Why do so many Slashdotters think the developing world is a giant refugee camp? There are degrees of "devloping".
Yes, people who need food an shelter have higher priorities, as do people in a war zone. However, and this may shock some people, some developing nations (or large parts of them) are not starving and reasonably stable. You know what, people can help them too, and things like this can.
Being a monopoly isn't necessarily bad, abusing that status is. So far, MS is a monopoly and has abused it. Google isn't, nor is it on track to be. If anything the competition in the search area is increasing. If MS ties search into Window I'll be more worried than anything Google seems to be doing.
How did Google speed up the death of Usenet? I'm not conivnced Usenet is dying, but Google Groups (even the new one they are messing around with) makes Usenet far, far more useful with the archive, and more accessible than news servers.
If you don't like google's cache, put an entry in robots.txt. The only reason it would be seen as breach of copyright is because copyright laws have got crazy out of control.
As for images, see above about copyright laws. Now add in Google only keeps a low res copy.
I've certainly not seen crumb trails "come back", then again the many corporate site I work on always had them, so the user can always get back easily and see where they are going (back buttons don't always do quite what users expect). I really don't see this as a problem, or Google (rather than search engine spiders in general) being responsible.
Some people do tailor their sites for search engines, and they always have done as long as their have been search engines.
You seem to have an irrational dislike of Google, but no actual points to back it up. You could, for example, criticise some of the security flaws in their tools.
It would be nice if all the selling stuff could be moved to Froogle, although I'm not sure how technically possible that would be.
It would also be nice if they could get rid of the other 'search' sites that often get the top spots. You click on a link, and just end up on some crummy search site with no actual info.
If the items have RFID tags the robot can easily find the right item, or part of the store. It is much easier for it to read the tags then try to use optical recognition, or keep a flawless map of where everything is up to date.
This is a sensible use of the technology, don't knock it just becuase there have been some silly ones.
I would think a large majority of PC users are people who would never think of opening the case, and would be perfectly happy and fine with a "welded hood".
It doesn't matter if they were technically good, they were, as you say, products, and their purpose was to make money for the company. Not selling well enough to be worth continuing to make is a pretty major flaw from the companies point of view.
A frequent problem is pages that use javascript to check what version a broswers is, rather than what it actually supports, and only display code if the browser is IE and greater than some version.
So even though Firefox now supports some non-standard IE only javascript, it never gets to render it unless you spoof the agent, which has the potential to cause even more problems on pages that rely on broswer and version.
As a web developer, I can't see a good solution the browser writers can use. Savvy users can spoof agents for the sites they know it works on, but the only good solution for the average user is sites writing proper JavaScript checks.
Yellow pages web sites are neat are much more handy, but I'd always want to have an old fashion hard copy around. Quite often when I need to use it, it is for something fairly urgent, if I need an electrician or a plumber quickly I may not be able to look something up on the net.
I definately dig the more technological alternatives, but I wouldn't want them to replace the big book completely.
. Americans seem to remember history far better then Europeans.
Apparently not, because you claim:
With your level of thinking, Germany would be the #1 super power.
If you had any basic knowledge of European history you would know the Soviet Union did more to defeat Germany than the US and UK. The number one super power coming out of the war would much more likely have been them, without a US and UK invasion of mainland Europe the Soviets would never have stopped at East Germany.
As for why America fought WWII? They self-defence. Remember the US didn't join in until attacked by Japan, Germany's ally.
I don't want to sound like some ungrateful European, if the US hadn't joined in, much of the free world wouldn't be. But lets be honest about what happened.
What rights? Tradionally journalists (and is everyone with a web page a journalist?) have not revealed their sources, sometimes risking jail, sometimes going to jail.
If they had a right not reveal their sources, why would that happen?
However, I'm not aware of any particular legal right journalists have about not revealing source. Could you point out the actual source of this "right", where it is legally defined?
What are you drivelling about? This is about pirated copies not getting updates through Windows Update. I don't think systems with embedded Windows are going to have issues with that.
Why your hypothetical would have anything to do with releasing a new GTA on Linux (rather than playstation) or Apple removing DRM when iTunes stuff on plays on iPods anyway, and not "MS music players". Not that there are any "MS music players", just music players that support MS DRM. Are there even any Linux based players? Software in MP3 players seems much simpler than that.
But many people enjoy finding things wrong everything.
Besides, I don't think you really can learn to enjoy things (although your tastes can certainly change over time). In my experience I either enjoy something, or I don't. I may bother to try and analyse why I do or don't enjoy it, but even if I don't it doesn't change my actual enjoyment.
Yes vaccines will have a bad effect on a small percentage of people, some may even die. This is true of any medical procedure, there are risks.
