and not killing people in fiery laptop-related explosions.
Wow, great piece of editorial comment there! I'm not one to defend cooperate giants here, but Sony is to blame for the shoddy electronics not Dell. Dell at least was the first to issue a recall for the battery issue. Apple uses the same batteries that cause fires and they are just NOW coming out with the a recall. They've known about it for a long time now. HP has about 3 million of the batteries in circulation and who knows how many Sony laptops contain the dodgey batteries. Neither of those companies have even issued a warning about the batteries, nor has Sony owned up to the issue and prefers to let the distributors of their energy storing grenades take the fall.
If you want to flame a company, flame Sony. How exactly does Dell come out looking like the bad guy here? And on an article about MP3 players no less.
Slashdot is getting as bad as Fox news. Congratulations editors.
I had a Samsung i300 that had no buttons, just a touch screen. It was a pain if I had to use the thing while I'm eating fried chicken or pizza. It also sucked because I couldn't dial by touch. I just want buttons. Nothing bloody wrong with buttons.
Dude... getting grease from fried chicken or pizza on your buttons isn't any more sanitary than getting it on your touch screen. You don't need to answer your phone while stuffing your face with substances more likely to kill you than ciggerrettes. Call them back.
While I feel the wiretapping is illegal, suing the companies that helped the government I feel is bad practice. These companies are in a bad position both ways.
I've tried to think of an appopriate reply and about the only thing I can come up with is:
Buuuuuuhh...?!?
Companies are in a bad position? No, they are in a great position to tell the government and the NSA to go straight to hell, and file an injunction with the supreme court, and make a huge ass media stink all the way home. They took the job for one reason and one reason only. GREED. They received money for doing this. Your money. Twice. Once as a paying customer and once as a tax payer.
I think CNN and all major media outlets are sick in this regard. There should be more journalistic integrity in the field. However that being said, they are just catering to a hungry maw of the public. Who's fault really is it? Apparently more people want this kind of drivel than to read about what our leaders are doing with us. Apparently, the leaders encourage these kinds of distractions so they'll be more interested in this kind of drivel than what our leaders are doing with us.
Don't place 100% o the blame on the cook when the customer orders a pile of fried shit.
Honestly, this case and many like it should have never made national media level attention.
A planet of the new solar system? Well no. Planet of the old solar system? Obviously.
If this reasoning isn't sound, what seperates an asteroid from a planet? Mass? Size? No, there is a bit more to it than that. How the body was formed plays a large part in that, and if you've paid ANY attention to why Pluto's status as a planet was up for debate, you'll see that it's origins are the main topic of debate.
Please research what scientists call planetary formation before you call their reasoning stupid. It only makes you look silly and uninformed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_formation
There is a very specific reason why some do not consider Pluto a planet. One of the myths concerning this is based on Pluto's size. While Pluto is very tiny compared to the other planets, and is smaller than some Sol system moons, the size of Pluto is not an issue. What is an issue is what makes a planet a planet, and not some object captured in the sphere of gravity influence of a star. What makes a planet a planet, is that the matter that makes up the planet came from an initial star formation where when the star is violently born, it throws matter all about. This matter is traveling at high speeds and eventually coalesces again and forms planets. This is why all the planets share a fairly similar inclination and where they gain their orbital velocity. There were all born from the center of the Sun as it spewed matter during it's formation.
Pluto, on the other hand, doesn't share an orbit that could have been formed the same way the other planets have. In other words, it in all likely hood wasn't formed by Sol or in the Sol system. Due it its eccentric orbit, it seems more like it is an extra-Sol object captured by the Sun's gravity. Which makes it more of an Asteroid or Moon for the Sun rather than a planet.
And this is different from believing in God... how, exactly?
A good logical question. I will attempt to answer it here. While both dark matter and God are both human conjecture, dark matter (and other scientific based conjecture) is different from believing in God in the following ways:
Dark matter is based on indirect measurements and evidence which is gathered. God theory is based on information, but no measurement system or indirect evidence, written by men.
