The first company to ship and popularize Sony's revolutionary 3.5" hard-case floppy drives and disks, and...
The first company to realize that the floppy was dead, and that it was time to wisely move consumers away from it.
(Not to mention the first computers[1] to include USB, FireWire, etc. - and wise enough to eliminate ancient legacy ports at the same time.)
Many consumers weren't *ready* to give up floppies in 1998, but it was more out of fear than actual need. The PC industry even played into that fear with the iMac, scaring customers with it's lack of a floppy drive. And 5 years later, the PC industry followed along. Hmm, 5 years...that seems about right...
[1] Yes, yes, someone will come up with some retarded example about some other obscure thing that was "first", but let's face it: Apple was the first to mainstream technologies in so many of these realms. "First" to 802.11? No, but the first to force prices of access points down from over $1000 to under $300, and cards from $300 to under $100, and to include integrated wireless in its laptops and desktops...and then everyone else followed in earnest a couple years later. "First" to 64-bit on the desktop? No, but some random company someone has never heard of ("BOXX TECHNOLOGIES") doesn't really count, and Apple's G5 orders far eclipsed any other 64-bit *desktop* offering from any vendor the first day it was introduced. "First" to an online music store? No, but the first one to receive widespread press and the first one to not completely and utterly blow that normal people can (and actually do) use. Let's face the facts: like it or not, Apple is the innovator here, and one of very, very few in the industry.
Students already make choices based on things other than academics or athletics now. Size of the campus, feel of the city, things to do, proximity to (or distance from) home, significant others, etc. And yes, they've made it on the basis of technology as well, long ago: when the University of Michigan started wiring its dorms for ethernet in the early to mid 90s, surveys of students showed some picked Michigan over other alternatives, in part, because of the availability of ethernet in the dorms. This increased with the advent of the web, and eventually came to be something students *expected* in most University dorms. (Incidentally, private housing owners are realizing students want this and are adding it in greater frequency to their buildings).
But it seems to me that these technology items really fall into "academics"; e.g., some schools have better facilities or faculty than another for some particular discipline, and it could be argued that decisions based on that fall under the general guise of "academics", so why not this?
Similar to the way that H.264 is known by multiple names by submitters and multiple standards bodies (H.264, MPEG-4 AVC, MPEG-4 Part 10), "VC-9" and "VC-1" refer to the same codec.
I think you're splitting semantic hairs here. I realize that it's mandated in playback devices/equipment. That's implicit in saying that HD DVD and BD support all of these codecs. In order to "support them", of course their inclusion will be required in playback devices. There is NO difference between "support" and "require" in this context (at least I didn't intend there to be).
I'm no fan of many of Microsoft's practices, but HD DVD already supported VC-9, and Microsoft did submit VC-9 to SMPTE for consideration as a standard, and MPEG LA, the same licensing authority that handles all of the MPEG family codecs including MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Part 10 (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC), is handling the patent pool for VC-9.
Regardless, no matter which next-generation DVD spec wins out, VC-9 will be a part of it. More worrisome is the prospect of the content providers rallying around VC-9, abandoning H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, fundamentally strengthening Microsoft's position in that arena...
Microsoft will immediately become number two, and perhaps number one, if not almost straight away, with a shoddier product, and years earlier than they'd otherwise have been able to had it not been for Apple once again pioneering this market.
And Diebold is headquartered in Ohio. I'm not saying it doesn't look and sound bad (and will agree it probably IS bad, and represents at the very least a conflict of interest on its face), but Diebold is a corporation located in Ohio. Executives at various companies routinely make political statements to the effect of helping candidates win geographic areas. Walden O'Dell didn't literally mean he was going to rig elections to "deliver" Ohio to Bush. (Unless of course you believe that he would unabashedly make such a statement and intend just that.) Do you think that a company with 13000 employees is going to happily and knowingly produce systems with the sole purpose of rigging elections? With all the talk about Diebold, you'd think that's their entire reason for existence. As voting systems become modern, can we agree that at least some company or companies will be involved with their creation? And that the persons who work within these organizations can and will have political views?
I'm sure someone like O'Dell saying something like that is just delicious fodder for people who think Diebolds reason for being is to hand elections to radical right wing fanatics. Please. He's a Bush supporter, as almost all corporate CEOs are. He, and everyone else, are going to try to work to make sure the candidate they want is elected. What if, for the sake of argument, he was a moderate socialist, and ran Diebold? What then?
Do you believe he's specifically and literally planning on rigging elections, and subverting the entire democratic process?
If you've been following this, and RTFA, you'd know this is an extremely complicated situation, both from a technical standpoint, and a management one. There are hundreds of people at various levels of local government, contractors, Diebold, temporary agencies, printing companies, and other entities that have, as a matter of course, various levels of access to the voting infrastructure, including the GEMS software itself.
That isn't to say that we shouldn't answer these questions - DEMAND answers - and do EXACTLY what we should be doing, which is holding officials responsible for our elections accountable in every way. But must we attribute exclusively conspiratorial ulterior motives to this, straight away? This isn't about Bush or Rove or Cheney or Ashcroft. It's about the integrity of ALL of our elections, under all circumstances. Don't pretend that only one side wants to win.
Every time this sort of thing comes up, someone says that it's all the people with "brown skin" who get targetted, but then they cry fowl when the TSA seems to make an attempt to fairly apply their searches.
So which is it? The brownskins? The US senators? Elderly men? People with "funny clothes"?
As an aside, I'll agree, to a point, that this type of security largely does nothing more than provide a false sense of the very same. But if a "false sense" of security, as it were, is what it takes to make ordinary Americans travel by air, instead of cowering in their homes (as many did after 9/11), isn't it fulfilling its its goal? The goal may not be security, per se, but simply preventing the entire US air transportation industry from collapsing onto itself (issues of privacy and anonymous air travel aside, for the moment).
