As far as I'm aware, they won't issue you thingies unless you -have- finger prints (assuming you have fingers). If it looks like you've intentionally sanded them, that might just be more of a reason to pay much closer attention to you.
Well, given the odds of -finding- any live anywhere in the universe, adding the probabiliby of finding it just in -that- sample and nowhere else doesn't change the odds much.
Depends on time/benefit. Many ``old'' systems are big enough to prevent a rewrite.
My rule of thumb: If you can hack something in Perl in a week (or few) to replace a legacy app, go for it. If it takes longer, spend your time doing something more useful. If it's something that requires a -team- of folks working for a few months... then you better quit before you start (if old system works---just leave it alone).
Data centers spend millions (literally) on storage. Try pricing a few hundred terabyte solutions, and you'll see.
Besides, if you could store all of music/movies/images that where -ever- created on your home drive (not just those copies of libraries of congress), why not? I'd certainly wouldn't mind having all that storage---cheaply.
Everyone knows that a growing company loses money, no? (ah, Dilbert!)
10,000 employees??? What the heck are they doing? 20,000 employees next year? How the heck do they manage to coordinate anything??? Do they even -have- a corporate culture, or agenda?
Lets see... 10,000 employees, on average, costing the corp ~$200k each... that's... $20 billion a year... in salaries/benefits/office space/etc. Are they even making that much? Are they paying their workers with ``profits'' from stock sales?
Either their salaries are low (and employees work for stock options), or something is fishy.
I'm actually curious. With all the DNA data, what is the -shortest- sequence that doesn't occur anywhere, what is its length, is it statistically significant that it doesn't occur, is there any biological reason why it doesn't occur... (dna data is pretty ``random'' [heh]---doesn't compress well wtih gzip, etc., so if some short sequence doesn't occur, there might be some interesting reason behind it).
Dunno if it's worth 1m though. I can picture a pretty simple program to find shortest sequences that don't occur anywhere. Maybe I'll do that when I get home...:-)
PageRank is wonderful. My point is that folks don't make manual links often now a days. Err... I mean, most links are automatic (ie: you post, your url is part of the header in the message). Many forum/blog postings are automated as well (where spammers just dump links). There are less and less ``personal'' sites where humans make links to -good- sites that they actually ``endorse'' (by linking).
Look at most sites... most links are boilderplate headers/footers or mavigation menus. Blogs have links, but those are usually precisely the sites spammers setup and target (so naturally blogs shouldn't contribute a whole lot to pagerank). What does contribute to pagerank is getting your site on yahoo, cnn, msnbc, etc., but then that's just decision of a few editors (and not the `internet community' [whatever that is]; ie: site could be total crap, but cnn editor likes it).
ie: slowly but surely, pagerank is becoming biased (and thus, irrelevant).
The problem is that back then, when someone setup a site, they put effort into it. Links usually meant something. Now a days... do links really matter? Not really. Any wikipedia page has hundreds of links---most irrelevant. This page alone has many links---most irrelevant. All internet usage is driven by Google. The problem is that google uses those -links- to rank its content. So google made links irrelevant---and the lack of good links will eventually make google irrelevant.
Setting up a profitable site isn't "a few hundred bucks", and it's not a ``small'' investment unless you're a very small shop and working on your own (or with your friends) for ``free'' (on your own time).
As soon as you start paying folks for work, it gets really expensive (a few good developers, consultants, sales folks, rent(!), and you're looking at a multimillion dollar operation---unless of course they work for peanuts, which most good developers don't).
Also, the idea of `setting up something', and then sitting and relaxing (supposedly watching your account grow) is...misguided. No business has managed to do that---no matter the domain (unless of course you're `the founder' of a successful corp, and have your minions do your bidding---but even then, you'll likely to fail quickly unless you keep on running/struggling, etc.).
So "web2.0" startups have: high risk of failure, no sustainable profits (you can't have -everyone- living off advertising---someone needs to be -paying- advertisers), and incredible expense that goes along with having an IT corp that employs lots of qualified folks. Your chances of success... are slim: venture capitalists are pretty optimistic folk, I gather---or are in it for the short term, until they sell their venture to the next, more optimistic, gambler/investor.
I don't see what would be so bad about them building something -standard- and easy to use? Like just store a high resolution mpeg4 file titled movie-name.avi, or something, on the high capacity disk. no encryption, nothing. Anyone can open it in Linux/Mac/Windows, etc., pretty easy to build player, integrate the thing into anything, etc. Also pretty easy for -users- to make their own disks (home videos). No need to expensive proprietary software (powerdvd?), etc.
