I've been a Moz 1.0 user since it was launched, and I've been very pleased with it. Many nice touches, like tabbed browsing (try ctrl-shift-clicking), banning images from ad-serves, anti-popup and so on. Best of all, it manages all the security routines my internet bank throws at it.
Having downloaded Moz 1.1 the difference is not so great, as expected. Some minor bugs have vanished, like the frequent paralyzation of the http-input field.
In general, there is nothing IE can do for me that Moz can't. And Moz is just... a smoother ride. Plus it's got good karma. Recommended.
Quoting from the CNET article, Macromedia CEO Rob Burgess says: "Ultimately, it is our customers, and particularly our mutual customers, that will be harmed."
That's true; Adobe users are creative ones, and they are not going to like it if Adobe turns into a Law Monster to battle a worthy companion. Macromedia really added new opportunities to the web with the introduction of Flash. I think in this case, Adobe should honor and respect the fundamental creative groundwork behind the concept of Flash, with all it's brilliant aspects, and leave it at that.
I've been using Moz 0.9.9 for a while now, and I just want to say that it works superb on my win2k box. I found the previous versions quite buggy, and sometimes impossible to install, but I think 0.9.9 is a very good browser. Pages render nicely, you can block images from advertisement servers:-), and the tab function is great, just as in Opera. Only problem: My online bank doesn't support Moz. Yet.
I've never been personally in touch with the cult. However, the only person I have ever known that has taken his own life, did so about a year after joining the Sc. At the point of joining the cult, he could be described as lonely and depressed, but I don't think anyone regarded him as a suicide candidate.
Of course, the cult can't be blamed directly for his suicide. It was his own choice. But they did prey on a person that was easy to swager, his personal suffering (and longing for a happier, more meaningful life) taken into account.
OK, so there are still a lot of people out there that don't want to believe in the UN Climate Panel. Maybe they're not swayed by Big Money. Maybe they're not swayed by convenience. Maybe the bulk of scientists are wrong about global warming, and maybe our grandchildren don't mind about Civilizational Side Effects like those that Southern America and Central Africa sees disastrous deforestration.
On the other hand, if we're wrong about these assumptions, I would like an anti-environmentalist to tell me where I can find the undo button. Is Bush going to re-plant the forests American companies burn down to give space for US Burger Cattle?
Where do you come up with the number of 100 civilians killed versus 10 civilians killed? Also, you arent' taking into account the number of people who are maimed each year but not killed by the mines.
The numbers are examplatory, but the point remains: Man is better than machines in clearing mines, and for less money. With a certain funding, most mines will be cleared if you use human labour. That's fact. And, regrettably, the budget is limited. So the money should be spent on clearing mines the cheapest way possible. It's bad that people die during this process, but the irony is that more people will die if you don't. It's a lose-lose situation. And the number of maimed people increases with the number of non-cleared, regrettably strengthening my case.
I think you will find most people disagree with your view; this is EXACTLY the case where tech is the answer...or should be. Sure you have to design in all-terrain features in the robot but that's not that difficult.
It's not only difficult, but impossible deploy such a vehicle, considering the price of the machine versus the amount of mines.
And your presumption that the machine will only clear roughly half of the mines that humans would clear is preposterous.
It's not preposterous, but rather the sad truth. Listen to this: One of the most efficient mine-clearing machines around is a refitted Leopard tank, extra armour added in front, and in front of that, a rotating horisontal cylinder with chains on it. The chains pound the ground as the tank advances, detonating mines. Trouble is fourfold in this case:
1. The tank totally ruins the vegetation. 2. The tank will have to be continually serviced, which is very demanding in remote areas. 3. A few mines tend to get thrown up in the air and fall behind the tank without detonating. These bastards are then in the open, and may detonate anytime. 4....and this is about the most cost-effective "machine clearer" around (the basic tank is actually for free, since there is a surplus of Leo's due to the Arms Reduction in Northern Europe), and STILL much more expensive / inefficient than "man clearing".