You have to weigh the risks with the benefits, all the people who you will save, who won't get the disease because they are vaccinated, and all the people they won't pass it onto.
By you logic we should abandon all medical treatment in third world countries, despite it improving the overall situation, because some people will statistically suffer, maybe die, from it.
Just because some people will suffer whatever choice you make doesn't make the two choices morally equivilent, when one will lessen suffering overall.
Not vaccinating people does not lead to widespread natural immunity. Humans didn't vaccinate people for millions of years, and still caught and spread diseases, some of which crippled or killed them.
The results of vaccines doesn't stay in the gene pool because 'naturally' acquiring immunity doesn't either. Normal immunity is acquired through the human immune systems exposure to a disease (which vaccines mimic), and so developing antibodies. Even if I survive a disease and so become immune, I won't pass it on anyway.
Actually being naturally immune to a disease from birth does seem to happen to a few people for a few diseases, but is very rare. It certainly hasn't become the norm after millions of years. Unless everyone gets exposed to the disease all the time, plenty of people without the advantage will reproduce, so it won't dominate the gene pool. Plus disease change, it's going to be quicker to have a new vaccine, even if it takes decades or centuries, than wait for people to evolve.
Vaccines on the other hand work a lot better than anything else. I have no natural immunity to smallpox, but no fear of catching it.
I've heard of some problems, with some vaccinations, but you can't lump all vaccinations together. Some vaccines are more effective than others (some shots need boosters later in life), some disease change rapidly (flu shots won't protect you for long), some have different levels of risk.
OTOH if you are going to argue thing like, say, smallpox vaccine didn't have a massive effect then you better produce some evidence from somewhere.
Proving global warming is easy, just look at recorded temperaturs.
Proving humans are responsable? Tougher, we defanately release checmics like CO2 and methane that contribute. We know we can unintionall have a big environmental impact (holes in the ozone layer anyone?). How much is us, and how much is a complex weather system we don't fully understand?
As for Bush, he clearly doesn't beleive (or is paid by oil companies enough not to care) that despite the US emiting one quater of CO2 there is any risk.
Why ironic? I haven't seen anyone argue Global Warming hasn't happened in the past without human intervention. In fact, it seems to be one thing everyone accepts.
That doesn't mean that this time it isn't due to us. Or we can't do something about it. Or that it may be happening much more rapidly than it has before.
So an AC on Slashdot has a better idea of the science than published scientists who have studied it for years?
General scientific consensus has been wrong before, but I think I need something a little more convincing that describting them as a group of idiots before dissmissing it.
Maybe not, but web apps can usually be developed, deployed and maintained far faster and easier than writing custom apps. That can often outweight having the best interface, as long as the interface is good enough.
Of course, this patent is not really a valid patent as it is not on an invention (and didn't take time and effort and there's probably prior art and it would likely not have been kept a trade secret).
So, you don't think time and effort went into the mp3 algorithm? You don't think someone would keep a music enocing algorithm secret?
Software alogritms being patented is a seperate issue, but your other points are weak.
Even without patents and copyright monopolies (or oligopolies) can form. Once a monopoly forms, the market ceases to 'work' as they have sufficient power to keep prices, and profits, higher than they could under market with competition.
Of course it is also debatable if markets would work without some patents and copyrights, some markets may just vanish completely without them.
Global warming definitely happens naturally. That doesn't mean the current global warming is natural, or entirely natural, or that we can do nothing to stop it.
The consensus of scientific opinion seems to be moving more and more towards the current warming happening much faster than historical ones, and mankind being partially responsible.
Problem is, by the time we wait for conclusive evidence, it may be too late.
And like the story, when he returns people are doing strange things with the English language, the scary guy has just been elected, and nobody knows history was changed!
It doesn't mean it took 10 million years for one species to become extinct. I means over a 10 million year period, species were become extinct, as you go through the time period, less and less are left. Then for 5 million years the numbers of species surviving drops quickly.
Unless some very drastic happens (humans hunt it to extinction), most species die out over time.
I have no idea what you mean by "we've got 10 to 15 million years of fossil fuel to burn". This is sediment, not fuel. We don't have nearly enough fossil fuel to last anything like that length of time. If you mean we could burn it for that long, and suffer no worse effects, you are making massive unfounded assumptions. That's logic on a par with "once I was in a car crash, and survived, so I should be OK if I am in another one". All instances of global environment change are not the same, and won't have the same effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do so many Slashdotters think the developing world is a giant refugee camp? There are degrees of "devloping".
