoly is a form of market failure, and in the long run is never good for the consumer (although its great for the shareholder). In the short term it has lowered prices in many areas, but then its lowered wages too.
Hey but don't take my word for it. Get your own facts, and then make a decision. That's what democracy is about, be an informed citizen, not an opinionated one.
Technology and Free Market Competion
1) Free Market forces:
As you all know the ISP business is a very competitive business. If I am a paying customer and I am paying for high speed internet access, I will get this from my provider. This suggests that my packets will get these preferential tags for my internet (http, port 80 access).
2) Technology
Now if I use a VOIP software program that happens to:
(a) encrypt traffic (err like Skype for example)
(b) happens to run its traffic over an http proxy like mechanism through port 80 (which automatically separates the VOIP traffic from browser traffic), how can the ISP distinguish my VOIP packets from my internet packets?
The answer is as far as I know they cant (I'm not a VOIP expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm guesing they cannot distinguish a long high bandwidth legitimate transaction (which I am paying for) from a VOIP conversation.
It sounds like to me that innovation has changed the business model in the telecomunications industry, and players that missed the boat are now trying to compete by blocking these innovations...
However since they're not innovators they don't understand that theses bumps in the road will be simply be innovated around.
We heard this same argument in a different flavor about people being able stopping P2P filesharing before.
But hey what do I know.
This suit has to my knowledge already been settled.
0 01795328_voting19m.html
;)
Looks like VoteHere doesn't want more bad PR.
A quote from an article at the seatle times:
"We have resolved the matter to our mutual satisfaction and have agreed that we are in pursuit of many of the same goals for election reform," Spillane's attorney, Stan Lippmann, said.
Fired engineer reaches deal with election-software company:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2
30 seconds on Google and Voila...
I appreciate your skepticism and critique... bravo. :)
:)
;). I apologize for not giving references, I took the number from Carl Sagan's book, after a rough back of the envelope calculation based on how many people go university for science and engineering came out to a much lower number than 5% of the population.
...)
;)
Unfortunately not everything can be supported in a 5 minute post...
As for the statistics you're right they can be missused and quite often are, although I haven't found any in my "ass" yet
As for science not being mandatory... I guess it depends on what you define as science... When I went to school you could drop science after grade 10, after a brief introductory course in grade 9, and grade 10 biology. Chemistry wasn't taught until grade 11, and physics until grade 12...
I went to what was considered a "good public school" (yes I know this is subjective
As far as I'm concerned if you haven't seen Newton's laws or basic chemistry you haven't learned enough science. English and math were mandatory until graduation (grade 13).
Yes, we are making progress... obviously you received a reasonable scientific education.
Again thanks for the comments.
I think... but correct me if I'm wrong... Actually the subject "population" is singular, hence the verb "is" is singular as well not plural ("are").
:)
;) ), errors are discussed if not corrected.
I'm not looking to start a flame war here. I'm sure there are other grammatical errors in my post somewhere...
Just trying to do my part to ensure (or is it insure?!?
Thanks for the feedback.
This is simply an indication that 95% of the population is scientifically illiterate.
Unfortunately science education is not mandatory like english and basic math are. Nor is it taught in a manner that supports curiousity and interest.
Given that we live in an increasingly technical dependent society it's scary to find pseudoscience and scientific ignorance so rapidly on the rise. For those struggling to separate science and pseudoscience, a good book putting science's role into a clearer perspective is Carl Sagan's book: "The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark." I have a few copies and lend it to people when they need it. (Note: there are other good books too this is just one that comes to mind).
The underlying skills of critical thought and a healthy dose of skepticism are the basis of good science. Even basic concepts like Occam's razor are not widely understood or accepted. People need to be made to understand that science is not just ugly formulas in physics class, but that it forms the basis for all things that define our modern high standard of living.
If less than 1% of congress men ever elected have any scientific background how do you expect them to put forth a meaningful policy on scientific education or even understand basic issues.
Rather than sitting here in self congratulatory bliss about other people ignorance, we should take our responsibility as the scientifically literate (to some degree anyway) seriously and do what we can to educate people around us. Take an active role in science outreach programs, or at the very least lobby your elected representatives.
Yes, it is a slow difficult up hill battle, but 300 years ago 95% of the population was illiterate, today most can read and write. This is mostly due to a number of dedicated individuals that convinced their government of the need for literacy.
Ignorance is bliss... Unfortunately for me its to late...
After living in Germany for I while I know what you mean about billing not stopping when you want it to. It's not restricted to Deutsche Telekom.
My experience is that German companies don't understand customer service in the same sense we expect it here in North America.
If you need to terminate an account, or contract or insurance or anything else doing it by phone despite them having customer phone service, generally doesn't work.
The billing departments generally aren't up to speed and it can take a few months (if ever) for things to trickle from phone services to them.
>>>> Cancel all contracts etc... in writing with a letter by mail (keep a copy).
All that being said, I've had some nightmare companies here in Canada too... in particular
ISPs. A friend of mine fought for months to cancel a particular ISP account...