Allthough no complete explanation for Dark Matter exists, there is a reason Dark Matter is thought to exist; the galaxy gravational constant rotational problem. The only reason God needs to exist is to fufill a human desire. Note: This is my opinion only, and if you do not share it, it is ok. Please don't take it personally.
In order to know about the God theory, it MUST be communicated by another human via written word or verbal speech. There is no deriving the God theory on your own without coming up with a drasticallydifferent completely unconnectedtheory.
And lastly, but probably most important, a God theory says what IS. A scientific theory says what is NOT. Scientific theory will always admit it is wrong until empirically proven right. A God theory is always right without any direct or supporting evidence.
In conclusion, even a conjecture based scientific theory is based on logical derived thought which does not require blind faith to believe in. In can be derived the same way by any human who performs the same measurements and observations. It can be derived the same way by two humans on opposite sides of the planet without communicating with each other. Religion or a theory of God, as history has taught us, does not share this trait and will be different depending on the humans who wrote it.
This technology is of course just a stepping stone, a prelude to the real technology that is on the horizon.
Being developed, even as we speak, is a device that will pick up the electrical signals emitted by your cerebrum and frontal lobal regions of the brains. Thse devices will employ electroencephalography methodology and electroencephalogram tests from a distance to analyze the brains electrical signals. These signals will be fed into a statistical probability matrix, and your present, future desires and, probable actions will be determined with a degree of acceptable confidence and error.
Worry not citizens. These devices will be for your own good. You will no longer have to worry about terrorists in airports. These devices, once perfected, will be used to identify terrorists as their own brains compose the electrical signals responsible for the thoughts that make up criminal and terrorist behavoir. These devices, paired with security experts, will be able to aprehend and detain individuals before they are able to carry out their egregious actions.
No offense, but it doesn't really go into liquid explosives, chemistry, physics, or even plausabilty of the scenario at all. What amount of stable liquid explosives could actually punch a hole in a plane?
The sketpic in me is just not convinced that they could blow up a plane with 16oz of stable liquid explosive. You need some kind of solid explosive to make a big enough hole to cause catostrophic explosive decompression that would break up the plane.
A much more plausible scenario is mixing two liquids to form a poison gas if you ask me.
"WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."
"A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledgehammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic."
"Your worst enemy, he reflected, was your own nervous system. At any moment the tension inside you was liable to translate itself into some visible symptom."
"Only a person thoroughly grounded in Ingsoc could appreciate the full force of the word bellyfeel, which implied a blind, enthusiastic acceptance difficult to imagine today."
I'm a bit shaky on my chemical engineering and what liquid explosives could have been used. But let's take an average 16oz bottle of liquid explosives. How much damage could that actually do? Liquid explosives are a lot less explosive than solid ones. Sure a couple oz of the plastic variety, centex / c4, would blow the plane to bits. But what liquid explosives in that quantity could blow a sizable hole in an airliner? Liquid explosives burn slow, they don't punch with a lot of force. At least ones stable enough to consider transporting on to a plane. Not that the terrorists care, but whats the point of the plan if it blows up in the car on the way to the airport.
And why wouldn't these have been caught by the chemical sniffers in the security check points? The hidden drug/bomb dogs in the airport? Why all the new security? Why wouldn't our normal airport security have caught these guys in the airport?
Note: You need a sizable hole punched in a plane to make it break up. An entire chunk of the fuselage needs to be removed. Explosive decompression doesn't occur from small basketball sized holes.
How else are they going to make everyone complacent into accepting these new "security measures"?
These security measures do nothing, if anything less, than current security. If you can get liquid explosives past the sniffers in the carry on security checkpoints, you could probably get some in the hold with your normal luggage easier. What difference do these security measures really make?
Perception. Thousands of people, white collared people with money, travel every day. If they are under the impression they are constantly under the threat of attack, they will vote with fear instead of common sense.
