Nice try. The principle driving force behind the colonization of North America was to get natural resources. Initially, it was the search for a route to India to get spices. Later it was driven by the fur trade, lumber, fish, and sugar (oh, and the fabled cities of gold). Overcrowding and pollution were not issues.
Where is the driving force for a colony on Mars, or on the Moon? It's not economics. We can get whatever is there from here more cheaply. Protection from cataclysm? That would rank, like, #342 in the top ten reasons to do it. Science? Maybe. However, unmanned probes and robots can do the same job, at a far smaller cost. Because it's there? Because it is a test of the human spirit? Erm... Um... Okay, maybe.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see it happen, but...
As much as I love the whole space travel thing, it is a dead end. It will not solve the overcrowding, or pollution issues, and I doubt it will ever be economically feasible to get natural resources from space.
Sure, we could go to Mars. But what will it get you? Mars is a dead planet. There may be enough resources to run a colony. Fine, you have a million or so people living in a dome, breathing recycled air, drinking recycled water, and eating hydroponically grown soyburgers. That's just a drop in the population bucket. And if that's the way you're going to live, why go all the way to Mars to do it? Why not just build your dome here on Earth?
Face it, we are trapped in our own solar system. Pioneer 10 has been travelling for thirty years, and is less than 0.03% of the way to the closest star. It should arrive in a little over 9000 years from now. The only two technologies that can get us away, are hibernation, and multi-generation craft. Are we going to put a couple of hundred people onto one of these spaceships and wait around for 9-10 thousand years to see if they find a habitable planet? No, we're stuck here.
So, we've got the Moon, Mars, maybe Mercury and a couple of the other moons to play with. All of them, lifeless hunks of rock, dull and boring. Maybe if SETI found something, maybe it would be worthwhile. But as it stands, what's the point?
No, I think our future lies not in space, but in the other frontier: the oceans. Abundant resources, plenty of space, and not nearly as expensive to get to with enough equipment to do something worthwhile. I mean, it will take 30 years to get a nuclear power plant to Mars. We could put an entire nuclear powered research plant on the floor of the Atlantic within five months (convert a submarine).
...or maybe I'm watching too much "Stingray", and not enough "Star Trek".
Yes, that's true, but your right eye isn't focused on (isn't pointing at) the left side of the screen -- it's looking where your left eye is, that is, at the right half of the screen, toed in to be where your brain knows the screen is.
No, your right eye will be looking at the virtual image that is floating in front of the screen, just like your left eye is. When you project both lines of sight, they fall on opposite sides of the screen.
Actually, it depends on whether the individual's depth perception is more triangulation based, or focus based. If it is focussed based, then the eyes will point the way you say. If it is triangulation based, then they will be looking at an out of focus image floating in front of the machine.
This is where this method will fall down. Either the person will triangulate their eyes based on the focus depth of the image in the dominant eye, or they will focus based on the triangulation depth of the virtual image. With this method, it is either one or the other. The brain will constantly be trying to focus based on the triangulation, or triangulate based on the focus, and you'll wind up with either tremendous eyestrain, or a vicious headache.
Really good stereoscopic systems will have the image focus depth and the image triangulation depth at the same "distance", so that your brain doesn't have to do any extra work to perceive the image.
Well, yes. You are right. I am by no means an accountant. A month ago, this baffled the tar out of me. The paradigm shift I made, and that I think most people who are baffled by the "How do I get money into the system" question have to make, is that some of the accounts in the system are not actually mine, but are proxies of other peoples accounts. The income account is a reflection of what is happening to my employers account. The equity account is an accumulation of what happened to other people in the past. In Quicken, the sum of all accounts is your net worth. In Gnucash, because it contains these "other people" accounts, the sum is always going to be zero.
You're both right and wrong. Money and wealth are not the same thing. The movement of money *is* a zero sum game for everyone except criminals and government. Whenever one person pays another, the first person loses money, and the second person gains money.