You're right: we can't stop "terror" or terrorist attacks, almost by definition. But we can do our best to make people feel like they're being protected, and the people whose job it is to protect the public can do their best jobs trying. Simple as it may sound. (And no, I don't mean a police state or "Papers, please". I mean honest people, at many levels, legitimately trying to do their best to protect others. There's nothing wrong with legitimately good airport and airline security, for example...not saying everything the TSA does is perfect.)
Particle physicists have chosen to base the proposed International Linear Collider on superconducting technology developed by an international collaboration centred on the DESY lab in Germany. The superconducting approach was chosen by an international panel ahead of a rival technology developed at Stanford in the US and the KEK lab in Japan. The eagerly-awaited decision was announced at the International Conference on High Energy Physics in Beijing today.
The 30-km-long International Linear Collider (ILC) will collide electrons and positrons together at energies of at least 500 billion electron volts. Particle physicists will use the ILC to make detailed studies of the Higgs boson and any other new particles, such as supersymmetric particles, that might be discovered at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It is envisaged that the ILC will turn on by around the middle of the next decade, about eight years after the start up of the LHC, which is currently being built at CERN in Geneva.
Physicists plan £3bn experiment in a 20-mile long tunnel
They call it the God particle: a mysterious sub-atomic fragment that permeates the entire universe and explains how everything is the way it is. Nobody has ever seen the God particle; some say it doesn't exist but, in the ultimate leap of faith, physicists across the world are preparing to build one of the most ambitious and expensive science experiments the world has ever seen to try to find it.
...indeed, site selection is often a thorny matter, even for scientific projects not as costly or international as ITER or the next-generation linear collider.
"Advertisers try vaulting over the official games marketers" http://www.nypost.com/business/18669.htmIn 1996, Nike was the Cinderella of the Atlanta Olympics. Not invited to the ball, it made sure the shoe fit anyway.
The sneaker maker handed out swoosh-branded "Just Do It" signs, erected billboards and even built a makeshift sports complex -- leaving the patriotic impression that it was an official Olympic sponsor.
It wasn't. Archrival Reebok shelled out millions for bona fide sponsorship status. Nike glommed onto Olympic glory in a money-saving ploy known as ambush marketing.
"For pennies on the dollar, relative to the top sponsors, ambush marketing can be cost effective," said sports marketing expert David Carter. "Many consumers end up rather confused as to who the official Olympic sponsors are."
Known as the "clean venue policy", the rules were drawn up by the Greeks and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to shield sponsors from so-called "ambush marketing" -- an attempt to advertise items during the games without paying sponsorship fees.
The restrictions on food and drink are intended to ensure that only items made by official sponsors such as McDonald's and two Greek dairy firms are consumed at Olympic venues.
An official familiar with the restrictions said: "We have to protect official sponsors who have paid millions to make the Olympics happen. There will be cases of individual spectators being allowed in wearing a T-shirt bearing the logo of a rival sports brand but anyone who tries to practise ambush marketing will be removed."
The following items and actions are restricted at Olympic Venues:
Mopeds, bicycles, skates, skateboards
Electronic equipment of Non-Rights holding Broadcasting Organisations
Flags of non-participating countries. Flags of participating countries larger than 2x1 meters, banners (larger than 1x1 meters approximately). No banner may be hung in metallic, wooden or plastic poles or frames
Horns, laser devices and other devices that cause disturbance
Flag poles, logos, open umbrellas in seating areas, items (T-shirts, hats, bags, etc.) with distinctive trademarks of companies that are competitive to those of the sponsors
Pirate "Athens 2004" products
Leaflets, pamphlets, non-approved publications, unauthorised signs and labels, printed material for publishing purposes with religious, political, provocative or obscene content
Balls, rackets, Frisbees, and similar items, a large number of coins, lighters
Musical instruments, glass bottles, flasks, iceboxes, ice-bags, thermos, water, beverages, alcoholic drinks and material, in general, of any shape or content, or any other items that ATHOC in cooperation with the Security Authorities in charge, consider to be dangerous or inappropriate
Food (except for proven medical reasons)
Animals (except service animals)
Large items, large bags, suitcases, folding seats, small stools etc. (except in certain events)
Strollers in seating areas
Smoking or gambling
Collection of money for unauthorised purposes
Use or distribution of clothing and/or any type of material with the intent of advertising, promotion, raising money or making profit through unauthorised means
Ambush marketing
Demonstrations of a political or religious nature
Unauthorised ticket sales
Unauthorised sale of food
Unauthorised entry of TV presenters and unauthorised transmission and/or videotaping through transmi
No one uses Motorola's chips for PCs anymore. All of Apple's PowerPC chips come from IBM, and IBM uses its bigger cousin (the POWER chip) in its Unix servers.
Actually, Apple gets all of the 74xx family (G4) chips - i.e., all PowerBooks, iBooks, current iMacs, etc...in other words, the majority of computers it sells - from Motorola (the semiconductor unit now being "Freescale").
Only the recent 75x (G3) and 97x (G5) family chips come from IBM, and Apple doesn't ship anymore G3-based machines.
I didn't say that Iraq was militantly Islamic in government, nor did I say that terror or Panislamic radicalism originated in Iraq. Iraq was merely chosen for reasons of political expediency (since it was the nation, pre-war, with the best hopes of US and world-support for a military action). It's a centrally located middle east nation with a tyrant dictator (regardless of whether the US supported him in the past or not, that is a true statement).
Re-read my post(s). We couldn't reasonably target Saudi Arabia, and many other Muslim states are moderate enough that some people within may start calling for democratic reforms. And a free society with a free flow of information is much less likely to foster the exact type of fundamentalist radical Islam that we're trying to prevent.
I've seen and heard this refrain about Iraq becoming more "theocratic" or militantly Islamic. These are very, very small segments in the population. Only one percent of the Iraqi populace favors a Taliban-style Islamic government. You should read some of the Oxford Research surveys done in Iraq. The people there are pretty sensible. The elements like Muqtada Al-Sadr represent the extremist fringes, and are only appearing because these tribal-type groups were crushed under Saddam. So, sorry, but our actions aren't making Iraq a militant Islamic state. The freedoms they have without Saddam will, however, allow some radical fringe elements to be exposed in the interim.
