I have been experiencing this as well. Perhaps a more useful "Ask Slashdot" would be how do you opt out of spam from a real company that seems to have hired a spam house? I don't trust their opt out links because I never opted in. Are there legal methods that are cheap and easy?
This is being addressed by new charging methods and better battery tech. As Tesla has clearly stated they are going top down: making expensive niche market cars to develop technology for mass market models.
As best I can tell from the links you provided Aptera has yet to produce anything. All their "pictures" are photo shopped and you can't buy ANYTHING. Tesla is selling an electric car NOW, you may not like it and it may cost to much and be too sporty for you but they are doing something. Finally as others have already noted an electric sports car is better than the traditional simply due to the efficiency in energy generation and usage.
The question is what is best for society at large. Is it better to have all car companies serving the US market be owned outside the US? Is it in society's best interest to terminate the development of electric cars at this time (the market clearly cannot support it)? These are the questions that our government should and (sometimes) does address. Relying on capitalism to do what is right for a society is just plan short sighted. It does the one and only thing it claims to make money.
This is very confusing to me. If websites don't want aggregators to compile all of their content for them and place it in a convenient (for the viewer) format and location then they should just make their robots.txt act accordingly.
Unfortunately this appears to be a money grab and if there was and doubt in my mind about that it was removed when they stated '[we] will seek legal and legislative remedies against those who don't [license].' Making new laws to maintain your revenue stream is a clear sign to me that you do not have a viable business model and are attempting to make things criminal without a valid reason.
Why should the law? If the movie had had some more serious content would that have mattered? Seems to me our laws should reflect the understanding that Journalism holds a special place in our society and give journalists the freedom to report on our society as they see fit. If they endanger others or deprive others of reasonable profit then they should be dealt with accordingly. But in this example he did not deprive FOX of any revenue aside from those who found his review made them not want to see the movie (which is one point of a review).
So why can't I take pictures of banks and other businesses that request I don't? Because there is information contained in such images that make it too tempting for illegal activity. Why can't people make similar requests of their property?
IAAP (I am an astro-physicist) and while I would love to agree with you, I cannot. The problem is not that we do not know how to get a quick measurement the problem is that is would take huge sums of money as well as very significant technological improvements.
Science is being limited much more by funding and physical constraints. Current ground based telescopes are operating very near the quantum limit and space based observatories are expensive to the point of making them infeasible.
All in all I think that pointing a few telescopes at a given object for long periods of time for a total cost far exceeding that of building a better solution is the path that is being (and will continue to be) pushed on the scientific community. The prices tags for what we want to know are so large and budgets tend to be sabotaged by political agendas as to make it appear that we are incapable of doing science for a reasonable price.
As a male in trying to start a career in the hard sciences I have to say that there is little or no leeway given to those trying to have kids, regardless of their gender. I find this incredibly frustrating because I do want to have kids before I am 40 (i.e. have a tenured position) because it is healthier and safer for both my wife and child.
This was something that was NOT the case when my Profs. were in my situation because women were assumed to be homemakers. This tells you two things: 1) that by and large professors in some of the hard sciences (math intensive in particular) are generally older (>50) while they were hired when they were in the 20-30s. 2) That the full magnitude of what we were giving up to go into the hard science of our choice was not clear until we were far along in our education (think 3-4 year of grad school).
While I agree that people should be able to choose to not have a career to raise a family the fact of the matter is that the hard sciences are losing out because they are so inflexible. They are unable to attract younger brighter Profs. because people either leave the field for industry to make more money and have the ability to have kids or just get out of the workforce entirely to raise a family. In the long run this will hurt us all and treating it a simply as you have is not going to help solve a true problem: the aging of the hard sciences in academia.
Now with all of that said: the policy of departments should be gender neutral so that I can take of time to raise my kids as much as my wife can. There is no reason to make it woman specific.
Just added up all the columns and found the following:
Chrome: 88.32 s
Firefox: 95.62 s
IE: 88.30 s
So if you visit those sites equally then you save 0.02% of your time by using IE over Chrome. But then you also have to be using a windows machine so you are wasting 100% more time dealing with a crashing OS.
How is this "good" they test 25 sites (who only views 25 sites?) and IE is faster 12/25. This doesn't seem very compelling at all. They don't even have a simple majority on their side.
