Of course there will be idiots that don't know the difference, but there will also be plenty of people who know exactly what they are getting. Characterizing WalMart shoppers as universally stupid is, well, universally stupid. For tech items like cameras and mp3 players WalMart often sets the floor price by which other retailers can be judged.
The linux box they were selling was a great deal: a complete, functional, preconfigured PC that will do basically everything BUT gaming. Plenty of people understand that and the ones that want more will buy more or build their own.
What's really stupid is the tendency to judge products by an unattainable ideal. You can't buy a PC for $199 that is a screaming fast, green gaming machine that runs linux, windows or anything else. It is what it is - buy it if you want it, if not buy something else.
I've been using CF's for a while and am not convinced they even make a dent in energy usage - most goes to heating, cooling, cooking and cleaning. My gut feeling is that they take more energy to produce and I've had a few blow out on me even though they advertise a much longer lifespan. Then there is the mercury. And occasionally a low, annoying 60hz hum.
It looks like we have to wait for LED tech to mature a bit, but the quality of the light itself from CFs and LEDs leaves something to be desired. Incandescents have a nice, warm orangey glow. The cold blue from the newer bulbs is just terrible.
Thank you. Couldn't have said it better. I think one of the biggest problems the world faces is illustrated in the fact that so many people couldn't figure that out.
A mid atlantic state? Ok clear the area from new york to washington! Pronto!
A couple of people have made comments similar to yours, but the point is that these technologies are not universally applicable. In some cases, like along the new england coast, wind power could be easily had from offshore windmill farms, except that they interfere with where Ted Kennedy and friends sail. They also didn't like that it would mess up their seascape.
Hence politics makes them unavailable where they would be applicable.
One of the overlooked problems is energy storage. Even if solar panels become dirt cheap, how do you store energy for use during the night? Big, expensive batteries? A high efficiency flywheel/dynamo? I would love to send the utility companies a big, fat f-you by covering my roof in solar panels if I could do it economically.
I think you might be on crack. So is the guy at toshiba that thinks nuke power can be distributed like this, for the following reason; If some idiot does get his hands on one of these, all you have to do to make a really big, toxic mess is to sit the core material on top of a reasonably large bomb and blow it up to scatter it into the atmosphere. Dirty bombs are far more likely to be used for radical political purposes than a homemade fission bomb. If fission bombs were as easy to make as you seem to think they are, every nation in the world would have them.
You seem to be confusing nuclear weapons with nuclear power plants, which seems to be a common problem in the "no nukes" crowd. You also seem to be fairly self-centered about the fossil fuel "poison", which will have effects to the global environment far beyond your death. Don't you plan to have children? What about mine?
I think it sounds better than it is. Giant, sun blocking satellites beaming power back to earth in the form of microwaves. What could possibly go wrong?
Sure, but there are plenty of areas where none of the above apply. I live in an area where that is not near any water, has only intermittent sun and wind so another power source is necessary. Geothermal looks great on paper but AFAIK there are still tech barriers involved. Nuke power is certainly better to coal or oil/gas. Coal spews more heavy metals and radioactive material into the atmosphere than nukes ever did. With fossil fuels the mess gets spread all over the planet, with nukes it all stays in one place. If you took all the toxins, etc., from coal and condensed them on one place, the greens would have a fit no matter where you tried to bury it.
Besides, did you turn YOUR air conditioner off last summer?
Anyway, this will never fly in the US - I can guarantee that the big utilities will lobby congress and FUD it to death.
What irritates me is people's offhanded dismissal of a nice piece of art that obviously took a great deal of effort to create.
Dismissing this as having "jumped the shark" sounds like it came from a spoiled, whining child with a picosecond attention span, incapable of delaying gratification for even a moment who is constantly demanding more, more, more. Is that the prerequisite for being an arbiter of style? Or is it simply the the pose of someone wishing to sound like one?
If there's something better out there then SHOW me, because it's easier to destroy than create.
Linux as it stands right now might be perfect for businesses and institutions but it isn't necessarily perfect for the family pc role if it means gaming. The joke about "mommy why doesnt my new computer run my new game" has already been made, but it does illustrate the fact that many people buying pc's for home use are intending the box to be a "family" computer, which includes junior's copy of bioshock. I think a lot of these folks don't really know what they are getting.