First, I've seen and heard this refrain about Iraq becoming more "theocratic" or militantly Islamic. These are very, very small segments in the population. Only one percent of the Iraqi populace favors a Taliban-style Islamic government. You should read some of the Oxford Research surveys done in Iraq. The people there are pretty sensible. The elements like Muqtada Al-Sadr represent the extremist fringes, and are only appearing because these tribal-type groups were crushed under Saddam. So, sorry, but our actions aren't making Iraq a militant Islamic state. The freedoms they have without Saddam will, however, allow some radical fringe elements to be exposed in the interim.
I'm NOT saying that we should stop "Islamic" people from being in positions of power. I'm talking about Panislamic radical fundamentalism: the idea that the entire middle eastern region should be one single Islamic state, with a code of government not unlike that of the Taliban. Do you understand that? If you're still saying there's no reason we should let that rise, then I guess we simply don't see eye to eye on this. I'm not saying we should go on some kind of off-the-wall Christian Crusade. (Also, re: separation of church and state. Please. Just because Bush has some faith-based initiative garbage doesn't mean separation of church and state has gone out the window. If anything, there are MORE court rulings and related decisions doing things like removing nativity scenes from public grounds, removing ten commandments displays from court buildings, and the like. No reason to be paranoid when, well, there's no reason to be.)
Regarding waste, yes, we are a wasteful society. But I also said there's no reason a Suburban can't get 40mpg (or more). TODAY. (FYI, in MY2007, GM is rolling out full-hybrid GMC Yukon/Yukon XL and Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban platforms with a 5.3L V8 with Displacement on Demand, which disables cylinders dynamically when not needed, and two 30kW electric motors, increasing fuel efficiency by 40%. An aluminum frame could bost savings even more.) As for full-electric vehicles, well, this currently just shifts pollution elsewhere (though it does admittedly reduce oil needs, which may be a more pressing concern).
I do want us to be smart about all this, and whether any president is smart or dumb, there's a literal army of committed and extremely educated people within government, some part of the partisan system and some not, who will do the bidding of the current administration. I do think the "blessed society" idea with regard to America is bullshit. But I don't think that anyone has the "ensure mideast oil pricing stability OR look for alternative fuel sources" idea...we're doing both. And the former is absolutely critical, even if we went full-on with alternative energy research from this second forward. Let me put it this way: I don't see it as an either/or proposition, as some on both sides do. I see it as BOTH.
1. That amount really is unaccounted for. Could some of it have been destroyed without UN or US knowledge? Sure. Was this likely the case with all of it, given that Saddam believed he was reinstituting WMD programs after 1998? Unlikely.
2. All of any particular WMD needn't have been "moved" anywhere. Saddam had a minimum of a decade to do things in secret, because he very rarely fully cooperated with inspectors. I'm not implying all of it was moved to Syria in the weeks before the war. The point is that it's not accounted for, and it's most likely NOT destroyed. Also, you're wrong about Sarin: it is a liquid, that can be evaporated into a vapor and be spread into the environment. Sarin would likely also be moved in tanker trucks, not barrels or cylinders. Sarin weighs about 1.1g/cm^3, meaning that about 23 tons of Sarin could fit on a 10000 gallon tanker, reducing your estimate by a factor of 23. Also, again, the sarin needn't necessarily to have been moved, nor necessarily by truck.
3. Iraq DID have WMD. Hell, the US GAVE them a good chunk of their WMD capability! The whole globe, including the US, Europe, many of Iraqs neighbors, and Iraq itself, believed Iraq to be in possession of WMD. What happened to all the weapons that are unaccounted for? Why do you ascribe only pure motives to Iraq, and evil ones to the US? That's a little twisted, isn't it?
The entire earth, including Europe, the UN, and Iraq itself, believed Iraq to be in possession of WMD, pre-war. Europe had its own agenda for not supporting the war.
Even the anti-war crowd in this thread cites alternative media sources showing that Blix believed that Iraq had been "90 to 95%" disarmed. Great. That still leaves hundreds of tons of WMD unaccounted for, and a consistently uncooperative Iraq to boot, not to mention a Saddam Hussein who literally thought he was increasing his investment in WMD! Face it, Iraq had WMD, but for the 100th time, the war isn't about WMD in Iraq.
Under the previous 12 years of sanctions, groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have estimated that approximately 50,000 Iraqis have died each year. When queried about realistic options on how to deal with Iraq, pre-war, the anti-war position unanimously chanted "continue sanctions".
Funny how, pre-Iraq-war, virtually the same crowd of people was vehemently opposed to sanctions in Iraq, due to its detrimental effect on the people of Iraq, while having virtually no effect on the leadership; indeed, effectively strengthening Hussein's power.
So now, what of these 600,000-some dead Iraqi people under sanctions? That approximately 50,000 a year, the number we were always bombarded with during the tired "no blood for oil" protest of the 90s?
Well, here's some numbers for you:
Since March of 2003, *including* the 10000-15000 Iraqis US and coalition forces are estimated to have killed during the invasion, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, on the order of the thousands. A statistically significant PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, all from the relatively minimal infrastructure and services improvements made by coalition forces since March 2003. That's how little Saddam cared for his own people, without regard to sanctions. No matter your position on the Iraq war, our direct action has saved, and will continue to save, THOUSANDS of lives of innocent Iraqis. Remember: the only alternative course of action was continuing sanctions. Even the radical idea of lifting sanctions wouldn't have changed Saddam's focus from only concentrating services and resources on Baghdad, leaving over 50% of the population to suffer and fend for itself, not to mention that France, Germany, and Russia would never have allowed the lifting of sanctions, short of military action (which we took). Think about that: exclusively because of US action, statistically, thousands of Iraqis have lived, who otherwise wouldn't have. Countless thousands of others will enjoy this same future, to say nothing of access to basic amenities of life previously not available to rural areas.