Because the Moon is the first stepping stone to even getting to Mars.
The Moon is an incredibly usefull platform hanging out there in the Sun's orbit. The Moon is a great place to learn how to survive in space. Without an atmosphere on the Moon, or space ships en route to other celestial bodies, we will need to learn how to survive the Sun's onslaught of energy bursts. The Moon also provides a great place to coordinate and assemble large missions to Mars. It would be a lot cheaper to ferry large components of a space ship to the Moon's Orbit and then use the Moon's prograde velocity (re: Earth) to fall back down to Earth apollo style and make a trans mars injection burn at Earth Pe. Doing this adds extra kinetic energy to the propellant you use and you actually make a more effecient ejection from the Earth system. Not to mention you wouldn't have to launch as heavy of payloads from Earth.
For those who might not think that is true, you can actually simulate this for yourself if you like by using the wonderful Orbiter Simulator program available at http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
Be careful though, it is not a game, but a simulation. Orbiter requires a fairly steep learning curve to master the advanced navigational tools and a pretty hefty understanding of Orbital mechanics to use properly. If you are a space and physics geek like me, you will love it though.
Note that even over the 14-year sunspot cycle the variation is less than 1%.
Note that 14 years out of the Earth's 2 billion is a insignificant sample size to be using. That works out roughly to a 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of almost 30%. So, ignsinificant and useless.
Why do we have to wait for 100% certainty before we act? While it is true that the theory of global warming is uncertain, that is a scientifically unfair statement to make. In order to scientifically validate the theory of global warming one hundred percent, it would have to be observed.
There isn't any conclusive evidence for theories on how gravity propagates. We have theories; special relativity space-time warping, string/m-theory transmitting gravitons. However no one can explain with 100% certainty why gravity works. So the theory of gravity lacks certainty. But last I checked, if I were to jump, gravity from the Earth would cancel out my force and return me to the ground. So yup, Gravity still works despite not having certainty behind theory.
According to the scientific process, we'll have to observe global warming in a biosphere before the theory will gain certainty. Last I checked we did not have a spare biosphere hanging around, or millions of years to test, or a spare Earth somewhere in orbit where we can conduct long term testing in order to satisfy the scientific method.
I am all for the scientific process and honestly wish it were used in more cases in every day life. However, in some cases, especially in those studies that overlap the lifespan of scientists, I feel it is ok to act without certainty in cases where the speculative evidence supports the theory. Say it with me now: Supporting evidence in the case where no alternative evidence exists wins everytime. In other words, just like the theory of gravity, lack of 100% certainity does not make the opposite true.
Despite whether or not global warming is a real phenomenon, not acting now would be like driving without auto or medical insurance. Sure, you might make it home safe, but you might also get hit by a drunk driver in a 4 ton truck with no insurance. Our laws require insurance for that reason. Why don't we start insuring the Earth with pre-emptive care?
American's commit suicide in small doses every day. The number one cause of death in this country can be directly related to our poor diets. Fast food, bad diets, food with persveratives ect all are linked to heart disease.
The number two killer (in most states, not sure if it's still nation wide) can be directly linked to carcinogens in cigarettes.
The number three killer, and the number one killer for people ages 1 - 37 is car accidents. Mostly from drunk driving and stupid decisions!
So while American's might not be throwing themselves in front of trains from a deep-seeded fear of shame and scorn, we are still killing ourselves just as well.
On a side note, I think terrorism is the number four hundred eighty seven thousand six hundred and ninety two cause of death in this country. I might be mistaken on that one though.
The parent makes a good point. Unfortunately maximizing stopping performance and minimizing stopping distance is not the best way to avoid a collision. Our instincts are to hit the brakes to avoid collisions, and this works when properly planned. We don't call them automobile accidents because there was planning involved.