Anyone who -will- copy DVDs will still copy DVDs anyways (and by the time they're downloadable, encryption doesn't even come into the picture). And it only takes 1 person to rip the DVD! Why not make it easy to use for everyone, and have the market create all sorts of extentions that go along with having a huge amount of storage, and easily movable video content.
The law has to be enforced (and obayed). Period. If the law is stupid, then get rid of the law. But if the law exists, then it should be enforced.
I'd welcome less laws. The problem is that if most laws aren't enforced, then you're not exactly sure whether you're in violation of any at any given time---and thus can be arrested/fined for `no reason' (well, any reason) at any time without having much of a ground to complain on ('cause ignorance of the `law' that isn't usually enforced, except right then and there).
They can make a fine 10x more for shooting a robotic state-setup deer. (kind of like the fine/punnishment for destroying a red-light camera is several orders of magnitude than a ticket for running a red-light).
ie: ``But it's not a real deer, and I knew it wasn't a real deer when I shot it'' argument would be met with ``Fine, then you're liable to replace this damanged property that you knowing damaged, along with a 30k fine.''
I only wear mine to meetings. Sometimes you're not facing the clock (and have cell phone off, and in a pocket). Also hooking at the watch hints that folks should start wrapping up.
I wonder how much electronic waste is from cables and wall warts?
How will those poor struggling phone manufacturers will make a living if they can't sell an adapter for $39.99?
And imagine the shock of...having everyone connect their phone upto their PC via USB without buying some proprietary hookup? (and having to re-buy that hookup every time someone upgrades the phone?). That's a lot of $$$!
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like I'm going to the bank today to purchase 1,000 dollars worth of pennies! ...and pay for it using pennies!
My first generation Pentium came up with 41.999999
(DNA rules!)
Right!
We need to organize a lobbying campaign right away...
I'll do it tomorrow. Maybe.
W-E-A-P-O-L-O-G-I-S... ...possibly, it wouldn't have the same affect as huge fiery letters would.
DNA rox!
You plan on taping TV shows with a camcorder?
You got to admit, this would bypass any DRM restrictions.
As far as I'm aware, they won't issue you thingies unless you -have- finger prints (assuming you have fingers). If it looks like you've intentionally sanded them, that might just be more of a reason to pay much closer attention to you.
Well, given the odds of -finding- any live anywhere in the universe, adding the probabiliby of finding it just in -that- sample and nowhere else doesn't change the odds much.
The title implies that NASA killed off all of the martians
Unless all of martian life was conviniently located in just that sample, and nowhere else.
Depends on time/benefit. Many ``old'' systems are big enough to prevent a rewrite.
My rule of thumb: If you can hack something in Perl in a week (or few) to replace a legacy app, go for it. If it takes longer, spend your time doing something more useful. If it's something that requires a -team- of folks working for a few months... then you better quit before you start (if old system works---just leave it alone).
Data centers spend millions (literally) on storage. Try pricing a few hundred terabyte solutions, and you'll see.
Besides, if you could store all of music/movies/images that where -ever- created on your home drive (not just those copies of libraries of congress), why not? I'd certainly wouldn't mind having all that storage---cheaply.
Well, it's $2B actually, not $20B.
Meh. Confusing zeroes...
Everyone knows that a growing company loses money, no? (ah, Dilbert!)
10,000 employees??? What the heck are they doing? 20,000 employees next year? How the heck do they manage to coordinate anything??? Do they even -have- a corporate culture, or agenda?
Lets see... 10,000 employees, on average, costing the corp ~$200k each... that's... $20 billion a year... in salaries/benefits/office space/etc. Are they even making that much? Are they paying their workers with ``profits'' from stock sales?
Either their salaries are low (and employees work for stock options), or something is fishy.
I'm actually curious. With all the DNA data, what is the -shortest- sequence that doesn't occur anywhere, what is its length, is it statistically significant that it doesn't occur, is there any biological reason why it doesn't occur... (dna data is pretty ``random'' [heh]---doesn't compress well wtih gzip, etc., so if some short sequence doesn't occur, there might be some interesting reason behind it).
:-)
Dunno if it's worth 1m though. I can picture a pretty simple program to find shortest sequences that don't occur anywhere. Maybe I'll do that when I get home...
PageRank is wonderful. My point is that folks don't make manual links often now a days. Err... I mean, most links are automatic (ie: you post, your url is part of the header in the message). Many forum/blog postings are automated as well (where spammers just dump links). There are less and less ``personal'' sites where humans make links to -good- sites that they actually ``endorse'' (by linking).