This of course, ignores the whole concept that sometimes it's necessary to take lives to save far more. Sometimes I wonder if the US is the same country that effectively fought WWII...
I don't have time to write a novel about this on slashdot. Yes, there are many issues, such as the American attitudes against conservation, energy companies who have an interest, at some level, in delaying or hindering adoption of alternative energy sources, etc.
But any transition to any type of alternative energy capabilities is going to take decades to complete. And, true to form, the political system in the US along with capitalism may indeed delay the transition while cheaper short term options are available. I'll stipulate to all that.
You're also forgetting about the energy density of oil vs. other alternative sources. Indeed, there is plenty of research going on in alternatives energies - but not nearly enough. The main problem with the attitude in the US, I believe, is this idea that you have to drive a car as big as a peapod or turn out all the lights in your house in order to "conserve". People have no idea how much can be conserved simply by using energy more wisely. There is no technological reason, at present, why a Chevrolet Suburban cannot exceed 40mpg with technologies like Displacement on Demand for combustion engines, and a couple of electric motors thrown in. There is no reason that we can't start using fluorescent and LED lighting in place of incandescent, with exactly the same results, but with ridiculous savings.
The US is a wasteful society. I disagree with the stance that paints that privilege as "blessed", and ignores any need for conservation, foresight, or wisdom in energy usage. Sure, corner someone, and everyone will agree that these things are "good ideas" - but it takes action. Action that I'm afraid won't stem the tide of problems that are already happening in relation to the rise of Panislamic fundamentalism in recent times.
My view is merely a pragmatic one: we need stable energy out of the mideast, period (by the way, did you know that the US's largest energy providers are places like Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, but that price stability is almost a more important need from the mideast than the oil itself?). "We" is not the US. It's the whole Western world. And with China in the mix, who knows what will happen.
You, like many others, also completely missed the fucking point. I'm not talking about "bombing" everything into oblivion, but some of this change will only happen with military action.
And yes, even though you sarcastically denounce it, we sure as fuck should stop one Islamic state from rising in the middle east, because the people who will be in power will effectively be far worse than the Taliban ever were, with access to all weapons information amassed by the whole of governments in the mideast. I'm not saying that their goal could completely happen, but they'll stop at nothing trying. And we should stop at nothing to kill it. There comes a time when "tolerance" is no longer the appropriate course of action, if protecting yourself is more important.
Iraq had a lot of WMD. You'll note that I didn't say that Iraq "kicked out" the inspectors in 1998, an untruth routinely repeated by US and other media: I correctly noted that the inspectors were pulled due to lack of effectiveness, because of Saddam accusing the inspectors of being US spies, only the latest twist in Saddam's lack of cooperation during fruitless attempts at complete disarmament.
I'm aware of all the facts here: the thing that gets me most about liberals is this belief that anyone who might support this military action or holds a conservative viewpoint only does so out of ignorance, greed, brainwashing, not knowing "The Truth", or a combination of the above.
Wrong again. I didn't say that Iraq was militantly Islamic in government, nor did I say that terror or Panislamic radicalism originated in Iraq. Iraq was merely chosen for reasons of political expediency (since it was the nation, pre-war, with the best hopes of US and world-support for a military action). It's a centrally located middle east nation with a tyrant dictator (regardless of whether the US supported him in the past or not, that is a true statement).
Re-read my post. We couldn't reasonably target Saudi Arabia, and many other Muslim states are moderate enough that some people within may start calling for democratic reforms. And a free society with a free flow of information is much less likely to foster the exact type of fundamentalist radical Islam that we're trying to prevent.
Germany KNOWS that Saddam did have WMD at one point, without a doubt. It also knows that Saddam was never fully cooperative with inspectors. The weapons inspectors could not verify that Iraq had complied, and in fact believed they hadn't, in 1998.
Are we to believe that in the interim period, Iraq secretly destroyed all of its remaining weapons, on its own, with no supervision or involvement of outside monitors, all with no proof or records, all the while Saddam Hussein himself thought he was increasing his investment in WMD?
It's mind-numbingly clear that Iraq had WMD. But the war in Iraq wasn't about WMD - it was a political reason chosen in the hopes of rallying UN support, and the support of the people of the US. The war in Iraq was about a multi-faceted effort to begin exerting influence, forcibly when necessary, in the middle east, in the hopes of stopping Panislamic radicalism in a generation or two rather than in a century or two. There are MANY aspects to this strategy: it's not just about bombing people into oblivion; it's about encouraging free government with a free flow of information, and some beginnings of open economies and markets to attempt to give the young people something to do, something to strive for, as well as full, unfettered access to news, information, and education, instead of focusing their energies on hatred of the West and the Infidel as taught by some segments of radical Islam. It's also, in case you haven't noticed, about the economic well-being of not only the US, but by extension, most of the civilized world.
So yes; in effect, this is a "war for oil". But it's not a war for oil so that greedy, fat Americans can drive Chevy Suburbans. It's a war to ensure the continued prosperity of the Western world, and thus the lives and happiness of hundreds of millions of people. What about the people of Iraq, you say? WE WANT TO HELP THEM, TOO. We don't want to indiscriminately kill innocent people, though the loss of innocent life is a tragic side effect of any military action.
People think that the US just wants to arrogantly steamroll people and kill all the brownskins for oil (while installing a Starbucks and McDonalds on every street corner in Baghdad). It's a fuck of a lot more complicated than that. It's also a fuck of a lot more complicated than simplistic "you're either with us or against us"-type rhetoric. Any thinking person, of any political stripe, would realize that.
Slashdot Mirror
The first company to ship and popularize Sony's revolutionary 3.5" hard-case floppy drives and disks, and...
The first company to realize that the floppy was dead, and that it was time to wisely move consumers away from it.
(Not to mention the first computers[1] to include USB, FireWire, etc. - and wise enough to eliminate ancient legacy ports at the same time.)