The low end pc market is a sweet beginning. At the very least it forces MS to pay attention. At best Linux will finally move into the mainstream.
This discussion is getting a bit off track. Although I agree with your take on copyright, the proposed watermarking scheme would make it simpler for copyright owners to deal with illegal distribution, which on the surface seems ok - the content isn't free to produce (especially video). This *shouldn't* have anything to do with fair use. Unfortunately, given recent history it's a certainty that it would be used to target individual fair use. It's disgusting how the RIAA and MPAA want to stretch copyright to it's most extreme. Hopefully viable business models will emerge that make the existing system unneccesary, since it's only a matter of time before watermark stripping software becomes available and the whole cycle starts over.
Yup, It's stupid. Why didn't they ask "Are you now or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organization?" Bring back HUAC!
I understand the need to keep a database of the names of known or suspected terrorists and checking people against that list when people enter or leave the country. I can even understand keeping lists of names so you can at least backtrack in event of emergency.
Creating a detailed database of EVERYONE that enters or leaves for 40 years is pure fascism.
You're missing the point. I'm talking about persuading the faithful. Trying to answer the "why" question with science is a straight loser talking to those people. I'm pointing out that it is also unnecessary to even broach the topic. Furthermore, you are implicitly positing that the universe exists and functions for no reason. Can you prove it? Don't go there.
Picky picky! The point is, we can NEVER anticipate and eliminate all possible hazards-we can only attempt to reduce the hazards. There are no trees in space and if we fall it's a looooong freaking way down.
The best thing is not to try to win THEIR argument. The simplest way to do it is this: In a faith-based creationist/ID scenario, God spake his holy word (or waved his magic wand or whatever) and there was light - everything appeared more or less as it we now see it. In a science based scenario, we are looking for an explanation that does not include supernatural intervention - How could it have happened if God DIDN'T wave a magic wand i.e. without resorting to a supernatural cause?
There really isn't any reason science must preclude God or religion. One may simply state that science is a process of understanding God's creation through reason. You also have to admit that science can describe the "How" but not the "Why". You can describe how the universe was created through the Big Bang, but you can never say WHY it was created because that is an article of faith.
CONVINCING religious people of all this is another story...
I'd take it a step further. You WANT the tech looking at everything. Besides, how the hell are they supposed to know ahead of time what to look at? Suppose you tell them ahead of time not to look in your/pron directory. How should they know the problem isn't in there? Computers are black boxes to most people anyway.
This really sounds like typical corporate CYA. Best Buy can't be seen as tolerating illegal activities so they fire anyone who is even remotely tainted as a preemtive defense against lawsuits. Get another job and chalk it up to experience.
This whole article is bizarre. How could you possibly think that this is easy? First, you ride a giant goddamn bomb into orbit. If it doesn't explode and you manage not to fling yourself into deep space, once in orbit you have to do everything in zero gee and a vacuum. There is no atmospheric shielding from solar radiation. Once you are finished attempting to survive, the ride home consists of falling through the atmosphere at speeds great enough to cause instant incineration due to atmospheric friction. In the past people have died from every one of these hazards (except perhaps the radiation - anyone have data on cancer rates among astronauts?). These are the *known* and *predictable* hazards.
If people ever make it to Mars and back it will be a freaking miracle.
Meh. You're right; who really gives a crap what greenpeace says? Anyone who lies to achieve their goals is immediately discredited.
I know a dude who presents himself as a sort of neo-hippy, anti corporate, anti globalization protester type. In reality he's a coddled rich white kid who uses his "politics" to score with hippy chicks. Mom and dad cover his many expenses and he drives a fairly expensive car. Carries a bag with a greenpeace sticker. He should choke and die.
The thing I love about apple fanboys is the tendency to focus on looks. I care about price and openness. Oh, wait. Rushing to dump scads of money into expensive proprietary hardware is COOL.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there will be idiots that don't know the difference, but there will also be plenty of people who know exactly what they are getting. Characterizing WalMart shoppers as universally stupid is, well, universally stupid. For tech items like cameras and mp3 players WalMart often sets the floor price by which other retailers can be judged.