The best way to avoid collisions is evasive maneuvering. While ABS will allow you to stop in a straight line in the shortest amount of time and distance, a lot accidents could be avoided by an evasive maneuver rather than a straight line stop. There will always be accidents where evasive action isn't an option, such where your options for evasion put you in the path of another vehicle.
Our instincts to immediately stomp on the brakes at the first sign of danger usually only makes a barely avoidable collision now avoidable. If/When you see an accident about to happen it is much better to attempt a trajectory change before you apply the brakes. You may be able to avoid the collision. When you hit the brakes first and realize that you have time to change the trajectory, you are asking the tires to do too much. The situation gets worse and unavoidable.
Of course this is all "best case", "best scenario" for when an accident starts to unfold. Wrecks are not caused by poor vehicle control at the last moment. Wrecks are caused by poor attention to surroundings, and further compounded by bad instincts and a serious lack of driving practice during abnormal & high speed maneuvering. If I had my way, all licensed drivers would be required to pass a low/mid/high speed evasive action test under both wet and dry conditions. Maybe if not as a requirement to license, at least a discount on insurance if you pass said tests in your own vehicle once every 2-4 years.
It's kind of sad we are only taught to drive under favorable conditions. As someone who autocrosses regularly, I can speak for how well abnormal driving skills improves overall driving. By driving at the limits of cotnrol, you know exactly conditions will cause you to lose control. Knowing those conditions will help to not panick at the moment of truth.
If you stop and think about this for a minute, this is a very positive thing for the gaming industry. It will only serve to stiffle and choke more creative game designers. Which is why eventually they will realize they don't need the publishers. They have the internet. Valve gave it a good shot with Steam, but underestimated how egrigious its publisher, Vivendi, really was.
We aren't far off from video game companies realizing they can maximize profits by raising their own capital and self publishing. In a world with broadband, buying games off the shelves just seems dumb. So everyone, lets gather around and thank companies like Wal-Mart for tightening its grip on the markets. The markets will choke to death and be reborn into something better.
Or if not, look on the bright side. You can still buy guns at Wal-Mart and go for the ultimate grand theft auto experience.
It's still an underhanded business tactic. Do they need it to survive? That's debatable. They did a fine job of it in their early days. But now Google is starting to turn the way of many technology companies whom we scorn. Google gets a pass just because they have a neat company and a clever motto? Shrug, not for me. I think they are even more egregious than some because they try and hide the fact that they are basically about to become the largest advertising firm in the world. And if advertisment and exploiting of personal information for profit isn't evil, I'm not sure what is.
I'm not some anti-business nut. No, I think Google ads are partially a good thing. They help content creators on the internet and that's a good thing. What I don't like about Google is the staggering amount of data they collect on their users. They don't just collect data on their searches to optimize the search. No, they store who searches on it. What they search on. Where they want to go (maps) and like to shop. What vendors they choose. What kind of keywords are in their e-mail. And if you use the hotspot freinds service where their friends go. They may protect the users privacy on the outside, but they still store and house a gargantuan amount of data on each frequent user that is DIRECTLY tied to them. It may not be tied to a social security number or anything that frightening. But it is tied to a user, and it IS used to generate and maximize profits.
As for using Google? Haven't done so in quite some time and it is generally a last resort for me. I daresay it is convienent and offers a fine service, but I prefer to not feed the machine when possible.
I think there is significant merit in the fact that this patent focuses on wireless access where previous incarnations were wired. The USPTO seems to agree.
The USPTO also agreed that patenting the double-click was a good idea. Not to mention "One click storing of consumer information" that was awarded to Amazon. Or perhaps the patents that were awarded for hyperlinking.
Point being that there is all kinds of silly use of patents that have been awarded and enforced by the USPTO. As it has been argued on Slashdot for ages; Just because you can fool the patent office into granting a patent, doesn't mean you should.