Many consumers weren't *ready* to give up floppies in 1998, but it was more out of fear than actual need. The PC industry even played into that fear with the iMac, scaring customers with it's lack of a floppy drive. And 5 years later, the PC industry followed along. Hmm, 5 years...that seems about right...
[1] Yes, yes, someone will come up with some retarded example about some other obscure thing that was "first", but let's face it: Apple was the first to mainstream technologies in so many of these realms. "First" to 802.11? No, but the first to force prices of access points down from over $1000 to under $300, and cards from $300 to under $100, and to include integrated wireless in its laptops and desktops...and then everyone else followed in earnest a couple years later. "First" to 64-bit on the desktop? No, but some random company someone has never heard of ("BOXX TECHNOLOGIES") doesn't really count, and Apple's G5 orders far eclipsed any other 64-bit *desktop* offering from any vendor the first day it was introduced. "First" to an online music store? No, but the first one to receive widespread press and the first one to not completely and utterly blow that normal people can (and actually do) use. Let's face the facts: like it or not, Apple is the innovator here, and one of very, very few in the industry.
Students already make choices based on things other than academics or athletics now. Size of the campus, feel of the city, things to do, proximity to (or distance from) home, significant others, etc. And yes, they've made it on the basis of technology as well, long ago: when the University of Michigan started wiring its dorms for ethernet in the early to mid 90s, surveys of students showed some picked Michigan over other alternatives, in part, because of the availability of ethernet in the dorms. This increased with the advent of the web, and eventually came to be something students *expected* in most University dorms. (Incidentally, private housing owners are realizing students want this and are adding it in greater frequency to their buildings).
But it seems to me that these technology items really fall into "academics"; e.g., some schools have better facilities or faculty than another for some particular discipline, and it could be argued that decisions based on that fall under the general guise of "academics", so why not this?
Similar to the way that H.264 is known by multiple names by submitters and multiple standards bodies (H.264, MPEG-4 AVC, MPEG-4 Part 10), "VC-9" and "VC-1" refer to the same codec.
Yes. Because MPEG LA is handling licensing for them all, including VC-9, considering it has been submitted to SMTPE as a standard.
I'm no fan of many of Microsoft's practices, but HD DVD already supported VC-9, and Microsoft did submit VC-9 to SMPTE for consideration as a standard, and MPEG LA, the same licensing authority that handles all of the MPEG family codecs including MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Part 10 (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC), is handling the patent pool for VC-9.
Regardless, no matter which next-generation DVD spec wins out, VC-9 will be a part of it. More worrisome is the prospect of the content providers rallying around VC-9, abandoning H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, fundamentally strengthening Microsoft's position in that arena...
HD DVD supports MPEG-2, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and Microsoft VC-9.
Blu-Ray Disc (BD) already supported MPEG-2 and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and now just added Microsoft VC-9. So what?
Microsoft will immediately become number two, and perhaps number one, if not almost straight away, with a shoddier product, and years earlier than they'd otherwise have been able to had it not been for Apple once again pioneering this market.
And Diebold is headquartered in Ohio. I'm not saying it doesn't look and sound bad (and will agree it probably IS bad, and represents at the very least a conflict of interest on its face), but Diebold is a corporation located in Ohio. Executives at various companies routinely make political statements to the effect of helping candidates win geographic areas. Walden O'Dell didn't literally mean he was going to rig elections to "deliver" Ohio to Bush. (Unless of course you believe that he would unabashedly make such a statement and intend just that.) Do you think that a company with 13000 employees is going to happily and knowingly produce systems with the sole purpose of rigging elections? With all the talk about Diebold, you'd think that's their entire reason for existence. As voting systems become modern, can we agree that at least some company or companies will be involved with their creation? And that the persons who work within these organizations can and will have political views?
I'm sure someone like O'Dell saying something like that is just delicious fodder for people who think Diebolds reason for being is to hand elections to radical right wing fanatics. Please. He's a Bush supporter, as almost all corporate CEOs are. He, and everyone else, are going to try to work to make sure the candidate they want is elected. What if, for the sake of argument, he was a moderate socialist, and ran Diebold? What then?
Do you believe he's specifically and literally planning on rigging elections, and subverting the entire democratic process?
If you've been following this, and RTFA, you'd know this is an extremely complicated situation, both from a technical standpoint, and a management one. There are hundreds of people at various levels of local government, contractors, Diebold, temporary agencies, printing companies, and other entities that have, as a matter of course, various levels of access to the voting infrastructure, including the GEMS software itself.
That isn't to say that we shouldn't answer these questions - DEMAND answers - and do EXACTLY what we should be doing, which is holding officials responsible for our elections accountable in every way. But must we attribute exclusively conspiratorial ulterior motives to this, straight away? This isn't about Bush or Rove or Cheney or Ashcroft. It's about the integrity of ALL of our elections, under all circumstances. Don't pretend that only one side wants to win.
Didn't I just read last week in the slashdot story about Kennedy's problems that the extra screening line is "where all the people with dark skin or funny clothes go"?
Every time this sort of thing comes up, someone says that it's all the people with "brown skin" who get targetted, but then they cry fowl when the TSA seems to make an attempt to fairly apply their searches.
So which is it? The brownskins? The US senators? Elderly men? People with "funny clothes"?
As an aside, I'll agree, to a point, that this type of security largely does nothing more than provide a false sense of the very same. But if a "false sense" of security, as it were, is what it takes to make ordinary Americans travel by air, instead of cowering in their homes (as many did after 9/11), isn't it fulfilling its its goal? The goal may not be security, per se, but simply preventing the entire US air transportation industry from collapsing onto itself (issues of privacy and anonymous air travel aside, for the moment).
You're right: we can't stop "terror" or terrorist attacks, almost by definition. But we can do our best to make people feel like they're being protected, and the people whose job it is to protect the public can do their best jobs trying. Simple as it may sound. (And no, I don't mean a police state or "Papers, please". I mean honest people, at many levels, legitimately trying to do their best to protect others. There's nothing wrong with legitimately good airport and airline security, for example...not saying everything the TSA does is perfect.)