So you have to shop around for the doctor who will let you review them while you are bleeding out from a wound? This seems insane. I agree with your professors general thesis: that a business can put whatever limitations on its customers as long as such limitations are not on the face illegal nor so pervasive yet provide little to no benefit to the consumer that it is unfair to the consumer. However, in medicine this is not reasonable. It is not in societies best interests to make healthcare unaccessible unless you are willing to sign away rights even if you can pay for the service. If we are talking about general practitioner than maybe but it can never put the patient at increased risk to not sign.
The original iPhone was not sold outside of UK, France, Germany , Ireland and Austria according to Wikipedia. Your statement: "the original iPhone was a flop everywhere but the US (yes it was even a flop in Europe)" makes it clear you do not have as firm a grasp on the iPhone rollout as the tone of you post implies. Do you have numbers that indicate the orginal iPhone was actually a "flop" in Europe (the ONLY placed outside the US it was sold)?
So if the government can find someone to lie and say they saw something then you have to open up your private files? This makes no sense. One should NEVER be compelled to help in their own incrimination, this was clearly what was intended by the 5th amendment. Arguing over semantics is what people do when they think they can cheat you.
I don't understand. You are saying that once I let the officers into my house I need to open the safe for them? How does that follow? Everyone understan
What a wonderful argument for being willfully ignorant. We should certainly not care what the party not in power does because it has no bearing on anything. Why was this modded insightful?
Please go to a more modern library which often have digital copies available. For that matter go to many publishers sites and see how much you can download. Hell Tor sends me copyrighted works in PDF every week. Regardless you did not understand the parent's post: the library gave you a book you could copy that content thus they "assisted" you in copyright infringement.
While the statement that it might affect the price of netbooks comes from no where, the entire article is not FUD. Claiming that "You will NEVER see this edition in the west" means it doesn't matter is just stupid. This is news for nerds not news for rich nerds who couldn't care less about people outside the west. I have friends who work for NPOs in third world nations who might need to know this information. Just because it doesn't affect you does not mean it is FUD. Criticizing MS over this is well founded IMO since they are basically trying to screw over the third world for no reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been experiencing this as well. Perhaps a more useful "Ask Slashdot" would be how do you opt out of spam from a real company that seems to have hired a spam house? I don't trust their opt out links because I never opted in. Are there legal methods that are cheap and easy?
This is a horrible idea. What happens when the beamer is hit by a micro meteor nocking out the com and pointing the sat at SF?
This is being addressed by new charging methods and better battery tech. As Tesla has clearly stated they are going top down: making expensive niche market cars to develop technology for mass market models.
As best I can tell from the links you provided Aptera has yet to produce anything. All their "pictures" are photo shopped and you can't buy ANYTHING. Tesla is selling an electric car NOW, you may not like it and it may cost to much and be too sporty for you but they are doing something. Finally as others have already noted an electric sports car is better than the traditional simply due to the efficiency in energy generation and usage.
The question is what is best for society at large. Is it better to have all car companies serving the US market be owned outside the US? Is it in society's best interest to terminate the development of electric cars at this time (the market clearly cannot support it)? These are the questions that our government should and (sometimes) does address. Relying on capitalism to do what is right for a society is just plan short sighted. It does the one and only thing it claims to make money.
Seriously why would anyone choose to quit? I periodically quit just to feel the pain of it but that is just self flagellation.
This is very confusing to me. If websites don't want aggregators to compile all of their content for them and place it in a convenient (for the viewer) format and location then they should just make their robots.txt act accordingly.
Unfortunately this appears to be a money grab and if there was and doubt in my mind about that it was removed when they stated '[we] will seek legal and legislative remedies against those who don't [license].' Making new laws to maintain your revenue stream is a clear sign to me that you do not have a viable business model and are attempting to make things criminal without a valid reason.
Why should the law? If the movie had had some more serious content would that have mattered? Seems to me our laws should reflect the understanding that Journalism holds a special place in our society and give journalists the freedom to report on our society as they see fit. If they endanger others or deprive others of reasonable profit then they should be dealt with accordingly. But in this example he did not deprive FOX of any revenue aside from those who found his review made them not want to see the movie (which is one point of a review).
Perhaps the issue is that AT&T sells us internet access (at least that is how it appears on my bill).
So why can't I take pictures of banks and other businesses that request I don't? Because there is information contained in such images that make it too tempting for illegal activity. Why can't people make similar requests of their property?
IAAP (I am an astro-physicist) and while I would love to agree with you, I cannot. The problem is not that we do not know how to get a quick measurement the problem is that is would take huge sums of money as well as very significant technological improvements.