Yes, people who need food an shelter have higher priorities, as do people in a war zone. However, and this may shock some people, some developing nations (or large parts of them) are not starving and reasonably stable. You know what, people can help them too, and things like this can.
When you have a computer that can understand real human interactions let the world know, becuase it will be a major breakthrough.
Google could certainly improve thier search result, but knocking them for not creating AI seem a bit much.
Being a monopoly isn't necessarily bad, abusing that status is. So far, MS is a monopoly and has abused it. Google isn't, nor is it on track to be. If anything the competition in the search area is increasing. If MS ties search into Window I'll be more worried than anything Google seems to be doing.
How did Google speed up the death of Usenet? I'm not conivnced Usenet is dying, but Google Groups (even the new one they are messing around with) makes Usenet far, far more useful with the archive, and more accessible than news servers.
If you don't like google's cache, put an entry in robots.txt. The only reason it would be seen as breach of copyright is because copyright laws have got crazy out of control.
As for images, see above about copyright laws. Now add in Google only keeps a low res copy.
I've certainly not seen crumb trails "come back", then again the many corporate site I work on always had them, so the user can always get back easily and see where they are going (back buttons don't always do quite what users expect). I really don't see this as a problem, or Google (rather than search engine spiders in general) being responsible.
Some people do tailor their sites for search engines, and they always have done as long as their have been search engines.
You seem to have an irrational dislike of Google, but no actual points to back it up. You could, for example, criticise some of the security flaws in their tools.
It would be nice if all the selling stuff could be moved to Froogle, although I'm not sure how technically possible that would be.
It would also be nice if they could get rid of the other 'search' sites that often get the top spots. You click on a link, and just end up on some crummy search site with no actual info.
If the items have RFID tags the robot can easily find the right item, or part of the store. It is much easier for it to read the tags then try to use optical recognition, or keep a flawless map of where everything is up to date.
This is a sensible use of the technology, don't knock it just becuase there have been some silly ones.
I would think a large majority of PC users are people who would never think of opening the case, and would be perfectly happy and fine with a "welded hood".
They didn't sell well enough.
It doesn't matter if they were technically good, they were, as you say, products, and their purpose was to make money for the company. Not selling well enough to be worth continuing to make is a pretty major flaw from the companies point of view.
A frequent problem is pages that use javascript to check what version a broswers is, rather than what it actually supports, and only display code if the browser is IE and greater than some version.
So even though Firefox now supports some non-standard IE only javascript, it never gets to render it unless you spoof the agent, which has the potential to cause even more problems on pages that rely on broswer and version.
As a web developer, I can't see a good solution the browser writers can use. Savvy users can spoof agents for the sites they know it works on, but the only good solution for the average user is sites writing proper JavaScript checks.
Yellow pages web sites are neat are much more handy, but I'd always want to have an old fashion hard copy around. Quite often when I need to use it, it is for something fairly urgent, if I need an electrician or a plumber quickly I may not be able to look something up on the net.
I definately dig the more technological alternatives, but I wouldn't want them to replace the big book completely.
. Americans seem to remember history far better then Europeans.
Apparently not, because you claim:
With your level of thinking, Germany would be the #1 super power.
If you had any basic knowledge of European history you would know the Soviet Union did more to defeat Germany than the US and UK. The number one super power coming out of the war would much more likely have been them, without a US and UK invasion of mainland Europe the Soviets would never have stopped at East Germany.
As for why America fought WWII? They self-defence. Remember the US didn't join in until attacked by Japan, Germany's ally.
I don't want to sound like some ungrateful European, if the US hadn't joined in, much of the free world wouldn't be. But lets be honest about what happened.
What rights? Tradionally journalists (and is everyone with a web page a journalist?) have not revealed their sources, sometimes risking jail, sometimes going to jail.
If they had a right not reveal their sources, why would that happen?
However, I'm not aware of any particular legal right journalists have about not revealing source. Could you point out the actual source of this "right", where it is legally defined?
Er, 2 is pretty viable with the new MiniMac. Your probably still right that most people will do 1 though.
Hell, most people seem to run unsecure Windows anyway, so it may make little difference.
What are you drivelling about? This is about pirated copies not getting updates through Windows Update. I don't think systems with embedded Windows are going to have issues with that.
Why your hypothetical would have anything to do with releasing a new GTA on Linux (rather than playstation) or Apple removing DRM when iTunes stuff on plays on iPods anyway, and not "MS music players". Not that there are any "MS music players", just music players that support MS DRM. Are there even any Linux based players? Software in MP3 players seems much simpler than that.
But many people enjoy finding things wrong everything.
Besides, I don't think you really can learn to enjoy things (although your tastes can certainly change over time). In my experience I either enjoy something, or I don't. I may bother to try and analyse why I do or don't enjoy it, but even if I don't it doesn't change my actual enjoyment.