Despite the incredible importance of this research - not to mention basic research in general - it was dismissed as a boondoggle and sandbox for particle physicists.
More reading: Science and Patriotism run amok in Texas
German lab wins linear collider contest
Particle physicists have chosen to base the proposed International Linear Collider on superconducting technology developed by an international collaboration centred on the DESY lab in Germany. The superconducting approach was chosen by an international panel ahead of a rival technology developed at Stanford in the US and the KEK lab in Japan. The eagerly-awaited decision was announced at the International Conference on High Energy Physics in Beijing today.
The 30-km-long International Linear Collider (ILC) will collide electrons and positrons together at energies of at least 500 billion electron volts. Particle physicists will use the ILC to make detailed studies of the Higgs boson and any other new particles, such as supersymmetric particles, that might be discovered at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It is envisaged that the ILC will turn on by around the middle of the next decade, about eight years after the start up of the LHC, which is currently being built at CERN in Geneva.
Is this the answer to God, the universe and all that?
Physicists plan £3bn experiment in a 20-mile long tunnel
They call it the God particle: a mysterious sub-atomic fragment that permeates the entire universe and explains how everything is the way it is. Nobody has ever seen the God particle; some say it doesn't exist but, in the ultimate leap of faith, physicists across the world are preparing to build one of the most ambitious and expensive science experiments the world has ever seen to try to find it.
ITER Impasse Illustrates Challenge of Site Selection
"Advertisers try vaulting over the official games marketers"
http://www.nypost.com/business/18669.htm In 1996, Nike was the Cinderella of the Atlanta Olympics. Not invited to the ball, it made sure the shoe fit anyway.
The sneaker maker handed out swoosh-branded "Just Do It" signs, erected billboards and even built a makeshift sports complex -- leaving the patriotic impression that it was an official Olympic sponsor.
It wasn't. Archrival Reebok shelled out millions for bona fide sponsorship status. Nike glommed onto Olympic glory in a money-saving ploy known as ambush marketing.
"For pennies on the dollar, relative to the top sponsors, ambush marketing can be cost effective," said sports marketing expert David Carter. "Many consumers end up rather confused as to who the official Olympic sponsors are."
For what it's worth, from http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art Num=61113:
Known as the "clean venue policy", the rules were drawn up by the Greeks and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to shield sponsors from so-called "ambush marketing" -- an attempt to advertise items during the games without paying sponsorship fees.
The restrictions on food and drink are intended to ensure that only items made by official sponsors such as McDonald's and two Greek dairy firms are consumed at Olympic venues.
An official familiar with the restrictions said: "We have to protect official sponsors who have paid millions to make the Olympics happen. There will be cases of individual spectators being allowed in wearing a T-shirt bearing the logo of a rival sports brand but anyone who tries to practise ambush marketing will be removed."
And the actual list:
http://www.athens2004.com/en/specAdviceRestricted
The following items and actions are restricted at Olympic Venues:
Mopeds, bicycles, skates, skateboards
Electronic equipment of Non-Rights holding Broadcasting Organisations
Flags of non-participating countries. Flags of participating countries larger than 2x1 meters, banners (larger than 1x1 meters approximately). No banner may be hung in metallic, wooden or plastic poles or frames
Horns, laser devices and other devices that cause disturbance
Flag poles, logos, open umbrellas in seating areas, items (T-shirts, hats, bags, etc.) with distinctive trademarks of companies that are competitive to those of the sponsors
Pirate "Athens 2004" products
Leaflets, pamphlets, non-approved publications, unauthorised signs and labels, printed material for publishing purposes with religious, political, provocative or obscene content
Balls, rackets, Frisbees, and similar items, a large number of coins, lighters
Musical instruments, glass bottles, flasks, iceboxes, ice-bags, thermos, water, beverages, alcoholic drinks and material, in general, of any shape or content, or any other items that ATHOC in cooperation with the Security Authorities in charge, consider to be dangerous or inappropriate
Food (except for proven medical reasons)
Animals (except service animals)
Large items, large bags, suitcases, folding seats, small stools etc. (except in certain events)
Strollers in seating areas
Smoking or gambling
Collection of money for unauthorised purposes
Use or distribution of clothing and/or any type of material with the intent of advertising, promotion, raising money or making profit through unauthorised means
Ambush marketing
Demonstrations of a political or religious nature
Unauthorised ticket sales
Unauthorised sale of food
Unauthorised entry of TV presenters and unauthorised transmission and/or videotaping through transmi
No one uses Motorola's chips for PCs anymore. All of Apple's PowerPC chips come from IBM, and IBM uses its bigger cousin (the POWER chip) in its Unix servers.
Actually, Apple gets all of the 74xx family (G4) chips - i.e., all PowerBooks, iBooks, current iMacs, etc...in other words, the majority of computers it sells - from Motorola (the semiconductor unit now being "Freescale").
Only the recent 75x (G3) and 97x (G5) family chips come from IBM, and Apple doesn't ship anymore G3-based machines.
To repeat what I've said elsewhere:
I didn't say that Iraq was militantly Islamic in government, nor did I say that terror or Panislamic radicalism originated in Iraq. Iraq was merely chosen for reasons of political expediency (since it was the nation, pre-war, with the best hopes of US and world-support for a military action). It's a centrally located middle east nation with a tyrant dictator (regardless of whether the US supported him in the past or not, that is a true statement).
Re-read my post(s). We couldn't reasonably target Saudi Arabia, and many other Muslim states are moderate enough that some people within may start calling for democratic reforms. And a free society with a free flow of information is much less likely to foster the exact type of fundamentalist radical Islam that we're trying to prevent.