The linux box they were selling was a great deal: a complete, functional, preconfigured PC that will do basically everything BUT gaming. Plenty of people understand that and the ones that want more will buy more or build their own.
What's really stupid is the tendency to judge products by an unattainable ideal. You can't buy a PC for $199 that is a screaming fast, green gaming machine that runs linux, windows or anything else. It is what it is - buy it if you want it, if not buy something else.
Hooray! Someone used common sense!
I've been using CF's for a while and am not convinced they even make a dent in energy usage - most goes to heating, cooling, cooking and cleaning. My gut feeling is that they take more energy to produce and I've had a few blow out on me even though they advertise a much longer lifespan. Then there is the mercury. And occasionally a low, annoying 60hz hum.
It looks like we have to wait for LED tech to mature a bit, but the quality of the light itself from CFs and LEDs leaves something to be desired. Incandescents have a nice, warm orangey glow. The cold blue from the newer bulbs is just terrible.
Thank you. Couldn't have said it better. I think one of the biggest problems the world faces is illustrated in the fact that so many people couldn't figure that out.
A mid atlantic state? Ok clear the area from new york to washington! Pronto!
A couple of people have made comments similar to yours, but the point is that these technologies are not universally applicable.
In some cases, like along the new england coast, wind power could be easily had from offshore windmill farms, except that they interfere with where Ted Kennedy and friends sail. They also didn't like that it would mess up their seascape.
Hence politics makes them unavailable where they would be applicable.
One of the overlooked problems is energy storage. Even if solar panels become dirt cheap, how do you store energy for use during the night? Big, expensive batteries? A high efficiency flywheel/dynamo? I would love to send the utility companies a big, fat f-you by covering my roof in solar panels if I could do it economically.
I think you might be on crack. So is the guy at toshiba that thinks nuke power can be distributed like this, for the following reason; If some idiot does get his hands on one of these, all you have to do to make a really big, toxic mess is to sit the core material on top of a reasonably large bomb and blow it up to scatter it into the atmosphere. Dirty bombs are far more likely to be used for radical political purposes than a homemade fission bomb. If fission bombs were as easy to make as you seem to think they are, every nation in the world would have them.
You seem to be confusing nuclear weapons with nuclear power plants, which seems to be a common problem in the "no nukes" crowd. You also seem to be fairly self-centered about the fossil fuel "poison", which will have effects to the global environment far beyond your death. Don't you plan to have children? What about mine?
I think it sounds better than it is. Giant, sun blocking satellites beaming power back to earth in the form of microwaves. What could possibly go wrong?
Who didn't? But did you have to TUNNEL through the snow in the summer like I did?
Sure, but there are plenty of areas where none of the above apply. I live in an area where that is not near any water, has only intermittent sun and wind so another power source is necessary. Geothermal looks great on paper but AFAIK there are still tech barriers involved. Nuke power is certainly better to coal or oil/gas. Coal spews more heavy metals and radioactive material into the atmosphere than nukes ever did. With fossil fuels the mess gets spread all over the planet, with nukes it all stays in one place.
If you took all the toxins, etc., from coal and condensed them on one place, the greens would have a fit no matter where you tried to bury it.
Besides, did you turn YOUR air conditioner off last summer?
Anyway, this will never fly in the US - I can guarantee that the big utilities will lobby congress and FUD it to death.
Meh. I was cranky and inarticulate.
What irritates me is people's offhanded dismissal of a nice piece of art that obviously took a great deal of effort to create.
Dismissing this as having "jumped the shark" sounds like it came from a spoiled, whining child with a picosecond attention span, incapable of delaying gratification for even a moment who is constantly demanding more, more, more. Is that the prerequisite for being an arbiter of style? Or is it simply the the pose of someone wishing to sound like one?
If there's something better out there then SHOW me, because it's easier to destroy than create.
Who gives a flying fuck what YOU think?
Linux as it stands right now might be perfect for businesses and institutions but it isn't necessarily perfect for the family pc role if it means gaming. The joke about "mommy why doesnt my new computer run my new game" has already been made, but it does illustrate the fact that many people buying pc's for home use are intending the box to be a "family" computer, which includes junior's copy of bioshock. I think a lot of these folks don't really know what they are getting.