Drop the do no evil charade. Creating patents based on prior art is not "good". Freei internet, netzero, and more have already provided a service just like this. Because it's wireless instead of wired has no technical merit and is just like Microsoft patenting the double-click. Creating patents on an idea that doesn't have technical merit is not "good". Creating large demographic databases to sell to advertisers to further feed a corrupt consumer society is not "good". Google knows more about its frequent users online & purchasing habbits than they know about themselves.
Drop the motto or start practicing what you preach.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, great piece of editorial comment there! I'm not one to defend cooperate giants here, but Sony is to blame for the shoddy electronics not Dell. Dell at least was the first to issue a recall for the battery issue. Apple uses the same batteries that cause fires and they are just NOW coming out with the a recall. They've known about it for a long time now. HP has about 3 million of the batteries in circulation and who knows how many Sony laptops contain the dodgey batteries. Neither of those companies have even issued a warning about the batteries, nor has Sony owned up to the issue and prefers to let the distributors of their energy storing grenades take the fall.
If you want to flame a company, flame Sony. How exactly does Dell come out looking like the bad guy here? And on an article about MP3 players no less.
Slashdot is getting as bad as Fox news. Congratulations editors.
Dude... getting grease from fried chicken or pizza on your buttons isn't any more sanitary than getting it on your touch screen. You don't need to answer your phone while stuffing your face with substances more likely to kill you than ciggerrettes. Call them back.
I've tried to think of an appopriate reply and about the only thing I can come up with is:
Buuuuuuhh...?!?
Companies are in a bad position? No, they are in a great position to tell the government and the NSA to go straight to hell, and file an injunction with the supreme court, and make a huge ass media stink all the way home. They took the job for one reason and one reason only. GREED. They received money for doing this. Your money. Twice. Once as a paying customer and once as a tax payer.
Government, Companies, Lawyers, Customers (providers), Consumers Kings, Landowners, Knights, Serfs, Slaves
Don't place 100% o the blame on the cook when the customer orders a pile of fried shit.
Honestly, this case and many like it should have never made national media level attention.
If this reasoning isn't sound, what seperates an asteroid from a planet? Mass? Size? No, there is a bit more to it than that. How the body was formed plays a large part in that, and if you've paid ANY attention to why Pluto's status as a planet was up for debate, you'll see that it's origins are the main topic of debate.
Please research what scientists call planetary formation before you call their reasoning stupid. It only makes you look silly and uninformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_formation
Pluto, on the other hand, doesn't share an orbit that could have been formed the same way the other planets have. In other words, it in all likely hood wasn't formed by Sol or in the Sol system. Due it its eccentric orbit, it seems more like it is an extra-Sol object captured by the Sun's gravity. Which makes it more of an Asteroid or Moon for the Sun rather than a planet.
Some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
A good logical question. I will attempt to answer it here. While both dark matter and God are both human conjecture, dark matter (and other scientific based conjecture) is different from believing in God in the following ways:
In conclusion, even a conjecture based scientific theory is based on logical derived thought which does not require blind faith to believe in. In can be derived the same way by any human who performs the same measurements and observations. It can be derived the same way by two humans on opposite sides of the planet without communicating with each other. Religion or a theory of God, as history has taught us, does not share this trait and will be different depending on the humans who wrote it.
Being developed, even as we speak, is a device that will pick up the electrical signals emitted by your cerebrum and frontal lobal regions of the brains. Thse devices will employ electroencephalography methodology and electroencephalogram tests from a distance to analyze the brains electrical signals. These signals will be fed into a statistical probability matrix, and your present, future desires and, probable actions will be determined with a degree of acceptable confidence and error.
Worry not citizens. These devices will be for your own good. You will no longer have to worry about terrorists in airports. These devices, once perfected, will be used to identify terrorists as their own brains compose the electrical signals responsible for the thoughts that make up criminal and terrorist behavoir. These devices, paired with security experts, will be able to aprehend and detain individuals before they are able to carry out their egregious actions.
You will be safe.
The sketpic in me is just not convinced that they could blow up a plane with 16oz of stable liquid explosive. You need some kind of solid explosive to make a big enough hole to cause catostrophic explosive decompression that would break up the plane.