Look at most sites... most links are boilderplate headers/footers or mavigation menus. Blogs have links, but those are usually precisely the sites spammers setup and target (so naturally blogs shouldn't contribute a whole lot to pagerank). What does contribute to pagerank is getting your site on yahoo, cnn, msnbc, etc., but then that's just decision of a few editors (and not the `internet community' [whatever that is]; ie: site could be total crap, but cnn editor likes it).
ie: slowly but surely, pagerank is becoming biased (and thus, irrelevant).
...the killer app that made the Web truly useful
The problem is that back then, when someone setup a site, they put effort into it. Links usually meant something. Now a days... do links really matter? Not really. Any wikipedia page has hundreds of links---most irrelevant. This page alone has many links---most irrelevant. All internet usage is driven by Google. The problem is that google uses those -links- to rank its content. So google made links irrelevant---and the lack of good links will eventually make google irrelevant.
Setting up a profitable site isn't "a few hundred bucks", and it's not a ``small'' investment unless you're a very small shop and working on your own (or with your friends) for ``free'' (on your own time).
...misguided. No business has managed to do that---no matter the domain (unless of course you're `the founder' of a successful corp, and have your minions do your bidding---but even then, you'll likely to fail quickly unless you keep on running/struggling, etc.).
As soon as you start paying folks for work, it gets really expensive (a few good developers, consultants, sales folks, rent(!), and you're looking at a multimillion dollar operation---unless of course they work for peanuts, which most good developers don't).
Also, the idea of `setting up something', and then sitting and relaxing (supposedly watching your account grow) is
So "web2.0" startups have: high risk of failure, no sustainable profits (you can't have -everyone- living off advertising---someone needs to be -paying- advertisers), and incredible expense that goes along with having an IT corp that employs lots of qualified folks. Your chances of success... are slim: venture capitalists are pretty optimistic folk, I gather---or are in it for the short term, until they sell their venture to the next, more optimistic, gambler/investor.
In the year 3000, all they'd have to do is follow Nibbler around with a pooper scooper.
Matter so heavy that each pound of which weights 1000 pounds!
I don't see what would be so bad about them building something -standard- and easy to use? Like just store a high resolution mpeg4 file titled movie-name.avi, or something, on the high capacity disk. no encryption, nothing. Anyone can open it in Linux/Mac/Windows, etc., pretty easy to build player, integrate the thing into anything, etc. Also pretty easy for -users- to make their own disks (home videos). No need to expensive proprietary software (powerdvd?), etc.
Anyone who -will- copy DVDs will still copy DVDs anyways (and by the time they're downloadable, encryption doesn't even come into the picture). And it only takes 1 person to rip the DVD! Why not make it easy to use for everyone, and have the market create all sorts of extentions that go along with having a huge amount of storage, and easily movable video content.
The law has to be enforced (and obayed). Period. If the law is stupid, then get rid of the law. But if the law exists, then it should be enforced.
I'd welcome less laws. The problem is that if most laws aren't enforced, then you're not exactly sure whether you're in violation of any at any given time---and thus can be arrested/fined for `no reason' (well, any reason) at any time without having much of a ground to complain on ('cause ignorance of the `law' that isn't usually enforced, except right then and there).
They can make a fine 10x more for shooting a robotic state-setup deer. (kind of like the fine/punnishment for destroying a red-light camera is several orders of magnitude than a ticket for running a red-light).
ie: ``But it's not a real deer, and I knew it wasn't a real deer when I shot it'' argument would be met with ``Fine, then you're liable to replace this damanged property that you knowing damaged, along with a 30k fine.''
...immense sums required to bring a drug from investigational status to clinical reality
I'm really curious where all that money is going. Maybe stuff is expensive -due- to patents to begin with?
Also, don't ``mass market paperbacks'' sell for $5-$10 anyway? So why bother with these things?
I only wear mine to meetings. Sometimes you're not facing the clock (and have cell phone off, and in a pocket). Also hooking at the watch hints that folks should start wrapping up.
Or maybe you're less (by 18%!) worried about dying...and therefore, you don't.
I wonder how much electronic waste is from cables and wall warts?
How will those poor struggling phone manufacturers will make a living if they can't sell an adapter for $39.99?
And imagine the shock of...having everyone connect their phone upto their PC via USB without buying some proprietary hookup? (and having to re-buy that hookup every time someone upgrades the phone?). That's a lot of $$$!