Now, the first person may gain wealth, even though he is losing money. For example, Fred buys a lamp from me at a garage sale. He is richer by one lamp, but poorer by $5.00. I however, am one lamp poorer, but $5.00 richer. It works the same way with labour and interest. My company buys time from me. My bank buys the use of my money. Money flows one way, goods and services flow the other. Wealth is created on both sides however. We are both exchanging something we value less for something we value more. We are both getting wealthier.
Accounting systems do not record the flow of goods and services, and they do not record the accumulation of wealth. Accounting systems only record the flow and accumulaton of money. As I mentioned before, the flow of money is zero sum, which is why double entry accounting systems are used. Double entry accounting mirrors the zero sumness of the money flow.
That is not an easy concept to grasp, though. Fine, I take money out of my equity account and put it in my bank account... but how does it get into my equity account in the first place? The equity account goes down. the bank account goes up. The overall total is zero, no matter what you do.
The secret behind the whole thing, is that you are not only tracking what happens to you, but you are tracking what happens to other people. If I have an opening bank balance of $427, then somehow, somewhen, someone else somewhere, became poorer by $427. Equity is not your account, it is the rest of the world's account. The rest of the world became poorer by $427, so that you can have an opening balance.
Double entry is an accounting method where an entry in one account is always balanced by an entry in another account. When you put money towards your credit card for example, you record that money left your bank account, and that money went into your credit card account. When you go to the store, you take money out of your chequing account, and it goes to your grocery expense account. There is always a source account, and a target account for every transaction.
The thing that I think trips most people up is that money never enters or leaves the system. The sum of all of the accounts is $0.00(unless there is a problem). What took me a while to understand was how income worked. People would say, create an income account and then move the money from the income account to your bank account. Fine, but how does the money get into the income account? I finally got it the other day. Income is a bad name for the account. Call it "TheWorld". When someone pays you, when you receive money, someone else somewhere in the world gets poorer, and you get richer.
The beauty of the double entry system is that if the accounts don't add up to zero, there is a problem with the data. With single entry type programs, like Quicken, you would never know if there was a problem.
Watching classes through a camera would be about as exciting as watching the House of Commons channel. That's one of the first things I delete from my channel "hotlist".
It would be nice to just go ahead and replace the questionable code. However, nobody knows what that code is. SCO isn't going to tell anyone because their cash cow would then vanish in a puff of smoke.
The whole point behind open source is that it is open. If there is code that is questionable, it can be removed, and replaced. Redhat may go. Debian and Mandrake may bite the dust. But the source is out there, and available. Linux will not die because of this SCO fiasco.
Well, I don't know about +4. "No" is not particularly informative. Now, "I admin 500 workstations at a manufacturing plant (lots of CAD), plus do on the side consulting for an insurance company, and I've never seen a linux desktop, nor have I ever been asked about one. When I brought it up at our weekly IT meeting, I got a lot of blank stares. (Hey, at least their eyes were open [grin])" might have earned you a +4.
The problem with the houseboat on a trailer idea is that when you get your houseboat to the other side of the lake, you can't drive it out. Unless, of course, you load the trailer and Suburban onto the houseboat and take them over with you.
I recently had a client with over 400 pieces of spyware installed (well, including cookies). She could easily have had music sharing software installed without knowing about it. To what degree are you responsible if someone uses your property, without your knowledge, to commit a crime?
A copyright applies only to the specific wording of a program, does it not? If you want to protect the algorithm, does that not require a patent, or is there some other legal mechanism which should be being used?
Slashdot Mirror
I think these folks may have prior art.
Hmmm... Handheld computer: Check, wireless access: Check, Non-secure OS running pumps: Check... FREE GAS!!!
"6 heat pipes for the CPU and two more for the graphics card, as well as 10 for the hard disk should keep the system optimally cool."
What? Nothing for the power supply? It's hardly worth silencing the cpu fan when the biggest, noisiest fan is still whirring away.