A much more plausible scenario is mixing two liquids to form a poison gas if you ask me.
"WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."
"A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledgehammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic."
"Your worst enemy, he reflected, was your own nervous system. At any moment the tension inside you was liable to translate itself into some visible symptom."
"Only a person thoroughly grounded in Ingsoc could appreciate the full force of the word bellyfeel, which implied a blind, enthusiastic acceptance difficult to imagine today."
And why wouldn't these have been caught by the chemical sniffers in the security check points? The hidden drug/bomb dogs in the airport? Why all the new security? Why wouldn't our normal airport security have caught these guys in the airport?
Note: You need a sizable hole punched in a plane to make it break up. An entire chunk of the fuselage needs to be removed. Explosive decompression doesn't occur from small basketball sized holes.
These security measures do nothing, if anything less, than current security. If you can get liquid explosives past the sniffers in the carry on security checkpoints, you could probably get some in the hold with your normal luggage easier. What difference do these security measures really make?
Perception. Thousands of people, white collared people with money, travel every day. If they are under the impression they are constantly under the threat of attack, they will vote with fear instead of common sense.
The Moon is an incredibly usefull platform hanging out there in the Sun's orbit. The Moon is a great place to learn how to survive in space. Without an atmosphere on the Moon, or space ships en route to other celestial bodies, we will need to learn how to survive the Sun's onslaught of energy bursts. The Moon also provides a great place to coordinate and assemble large missions to Mars. It would be a lot cheaper to ferry large components of a space ship to the Moon's Orbit and then use the Moon's prograde velocity (re: Earth) to fall back down to Earth apollo style and make a trans mars injection burn at Earth Pe. Doing this adds extra kinetic energy to the propellant you use and you actually make a more effecient ejection from the Earth system. Not to mention you wouldn't have to launch as heavy of payloads from Earth.
For those who might not think that is true, you can actually simulate this for yourself if you like by using the wonderful Orbiter Simulator program available at http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
Be careful though, it is not a game, but a simulation. Orbiter requires a fairly steep learning curve to master the advanced navigational tools and a pretty hefty understanding of Orbital mechanics to use properly. If you are a space and physics geek like me, you will love it though.
America where everyone is innocent and guilty at the same time. The burden of proof is on... wait, who is it on these days anyway?
Note that even over the 14-year sunspot cycle the variation is less than 1%. Note that 14 years out of the Earth's 2 billion is a insignificant sample size to be using. That works out roughly to a 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of almost 30%. So, ignsinificant and useless.
There isn't any conclusive evidence for theories on how gravity propagates. We have theories; special relativity space-time warping, string/m-theory transmitting gravitons. However no one can explain with 100% certainty why gravity works. So the theory of gravity lacks certainty. But last I checked, if I were to jump, gravity from the Earth would cancel out my force and return me to the ground. So yup, Gravity still works despite not having certainty behind theory.
According to the scientific process, we'll have to observe global warming in a biosphere before the theory will gain certainty. Last I checked we did not have a spare biosphere hanging around, or millions of years to test, or a spare Earth somewhere in orbit where we can conduct long term testing in order to satisfy the scientific method.
I am all for the scientific process and honestly wish it were used in more cases in every day life. However, in some cases, especially in those studies that overlap the lifespan of scientists, I feel it is ok to act without certainty in cases where the speculative evidence supports the theory. Say it with me now: Supporting evidence in the case where no alternative evidence exists wins everytime. In other words, just like the theory of gravity, lack of 100% certainity does not make the opposite true.
Despite whether or not global warming is a real phenomenon, not acting now would be like driving without auto or medical insurance. Sure, you might make it home safe, but you might also get hit by a drunk driver in a 4 ton truck with no insurance. Our laws require insurance for that reason. Why don't we start insuring the Earth with pre-emptive care?