Yes vaccines will have a bad effect on a small percentage of people, some may even die. This is true of any medical procedure, there are risks.
You have to weigh the risks with the benefits, all the people who you will save, who won't get the disease because they are vaccinated, and all the people they won't pass it onto.
By you logic we should abandon all medical treatment in third world countries, despite it improving the overall situation, because some people will statistically suffer, maybe die, from it.
Just because some people will suffer whatever choice you make doesn't make the two choices morally equivilent, when one will lessen suffering overall.
Not vaccinating people does not lead to widespread natural immunity. Humans didn't vaccinate people for millions of years, and still caught and spread diseases, some of which crippled or killed them.
The results of vaccines doesn't stay in the gene pool because 'naturally' acquiring immunity doesn't either. Normal immunity is acquired through the human immune systems exposure to a disease (which vaccines mimic), and so developing antibodies. Even if I survive a disease and so become immune, I won't pass it on anyway.
Actually being naturally immune to a disease from birth does seem to happen to a few people for a few diseases, but is very rare. It certainly hasn't become the norm after millions of years. Unless everyone gets exposed to the disease all the time, plenty of people without the advantage will reproduce, so it won't dominate the gene pool. Plus disease change, it's going to be quicker to have a new vaccine, even if it takes decades or centuries, than wait for people to evolve.
Vaccines on the other hand work a lot better than anything else. I have no natural immunity to smallpox, but no fear of catching it.
I've heard of some problems, with some vaccinations, but you can't lump all vaccinations together. Some vaccines are more effective than others (some shots need boosters later in life), some disease change rapidly (flu shots won't protect you for long), some have different levels of risk.
OTOH if you are going to argue thing like, say, smallpox vaccine didn't have a massive effect then you better produce some evidence from somewhere.
Proving global warming is easy, just look at recorded temperaturs.
Proving humans are responsable? Tougher, we defanately release checmics like CO2 and methane that contribute. We know we can unintionall have a big environmental impact (holes in the ozone layer anyone?). How much is us, and how much is a complex weather system we don't fully understand?
As for Bush, he clearly doesn't beleive (or is paid by oil companies enough not to care) that despite the US emiting one quater of CO2 there is any risk.
Why ironic? I haven't seen anyone argue Global Warming hasn't happened in the past without human intervention. In fact, it seems to be one thing everyone accepts.
That doesn't mean that this time it isn't due to us. Or we can't do something about it. Or that it may be happening much more rapidly than it has before.
So an AC on Slashdot has a better idea of the science than published scientists who have studied it for years?
General scientific consensus has been wrong before, but I think I need something a little more convincing that describting them as a group of idiots before dissmissing it.
Maybe not, but web apps can usually be developed, deployed and maintained far faster and easier than writing custom apps. That can often outweight having the best interface, as long as the interface is good enough.
Of course, this patent is not really a valid patent as it is not on an invention (and didn't take time and effort and there's probably prior art and it would likely not have been kept a trade secret).
So, you don't think time and effort went into the mp3 algorithm? You don't think someone would keep a music enocing algorithm secret?
Software alogritms being patented is a seperate issue, but your other points are weak.
Even without patents and copyright monopolies (or oligopolies) can form. Once a monopoly forms, the market ceases to 'work' as they have sufficient power to keep prices, and profits, higher than they could under market with competition.
Of course it is also debatable if markets would work without some patents and copyrights, some markets may just vanish completely without them.
Global warming definitely happens naturally. That doesn't mean the current global warming is natural, or entirely natural, or that we can do nothing to stop it.
The consensus of scientific opinion seems to be moving more and more towards the current warming happening much faster than historical ones, and mankind being partially responsible.
Problem is, by the time we wait for conclusive evidence, it may be too late.
He already has.
And like the story, when he returns people are doing strange things with the English language, the scary guy has just been elected, and nobody knows history was changed!
It doesn't mean it took 10 million years for one species to become extinct. I means over a 10 million year period, species were become extinct, as you go through the time period, less and less are left. Then for 5 million years the numbers of species surviving drops quickly.
Unless some very drastic happens (humans hunt it to extinction), most species die out over time.
I have no idea what you mean by "we've got 10 to 15 million years of fossil fuel to burn". This is sediment, not fuel. We don't have nearly enough fossil fuel to last anything like that length of time. If you mean we could burn it for that long, and suffer no worse effects, you are making massive unfounded assumptions. That's logic on a par with "once I was in a car crash, and survived, so I should be OK if I am in another one". All instances of global environment change are not the same, and won't have the same effect.