Point is, THE BUDGET IS LIMITED. And for X dollars, man will clear more mines than machines will.
I think it's better to spend millions of dollars on a technical solution than to loose six people to mines.
Yes, but let's do a mindgame: alt A. 1 million spent on tech, 10.000 mines cleared, no operators killed, 10.000 mines remaining, 100 civilians killed. alt B. 1 million spent on locals, 19.000 mines cleared, 6 operators killed, 1000 mines remaining, 10 civilians killed (plus the 6 operators).
If I recall correctly: The Norwegian People's Help, or whatever their English name is, has had four thousand third-world workers on the payroll since 1996 and has lost six lives. I might have the details wrong but the statistics were surprisingly good. Point is, it's very cost-effective to use local workers, especially considering the usual alternative: to stay unemployed, unable to harvest from the countryside, not to mention being worried sick about their kids picking up shiny-looking stuff from the ground.
Having several colleagues that are trained Product Design Engineers, and therefore used to thinking "a product will solve the problem", I'll share their experience in this field.
HI-TECH PRODUCTS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION IN THIS CASE.
ANY kind of techy product is crap.
I'm a tech guy myself and a/. reader to prove it, but when it comes to disarming mines one must turn to other means. Reason:
1. The machine will very likely get stuck in the not-so-ideal terrain mines are dug into.
2a. There are no good logistics for things like spare parts, fuel etc in third-world, mine-ridden countries.
2b. A techy machine is very valuable as, exactly, spare parts. Therefore, it will be looted rather than used as intended. example A large European aluminium manufacturer made studies of using aluminium beams in Catastrophe Shelter Housing. It became obvious that the alum would create riots, and therefore, one had to use bamboo. Good for India, bad for Big Industry.
3. Third-world labour is M-U-C-H cheaper than industrialised-world labour. To design, manufacture, deploy, operate, service and even protect an anti-mine machine, whatever the kind, requires tenfold the resources than paying unemployed, higly motivated locals to do the job. The job is ACTUALLY not very dangerous if education and overseeing is done properly.
4. Auto-mine-cleaners remove a smaller percentage of the mines than human workers. Therefore, it is NOT SAFE to enter an area that has been "cleaned" by machines.
What REALLY PISSES ME OFF is that industrialised countries makes easily-digestable "foreign aid budgets" by giving domestic industry R&D money that can never be translated into a better situation for the ones that really need it. Check out the way your Foreign Aid is distributed, Americans. It sucks, big time, and sadly, that makes the rule rather than the exeption.
Slashdot Mirror
Having downloaded Moz 1.1 the difference is not so great, as expected. Some minor bugs have vanished, like the frequent paralyzation of the http-input field.
In general, there is nothing IE can do for me that Moz can't. And Moz is just... a smoother ride. Plus it's got good karma. Recommended.
That's true; Adobe users are creative ones, and they are not going to like it if Adobe turns into a Law Monster to battle a worthy companion. Macromedia really added new opportunities to the web with the introduction of Flash. I think in this case, Adobe should honor and respect the fundamental creative groundwork behind the concept of Flash, with all it's brilliant aspects, and leave it at that.
I've been using Moz 0.9.9 for a while now, and I just want to say that it works superb on my win2k box. I found the previous versions quite buggy, and sometimes impossible to install, but I think 0.9.9 is a very good browser. Pages render nicely, you can block images from advertisement servers :-), and the tab function is great, just as in Opera. Only problem: My online bank doesn't support Moz. Yet.
Of course, the cult can't be blamed directly for his suicide. It was his own choice. But they did prey on a person that was easy to swager, his personal suffering (and longing for a happier, more meaningful life) taken into account.
On the other hand, if we're wrong about these assumptions, I would like an anti-environmentalist to tell me where I can find the undo button. Is Bush going to re-plant the forests American companies burn down to give space for US Burger Cattle?