American's commit suicide in small doses every day. The number one cause of death in this country can be directly related to our poor diets. Fast food, bad diets, food with persveratives ect all are linked to heart disease.
The number two killer (in most states, not sure if it's still nation wide) can be directly linked to carcinogens in cigarettes.
The number three killer, and the number one killer for people ages 1 - 37 is car accidents. Mostly from drunk driving and stupid decisions!
So while American's might not be throwing themselves in front of trains from a deep-seeded fear of shame and scorn, we are still killing ourselves just as well.
On a side note, I think terrorism is the number four hundred eighty seven thousand six hundred and ninety two cause of death in this country. I might be mistaken on that one though.
The best way to avoid collisions is evasive maneuvering. While ABS will allow you to stop in a straight line in the shortest amount of time and distance, a lot accidents could be avoided by an evasive maneuver rather than a straight line stop. There will always be accidents where evasive action isn't an option, such where your options for evasion put you in the path of another vehicle.
Our instincts to immediately stomp on the brakes at the first sign of danger usually only makes a barely avoidable collision now avoidable. If/When you see an accident about to happen it is much better to attempt a trajectory change before you apply the brakes. You may be able to avoid the collision. When you hit the brakes first and realize that you have time to change the trajectory, you are asking the tires to do too much. The situation gets worse and unavoidable.
Of course this is all "best case", "best scenario" for when an accident starts to unfold. Wrecks are not caused by poor vehicle control at the last moment. Wrecks are caused by poor attention to surroundings, and further compounded by bad instincts and a serious lack of driving practice during abnormal & high speed maneuvering. If I had my way, all licensed drivers would be required to pass a low/mid/high speed evasive action test under both wet and dry conditions. Maybe if not as a requirement to license, at least a discount on insurance if you pass said tests in your own vehicle once every 2-4 years. It's kind of sad we are only taught to drive under favorable conditions. As someone who autocrosses regularly, I can speak for how well abnormal driving skills improves overall driving. By driving at the limits of cotnrol, you know exactly conditions will cause you to lose control. Knowing those conditions will help to not panick at the moment of truth.
Software Engineers Ranked Best Job in America to Send to India
We aren't far off from video game companies realizing they can maximize profits by raising their own capital and self publishing. In a world with broadband, buying games off the shelves just seems dumb. So everyone, lets gather around and thank companies like Wal-Mart for tightening its grip on the markets. The markets will choke to death and be reborn into something better.
Or if not, look on the bright side. You can still buy guns at Wal-Mart and go for the ultimate grand theft auto experience.
I'm not some anti-business nut. No, I think Google ads are partially a good thing. They help content creators on the internet and that's a good thing. What I don't like about Google is the staggering amount of data they collect on their users. They don't just collect data on their searches to optimize the search. No, they store who searches on it. What they search on. Where they want to go (maps) and like to shop. What vendors they choose. What kind of keywords are in their e-mail. And if you use the hotspot freinds service where their friends go. They may protect the users privacy on the outside, but they still store and house a gargantuan amount of data on each frequent user that is DIRECTLY tied to them. It may not be tied to a social security number or anything that frightening. But it is tied to a user, and it IS used to generate and maximize profits.
As for using Google? Haven't done so in quite some time and it is generally a last resort for me. I daresay it is convienent and offers a fine service, but I prefer to not feed the machine when possible.
The USPTO also agreed that patenting the double-click was a good idea. Not to mention "One click storing of consumer information" that was awarded to Amazon. Or perhaps the patents that were awarded for hyperlinking.
Point being that there is all kinds of silly use of patents that have been awarded and enforced by the USPTO. As it has been argued on Slashdot for ages; Just because you can fool the patent office into granting a patent, doesn't mean you should.
Good point. However, I wasn't arguing the criteria for obtaining a patent. I am merely pointing out that frivolous use of patents is not "good".
Drop the motto or start practicing what you preach.
Sincerely,
The-Not-Easily-Fooled