Science is being limited much more by funding and physical constraints. Current ground based telescopes are operating very near the quantum limit and space based observatories are expensive to the point of making them infeasible.
All in all I think that pointing a few telescopes at a given object for long periods of time for a total cost far exceeding that of building a better solution is the path that is being (and will continue to be) pushed on the scientific community. The prices tags for what we want to know are so large and budgets tend to be sabotaged by political agendas as to make it appear that we are incapable of doing science for a reasonable price.
As a male in trying to start a career in the hard sciences I have to say that there is little or no leeway given to those trying to have kids, regardless of their gender. I find this incredibly frustrating because I do want to have kids before I am 40 (i.e. have a tenured position) because it is healthier and safer for both my wife and child. This was something that was NOT the case when my Profs. were in my situation because women were assumed to be homemakers. This tells you two things: 1) that by and large professors in some of the hard sciences (math intensive in particular) are generally older (>50) while they were hired when they were in the 20-30s. 2) That the full magnitude of what we were giving up to go into the hard science of our choice was not clear until we were far along in our education (think 3-4 year of grad school). While I agree that people should be able to choose to not have a career to raise a family the fact of the matter is that the hard sciences are losing out because they are so inflexible. They are unable to attract younger brighter Profs. because people either leave the field for industry to make more money and have the ability to have kids or just get out of the workforce entirely to raise a family. In the long run this will hurt us all and treating it a simply as you have is not going to help solve a true problem: the aging of the hard sciences in academia. Now with all of that said: the policy of departments should be gender neutral so that I can take of time to raise my kids as much as my wife can. There is no reason to make it woman specific.
Let me rephrase: Who only views THOSE 25 sites?
Just added up all the columns and found the following: Chrome: 88.32 s Firefox: 95.62 s IE: 88.30 s So if you visit those sites equally then you save 0.02% of your time by using IE over Chrome. But then you also have to be using a windows machine so you are wasting 100% more time dealing with a crashing OS.
How is this "good" they test 25 sites (who only views 25 sites?) and IE is faster 12/25. This doesn't seem very compelling at all. They don't even have a simple majority on their side.
So you have to shop around for the doctor who will let you review them while you are bleeding out from a wound? This seems insane. I agree with your professors general thesis: that a business can put whatever limitations on its customers as long as such limitations are not on the face illegal nor so pervasive yet provide little to no benefit to the consumer that it is unfair to the consumer. However, in medicine this is not reasonable. It is not in societies best interests to make healthcare unaccessible unless you are willing to sign away rights even if you can pay for the service. If we are talking about general practitioner than maybe but it can never put the patient at increased risk to not sign.
This vulnerability is not inherent to PDF but to Adobe's implementations.
The original iPhone was not sold outside of UK, France, Germany , Ireland and Austria according to Wikipedia. Your statement: "the original iPhone was a flop everywhere but the US (yes it was even a flop in Europe)" makes it clear you do not have as firm a grasp on the iPhone rollout as the tone of you post implies. Do you have numbers that indicate the orginal iPhone was actually a "flop" in Europe (the ONLY placed outside the US it was sold)?
So if the government can find someone to lie and say they saw something then you have to open up your private files? This makes no sense. One should NEVER be compelled to help in their own incrimination, this was clearly what was intended by the 5th amendment. Arguing over semantics is what people do when they think they can cheat you.
I don't understand. You are saying that once I let the officers into my house I need to open the safe for them? How does that follow? Everyone understan
Sadly they start with it not end.
What a wonderful argument for being willfully ignorant. We should certainly not care what the party not in power does because it has no bearing on anything. Why was this modded insightful?
Please go to a more modern library which often have digital copies available. For that matter go to many publishers sites and see how much you can download. Hell Tor sends me copyrighted works in PDF every week. Regardless you did not understand the parent's post: the library gave you a book you could copy that content thus they "assisted" you in copyright infringement.
While the statement that it might affect the price of netbooks comes from no where, the entire article is not FUD. Claiming that "You will NEVER see this edition in the west" means it doesn't matter is just stupid. This is news for nerds not news for rich nerds who couldn't care less about people outside the west. I have friends who work for NPOs in third world nations who might need to know this information. Just because it doesn't affect you does not mean it is FUD. Criticizing MS over this is well founded IMO since they are basically trying to screw over the third world for no reason.
You do know that the parent to your post was not Obama right?