The numbers are examplatory, but the point remains: Man is better than machines in clearing mines, and for less money. With a certain funding, most mines will be cleared if you use human labour. That's fact. And, regrettably, the budget is limited. So the money should be spent on clearing mines the cheapest way possible. It's bad that people die during this process, but the irony is that more people will die if you don't. It's a lose-lose situation. And the number of maimed people increases with the number of non-cleared, regrettably strengthening my case.
I think you will find most people disagree with your view; this is EXACTLY the case where tech is the answer...or should be. Sure you have to design in all-terrain features in the robot but that's not that difficult.
It's not only difficult, but impossible deploy such a vehicle, considering the price of the machine versus the amount of mines.
And your presumption that the machine will only clear roughly half of the mines that humans would clear is preposterous.
It's not preposterous, but rather the sad truth.
Listen to this: One of the most efficient mine-clearing machines around is a refitted Leopard tank, extra armour added in front, and in front of that, a rotating horisontal cylinder with chains on it. The chains pound the ground as the tank advances, detonating mines. Trouble is fourfold in this case:
1. The tank totally ruins the vegetation. ...and this is about the most cost-effective "machine clearer" around (the basic tank is actually for free, since there is a surplus of Leo's due to the Arms Reduction in Northern Europe), and STILL much more expensive / inefficient than "man clearing".
2. The tank will have to be continually serviced, which is very demanding in remote areas.
3. A few mines tend to get thrown up in the air and fall behind the tank without detonating. These bastards are then in the open, and may detonate anytime.
4.
Point is, THE BUDGET IS LIMITED. And for X dollars, man will clear more mines than machines will.
Yes, but let's do a mindgame:
alt A. 1 million spent on tech, 10.000 mines cleared, no operators killed, 10.000 mines remaining, 100 civilians killed.
alt B. 1 million spent on locals, 19.000 mines cleared, 6 operators killed, 1000 mines remaining, 10 civilians killed (plus the 6 operators).
A=100 deaths, B=16 deaths
The numbers are fictional, but you get the point?
If I recall correctly: The Norwegian People's Help, or whatever their English name is, has had four thousand third-world workers on the payroll since 1996 and has lost six lives. I might have the details wrong but the statistics were surprisingly good. Point is, it's very cost-effective to use local workers, especially considering the usual alternative: to stay unemployed, unable to harvest from the countryside, not to mention being worried sick about their kids picking up shiny-looking stuff from the ground.
I'm a tech guy myself and a /. reader to prove it, but when it comes to disarming mines one must turn to other means. Reason:
1. The machine will very likely get stuck in the not-so-ideal terrain mines are dug into.
2a. There are no good logistics for things like spare parts, fuel etc in third-world, mine-ridden countries.
2b. A techy machine is very valuable as, exactly, spare parts. Therefore, it will be looted rather than used as intended. example A large European aluminium manufacturer made studies of using aluminium beams in Catastrophe Shelter Housing. It became obvious that the alum would create riots, and therefore, one had to use bamboo. Good for India, bad for Big Industry.
3. Third-world labour is M-U-C-H cheaper than industrialised-world labour. To design, manufacture, deploy, operate, service and even protect an anti-mine machine, whatever the kind, requires tenfold the resources than paying unemployed, higly motivated locals to do the job. The job is ACTUALLY not very dangerous if education and overseeing is done properly.
4. Auto-mine-cleaners remove a smaller percentage of the mines than human workers. Therefore, it is NOT SAFE to enter an area that has been "cleaned" by machines.
What REALLY PISSES ME OFF is that industrialised countries makes easily-digestable "foreign aid budgets" by giving domestic industry R&D money that can never be translated into a better situation for the ones that really need it. Check out the way your Foreign Aid is distributed, Americans. It sucks, big time, and sadly, that makes the rule rather than the exeption.