I've seen and heard this refrain about Iraq becoming more "theocratic" or militantly Islamic. These are very, very small segments in the population. Only one percent of the Iraqi populace favors a Taliban-style Islamic government. You should read some of the Oxford Research surveys done in Iraq. The people there are pretty sensible. The elements like Muqtada Al-Sadr represent the extremist fringes, and are only appearing because these tribal-type groups were crushed under Saddam. So, sorry, but our actions aren't making Iraq a militant Islamic state. The freedoms they have without Saddam will, however, allow some radical fringe elements to be exposed in the interim.
First, I've seen and heard this refrain about Iraq becoming more "theocratic" or militantly Islamic. These are very, very small segments in the population. Only one percent of the Iraqi populace favors a Taliban-style Islamic government. You should read some of the Oxford Research surveys done in Iraq. The people there are pretty sensible. The elements like Muqtada Al-Sadr represent the extremist fringes, and are only appearing because these tribal-type groups were crushed under Saddam. So, sorry, but our actions aren't making Iraq a militant Islamic state. The freedoms they have without Saddam will, however, allow some radical fringe elements to be exposed in the interim.
I'm NOT saying that we should stop "Islamic" people from being in positions of power. I'm talking about Panislamic radical fundamentalism: the idea that the entire middle eastern region should be one single Islamic state, with a code of government not unlike that of the Taliban. Do you understand that? If you're still saying there's no reason we should let that rise, then I guess we simply don't see eye to eye on this. I'm not saying we should go on some kind of off-the-wall Christian Crusade. (Also, re: separation of church and state. Please. Just because Bush has some faith-based initiative garbage doesn't mean separation of church and state has gone out the window. If anything, there are MORE court rulings and related decisions doing things like removing nativity scenes from public grounds, removing ten commandments displays from court buildings, and the like. No reason to be paranoid when, well, there's no reason to be.)
Regarding waste, yes, we are a wasteful society. But I also said there's no reason a Suburban can't get 40mpg (or more). TODAY. (FYI, in MY2007, GM is rolling out full-hybrid GMC Yukon/Yukon XL and Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban platforms with a 5.3L V8 with Displacement on Demand, which disables cylinders dynamically when not needed, and two 30kW electric motors, increasing fuel efficiency by 40%. An aluminum frame could bost savings even more.) As for full-electric vehicles, well, this currently just shifts pollution elsewhere (though it does admittedly reduce oil needs, which may be a more pressing concern).
I do want us to be smart about all this, and whether any president is smart or dumb, there's a literal army of committed and extremely educated people within government, some part of the partisan system and some not, who will do the bidding of the current administration. I do think the "blessed society" idea with regard to America is bullshit. But I don't think that anyone has the "ensure mideast oil pricing stability OR look for alternative fuel sources" idea...we're doing both. And the former is absolutely critical, even if we went full-on with alternative energy research from this second forward. Let me put it this way: I don't see it as an either/or proposition, as some on both sides do. I see it as BOTH.
To take the example case of sarin:
1. That amount really is unaccounted for. Could some of it have been destroyed without UN or US knowledge? Sure. Was this likely the case with all of it, given that Saddam believed he was reinstituting WMD programs after 1998? Unlikely.
2. All of any particular WMD needn't have been "moved" anywhere. Saddam had a minimum of a decade to do things in secret, because he very rarely fully cooperated with inspectors. I'm not implying all of it was moved to Syria in the weeks before the war. The point is that it's not accounted for, and it's most likely NOT destroyed. Also, you're wrong about Sarin: it is a liquid, that can be evaporated into a vapor and be spread into the environment. Sarin would likely also be moved in tanker trucks, not barrels or cylinders. Sarin weighs about 1.1g/cm^3, meaning that about 23 tons of Sarin could fit on a 10000 gallon tanker, reducing your estimate by a factor of 23. Also, again, the sarin needn't necessarily to have been moved, nor necessarily by truck.
3. Iraq DID have WMD. Hell, the US GAVE them a good chunk of their WMD capability! The whole globe, including the US, Europe, many of Iraqs neighbors, and Iraq itself, believed Iraq to be in possession of WMD. What happened to all the weapons that are unaccounted for? Why do you ascribe only pure motives to Iraq, and evil ones to the US? That's a little twisted, isn't it?
Go back and read:
0 00642
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=118384&cid=10
The entire earth, including Europe, the UN, and Iraq itself, believed Iraq to be in possession of WMD, pre-war. Europe had its own agenda for not supporting the war.
Even the anti-war crowd in this thread cites alternative media sources showing that Blix believed that Iraq had been "90 to 95%" disarmed. Great. That still leaves hundreds of tons of WMD unaccounted for, and a consistently uncooperative Iraq to boot, not to mention a Saddam Hussein who literally thought he was increasing his investment in WMD! Face it, Iraq had WMD, but for the 100th time, the war isn't about WMD in Iraq.
Under the previous 12 years of sanctions, groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have estimated that approximately 50,000 Iraqis have died each year. When queried about realistic options on how to deal with Iraq, pre-war, the anti-war position unanimously chanted "continue sanctions".
Funny how, pre-Iraq-war, virtually the same crowd of people was vehemently opposed to sanctions in Iraq, due to its detrimental effect on the people of Iraq, while having virtually no effect on the leadership; indeed, effectively strengthening Hussein's power.
So now, what of these 600,000-some dead Iraqi people under sanctions? That approximately 50,000 a year, the number we were always bombarded with during the tired "no blood for oil" protest of the 90s?
Well, here's some numbers for you:
Since March of 2003, *including* the 10000-15000 Iraqis US and coalition forces are estimated to have killed during the invasion, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, on the order of the thousands. A statistically significant PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, all from the relatively minimal infrastructure and services improvements made by coalition forces since March 2003. That's how little Saddam cared for his own people, without regard to sanctions. No matter your position on the Iraq war, our direct action has saved, and will continue to save, THOUSANDS of lives of innocent Iraqis. Remember: the only alternative course of action was continuing sanctions. Even the radical idea of lifting sanctions wouldn't have changed Saddam's focus from only concentrating services and resources on Baghdad, leaving over 50% of the population to suffer and fend for itself, not to mention that France, Germany, and Russia would never have allowed the lifting of sanctions, short of military action (which we took). Think about that: exclusively because of US action, statistically, thousands of Iraqis have lived, who otherwise wouldn't have. Countless thousands of others will enjoy this same future, to say nothing of access to basic amenities of life previously not available to rural areas.