The low end pc market is a sweet beginning. At the very least it forces MS to pay attention. At best Linux will finally move into the mainstream.
This discussion is getting a bit off track. Although I agree with your take on copyright, the proposed watermarking scheme would make it simpler for copyright owners to deal with illegal distribution, which on the surface seems ok - the content isn't free to produce (especially video). This *shouldn't* have anything to do with fair use. Unfortunately, given recent history it's a certainty that it would be used to target individual fair use. It's disgusting how the RIAA and MPAA want to stretch copyright to it's most extreme. Hopefully viable business models will emerge that make the existing system unneccesary, since it's only a matter of time before watermark stripping software becomes available and the whole cycle starts over.
Yup, It's stupid. Why didn't they ask "Are you now or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organization?" Bring back HUAC!
I understand the need to keep a database of the names of known or suspected terrorists and checking people against that list when people enter or leave the country. I can even understand keeping lists of names so you can at least backtrack in event of emergency.
Creating a detailed database of EVERYONE that enters or leaves for 40 years is pure fascism.
Exactly. So cede the ground that is irrelevant. Let them believe in their version of "why", just try to persuade them to leave the "how" alone.
You HAVE to argue with them if they are running your school board. These folks don't reason - they *know* they are right.
You're missing the point. I'm talking about persuading the faithful. Trying to answer the "why" question with science is a straight loser talking to those people. I'm pointing out that it is also unnecessary to even broach the topic. Furthermore, you are implicitly positing that the universe exists and functions for no reason. Can you prove it? Don't go there.
Picky picky! The point is, we can NEVER anticipate and eliminate all possible hazards-we can only attempt to reduce the hazards. There are no trees in space and if we fall it's a looooong freaking way down.
The best thing is not to try to win THEIR argument. The simplest way to do it is this: In a faith-based creationist/ID scenario, God spake his holy word (or waved his magic wand or whatever) and there was light - everything appeared more or less as it we now see it. In a science based scenario, we are looking for an explanation that does not include supernatural intervention - How could it have happened if God DIDN'T wave a magic wand i.e. without resorting to a supernatural cause?
There really isn't any reason science must preclude God or religion. One may simply state that science is a process of understanding God's creation through reason. You also have to admit that science can describe the "How" but not the "Why". You can describe how the universe was created through the Big Bang, but you can never say WHY it was created because that is an article of faith.
CONVINCING religious people of all this is another story...
I'd take it a step further. You WANT the tech looking at everything. Besides, how the hell are they supposed to know ahead of time what to look at? Suppose you tell them ahead of time not to look in your /pron directory. How should they know the problem isn't in there? Computers are black boxes to most people anyway.
This really sounds like typical corporate CYA. Best Buy can't be seen as tolerating illegal activities so they fire anyone who is even remotely tainted as a preemtive defense against lawsuits. Get another job and chalk it up to experience.
This whole article is bizarre. How could you possibly think that this is easy? First, you ride a giant goddamn bomb into orbit. If it doesn't explode and you manage not to fling yourself into deep space, once in orbit you have to do everything in zero gee and a vacuum. There is no atmospheric shielding from solar radiation. Once you are finished attempting to survive, the ride home consists of falling through the atmosphere at speeds great enough to cause instant incineration due to atmospheric friction. In the past people have died from every one of these hazards (except perhaps the radiation - anyone have data on cancer rates among astronauts?). These are the *known* and *predictable* hazards.
If people ever make it to Mars and back it will be a freaking miracle.
Meh. You're right; who really gives a crap what greenpeace says? Anyone who lies to achieve their goals is immediately discredited.
I know a dude who presents himself as a sort of neo-hippy, anti corporate, anti globalization protester type. In reality he's a coddled rich white kid who uses his "politics" to score with hippy chicks. Mom and dad cover his many expenses and he drives a fairly expensive car. Carries a bag with a greenpeace sticker. He should choke and die.
Prostitutes preaching chastity and morality?
The thing I love about apple fanboys is the tendency to focus on looks. I care about price and openness. Oh, wait. Rushing to dump scads of money into expensive proprietary hardware is COOL.