Nice try. The principle driving force behind the colonization of North America was to get natural resources. Initially, it was the search for a route to India to get spices. Later it was driven by the fur trade, lumber, fish, and sugar (oh, and the fabled cities of gold). Overcrowding and pollution were not issues.
Where is the driving force for a colony on Mars, or on the Moon? It's not economics. We can get whatever is there from here more cheaply. Protection from cataclysm? That would rank, like, #342 in the top ten reasons to do it. Science? Maybe. However, unmanned probes and robots can do the same job, at a far smaller cost. Because it's there? Because it is a test of the human spirit? Erm... Um... Okay, maybe.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see it happen, but...
As much as I love the whole space travel thing, it is a dead end. It will not solve the overcrowding, or pollution issues, and I doubt it will ever be economically feasible to get natural resources from space.
Sure, we could go to Mars. But what will it get you? Mars is a dead planet. There may be enough resources to run a colony. Fine, you have a million or so people living in a dome, breathing recycled air, drinking recycled water, and eating hydroponically grown soyburgers. That's just a drop in the population bucket. And if that's the way you're going to live, why go all the way to Mars to do it? Why not just build your dome here on Earth?
Face it, we are trapped in our own solar system. Pioneer 10 has been travelling for thirty years, and is less than 0.03% of the way to the closest star. It should arrive in a little over 9000 years from now. The only two technologies that can get us away, are hibernation, and multi-generation craft. Are we going to put a couple of hundred people onto one of these spaceships and wait around for 9-10 thousand years to see if they find a habitable planet? No, we're stuck here.
So, we've got the Moon, Mars, maybe Mercury and a couple of the other moons to play with. All of them, lifeless hunks of rock, dull and boring. Maybe if SETI found something, maybe it would be worthwhile. But as it stands, what's the point?
No, I think our future lies not in space, but in the other frontier: the oceans. Abundant resources, plenty of space, and not nearly as expensive to get to with enough equipment to do something worthwhile. I mean, it will take 30 years to get a nuclear power plant to Mars. We could put an entire nuclear powered research plant on the floor of the Atlantic within five months (convert a submarine).
...or maybe I'm watching too much "Stingray", and not enough "Star Trek".
Well, it worked for Tim Horton's, Krispy Kreme, et al.
Actually, it depends on whether the individual's depth perception is more triangulation based, or focus based. If it is focussed based, then the eyes will point the way you say. If it is triangulation based, then they will be looking at an out of focus image floating in front of the machine.
This is where this method will fall down. Either the person will triangulate their eyes based on the focus depth of the image in the dominant eye, or they will focus based on the triangulation depth of the virtual image. With this method, it is either one or the other. The brain will constantly be trying to focus based on the triangulation, or triangulate based on the focus, and you'll wind up with either tremendous eyestrain, or a vicious headache.
Really good stereoscopic systems will have the image focus depth and the image triangulation depth at the same "distance", so that your brain doesn't have to do any extra work to perceive the image.
Well, yes. You are right. I am by no means an accountant. A month ago, this baffled the tar out of me. The paradigm shift I made, and that I think most people who are baffled by the "How do I get money into the system" question have to make, is that some of the accounts in the system are not actually mine, but are proxies of other peoples accounts. The income account is a reflection of what is happening to my employers account. The equity account is an accumulation of what happened to other people in the past. In Quicken, the sum of all accounts is your net worth. In Gnucash, because it contains these "other people" accounts, the sum is always going to be zero.
You're both right and wrong. Money and wealth are not the same thing. The movement of money *is* a zero sum game for everyone except criminals and government. Whenever one person pays another, the first person loses money, and the second person gains money.
Now, the first person may gain wealth, even though he is losing money. For example, Fred buys a lamp from me at a garage sale. He is richer by one lamp, but poorer by $5.00. I however, am one lamp poorer, but $5.00 richer. It works the same way with labour and interest. My company buys time from me. My bank buys the use of my money. Money flows one way, goods and services flow the other. Wealth is created on both sides however. We are both exchanging something we value less for something we value more. We are both getting wealthier.