This of course, ignores the whole concept that sometimes it's necessary to take lives to save far more. Sometimes I wonder if the US is the same country that effectively fought WWII...
http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/
I don't have time to write a novel about this on slashdot. Yes, there are many issues, such as the American attitudes against conservation, energy companies who have an interest, at some level, in delaying or hindering adoption of alternative energy sources, etc. But any transition to any type of alternative energy capabilities is going to take decades to complete. And, true to form, the political system in the US along with capitalism may indeed delay the transition while cheaper short term options are available. I'll stipulate to all that. You're also forgetting about the energy density of oil vs. other alternative sources. Indeed, there is plenty of research going on in alternatives energies - but not nearly enough. The main problem with the attitude in the US, I believe, is this idea that you have to drive a car as big as a peapod or turn out all the lights in your house in order to "conserve". People have no idea how much can be conserved simply by using energy more wisely. There is no technological reason, at present, why a Chevrolet Suburban cannot exceed 40mpg with technologies like Displacement on Demand for combustion engines, and a couple of electric motors thrown in. There is no reason that we can't start using fluorescent and LED lighting in place of incandescent, with exactly the same results, but with ridiculous savings. The US is a wasteful society. I disagree with the stance that paints that privilege as "blessed", and ignores any need for conservation, foresight, or wisdom in energy usage. Sure, corner someone, and everyone will agree that these things are "good ideas" - but it takes action. Action that I'm afraid won't stem the tide of problems that are already happening in relation to the rise of Panislamic fundamentalism in recent times. My view is merely a pragmatic one: we need stable energy out of the mideast, period (by the way, did you know that the US's largest energy providers are places like Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, but that price stability is almost a more important need from the mideast than the oil itself?). "We" is not the US. It's the whole Western world. And with China in the mix, who knows what will happen. You, like many others, also completely missed the fucking point. I'm not talking about "bombing" everything into oblivion, but some of this change will only happen with military action. And yes, even though you sarcastically denounce it, we sure as fuck should stop one Islamic state from rising in the middle east, because the people who will be in power will effectively be far worse than the Taliban ever were, with access to all weapons information amassed by the whole of governments in the mideast. I'm not saying that their goal could completely happen, but they'll stop at nothing trying. And we should stop at nothing to kill it. There comes a time when "tolerance" is no longer the appropriate course of action, if protecting yourself is more important.
..."90-95%" still leaves hundreds of tons.
Iraq had a lot of WMD. You'll note that I didn't say that Iraq "kicked out" the inspectors in 1998, an untruth routinely repeated by US and other media: I correctly noted that the inspectors were pulled due to lack of effectiveness, because of Saddam accusing the inspectors of being US spies, only the latest twist in Saddam's lack of cooperation during fruitless attempts at complete disarmament.
I'm aware of all the facts here: the thing that gets me most about liberals is this belief that anyone who might support this military action or holds a conservative viewpoint only does so out of ignorance, greed, brainwashing, not knowing "The Truth", or a combination of the above.
Why don't you read http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/
But, though I'm at risk of repeating myself several times in this thread, the the effort in the middle east is not about "WMD in Iraq".
Wrong again. I didn't say that Iraq was militantly Islamic in government, nor did I say that terror or Panislamic radicalism originated in Iraq. Iraq was merely chosen for reasons of political expediency (since it was the nation, pre-war, with the best hopes of US and world-support for a military action). It's a centrally located middle east nation with a tyrant dictator (regardless of whether the US supported him in the past or not, that is a true statement).
Re-read my post. We couldn't reasonably target Saudi Arabia, and many other Muslim states are moderate enough that some people within may start calling for democratic reforms. And a free society with a free flow of information is much less likely to foster the exact type of fundamentalist radical Islam that we're trying to prevent.
Germany KNOWS that Saddam did have WMD at one point, without a doubt. It also knows that Saddam was never fully cooperative with inspectors. The weapons inspectors could not verify that Iraq had complied, and in fact believed they hadn't, in 1998.
Are we to believe that in the interim period, Iraq secretly destroyed all of its remaining weapons, on its own, with no supervision or involvement of outside monitors, all with no proof or records, all the while Saddam Hussein himself thought he was increasing his investment in WMD?
It's mind-numbingly clear that Iraq had WMD. But the war in Iraq wasn't about WMD - it was a political reason chosen in the hopes of rallying UN support, and the support of the people of the US. The war in Iraq was about a multi-faceted effort to begin exerting influence, forcibly when necessary, in the middle east, in the hopes of stopping Panislamic radicalism in a generation or two rather than in a century or two. There are MANY aspects to this strategy: it's not just about bombing people into oblivion; it's about encouraging free government with a free flow of information, and some beginnings of open economies and markets to attempt to give the young people something to do, something to strive for, as well as full, unfettered access to news, information, and education, instead of focusing their energies on hatred of the West and the Infidel as taught by some segments of radical Islam. It's also, in case you haven't noticed, about the economic well-being of not only the US, but by extension, most of the civilized world.
So yes; in effect, this is a "war for oil". But it's not a war for oil so that greedy, fat Americans can drive Chevy Suburbans. It's a war to ensure the continued prosperity of the Western world, and thus the lives and happiness of hundreds of millions of people. What about the people of Iraq, you say? WE WANT TO HELP THEM, TOO. We don't want to indiscriminately kill innocent people, though the loss of innocent life is a tragic side effect of any military action.
People think that the US just wants to arrogantly steamroll people and kill all the brownskins for oil (while installing a Starbucks and McDonalds on every street corner in Baghdad). It's a fuck of a lot more complicated than that. It's also a fuck of a lot more complicated than simplistic "you're either with us or against us"-type rhetoric. Any thinking person, of any political stripe, would realize that.