Accounting systems do not record the flow of goods and services, and they do not record the accumulation of wealth. Accounting systems only record the flow and accumulaton of money. As I mentioned before, the flow of money is zero sum, which is why double entry accounting systems are used. Double entry accounting mirrors the zero sumness of the money flow.
That is not an easy concept to grasp, though. Fine, I take money out of my equity account and put it in my bank account... but how does it get into my equity account in the first place? The equity account goes down. the bank account goes up. The overall total is zero, no matter what you do.
The secret behind the whole thing, is that you are not only tracking what happens to you, but you are tracking what happens to other people. If I have an opening bank balance of $427, then somehow, somewhen, someone else somewhere, became poorer by $427. Equity is not your account, it is the rest of the world's account. The rest of the world became poorer by $427, so that you can have an opening balance.
Double entry is an accounting method where an entry in one account is always balanced by an entry in another account. When you put money towards your credit card for example, you record that money left your bank account, and that money went into your credit card account. When you go to the store, you take money out of your chequing account, and it goes to your grocery expense account. There is always a source account, and a target account for every transaction.
The thing that I think trips most people up is that money never enters or leaves the system. The sum of all of the accounts is $0.00(unless there is a problem). What took me a while to understand was how income worked. People would say, create an income account and then move the money from the income account to your bank account. Fine, but how does the money get into the income account? I finally got it the other day. Income is a bad name for the account. Call it "TheWorld". When someone pays you, when you receive money, someone else somewhere in the world gets poorer, and you get richer.
The beauty of the double entry system is that if the accounts don't add up to zero, there is a problem with the data. With single entry type programs, like Quicken, you would never know if there was a problem.
Here's one way to profit from free software:
1 - Download software.
2 - Burn sofware to cd/dvd.
3 - Sell cd/dvd.
or
1 - Write really good dead tree manual.
2 - Sell manual.
Watching classes through a camera would be about as exciting as watching the House of Commons channel. That's one of the first things I delete from my channel "hotlist".
It would be nice to just go ahead and replace the questionable code. However, nobody knows what that code is. SCO isn't going to tell anyone because their cash cow would then vanish in a puff of smoke.
The whole point behind open source is that it is open. If there is code that is questionable, it can be removed, and replaced. Redhat may go. Debian and Mandrake may bite the dust. But the source is out there, and available. Linux will not die because of this SCO fiasco.
The first thing I thought when I read "75MHz ARM9, USB Port, IrDA compatibility, 128x80 display, and a slot for SD cards." was: Does it play MP3s?
Burger Combo $5.74
Cash tendered $6.00
Change $0.26
Most people don't read this far down, I guess
Well, I don't know about +4. "No" is not particularly informative. Now, "I admin 500 workstations at a manufacturing plant (lots of CAD), plus do on the side consulting for an insurance company, and I've never seen a linux desktop, nor have I ever been asked about one. When I brought it up at our weekly IT meeting, I got a lot of blank stares. (Hey, at least their eyes were open [grin])" might have earned you a +4.
I found the contrast between your post and your sig to be highly amusing!
Well,
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
is SCO's head office.
1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C.
is RIAA's head office.
I have no idea what is at 330 Connecticut ave.
The problem with the houseboat on a trailer idea is that when you get your houseboat to the other side of the lake, you can't drive it out. Unless, of course, you load the trailer and Suburban onto the houseboat and take them over with you.
Umm... Forty days was how long it rained. The Earth was flooded for a lot longer. Noah and family were in the ark for a little over a year.
I recently had a client with over 400 pieces of spyware installed (well, including cookies). She could easily have had music sharing software installed without knowing about it. To what degree are you responsible if someone uses your property, without your knowledge, to commit a crime?
A copyright applies only to the specific wording of a program, does it not? If you want to protect the algorithm, does that not require a patent, or is there some other legal mechanism which should be being used?