Do what you will be if that's going to be your attitude towards it than don't act like you have a real interest in seeing this technology along. You're looking for star trek technology on an oil budget. It will NEVER work that way.
And I wasn't talking about the home computing market either.
Don't forget that early electronic computers weren't "viable" alternatives to guys who knew how to really use an abacus either.
Killing a technology that is in it's infancy because it doesn't produce the exact results that you are looking for today is extremely short sighted. The bottom line is that ethanol production can be refined to make better gains but if the technology never gets off the ground? There will be growing pains with any alternative fuel, are we going to back down from each one because we can't get the bang out of them that we can out of oil? If that's the case than let's just drop this whole pretense of being willing to do what's needed and just let Detroit go about their normal business with the internal combustion engine instead of wasting money and time on alternative this and that.
Maybe you can do your best to clean up your own back yard first instead of waiting for the government to do something. If all these supporters who voted for Obama refused to play either big oil or big media's game than the issues involved would cease to exist. It's only going to take a small portion of the population to take an active (read: economically fueled) interest in these problems and a shift will start to happen.
It's a shame that under Bush we were starting to see a swing away from oil by ethanol use (granted, it's a minor step but it's more than most naysayers ever did) but today ethanol is a dying market. People must get behind this with their voices and with their dollars or it will not work. It's that simple. If you let the economy fuel your voice in these matters the powers that be will be sure to do what they have to to maintain control.
Would you expect them to squander the obvious opportunity to garner billions in cash just to satisfy your prudish sensibility?
Sadly, this is exactly what these naysayers demand. They keep the joke rolling around about Viagra for years even though the truth of the drug came out before the first pill was ever even sold. Gotta love the meme mentality.
They'd rather throw the baby out with the bath water to satisfy their rantings and ravings instead of giving the industry a honest look and deciding for themselves if 20/20 or 60 Minutes didn't go out of it's way to drum up some sensational headline. This is much like the economic crisis of today. Trillions of dollars have been lost but the average guy on the street is still screaming "they spent 5 million on a corporate retreat!?!?!" Granted, it's a high figure and it is wasteful spending but the media has us so focused on the 2-3% spent on retreats, bonuses and CEO paychecks that we're not even considering what happened to the 97% that automagically disappeared.
Funny how many here caw on about Fox news but they're no better informed by what they think is legitimate news organizations.
Actually, 70% of all R&D costs are spent on clinical trials. This has to happen for every single drug regardless if it is simply slightly different than a precursor. Clinical trials can not be paid for with public funding! (http://www.ifpma.org/issues/index.php?id=421)
It's funny how if people complain about problems with the latest ATI video card being 600 dollars we hear the peanut gallery mock about early adopters but when people complain about the same thing involving drugs we hear that it's nothing but greed on the manufacturers part.
Drugs cost a ton to do R&D on. Let's be at least a little sympathetic to the plight of manufacturers trying to gain back their costs involved in bringing you the latest cures.
So flat panel monitors are a sign of how advanced someone is? And can you quote me a source that shows that the Bush administration was using Windows ME?
I'd also like to question your lumping Google in with companies we should just go to. Google has a pretty shaky record at this point and most of it's cool factor is still mostly untested by government standards.
I think you need to work on your theory here before making sweeping statements than "The naysayers will have their marketing misinformation and obsolete disinformation." If anything you've completely failed to provide any real information.
If you have to belong to a private club to drink outside of your home how does this cause a problem for tourism? What tourists are joining these clubs just to have a few drinks during their visits to the state? Maybe the "private club" concept is different in Utah than PA but around here if you had to join a private club to get a drink it just wouldn't happen in the matter of a week or two.
You may have valid points but I think you place too much value on them.
The majority of "people who do nothing on their computer but check email, watch youtube and browse social networking sites" have no interest in learning a new OS even if it means get a PC for 50 bucks cheaper or shaving a few seconds off of transferring their pictures from a SD card. These are the same people who are feeding The Geek Squad a few $20s to do a system restore on their PCs. How do you think these same people are going to react when their new Kodak 10 megapixel SLR doesn't come with some Linux executable GUI that whisks their photos into neat little albums? How are these same people going to feel when their new iPod Touch doesn't work with Linux?
The GP was correct but he promoted his ideas in a way that most people can't relate to. Without application support Linux just can not do the job. The average user has no real desire to move from Windows to another platform, if anything they want Windows to "just work." You can claim that Linux "just works" all you want but until I can buy a vast majority of the little gadgets and gizmos everyone seems so in love with in their new Internets [sic] life and have it work with a majority of the distros on the CD ROM they get with the item it just doesn't work. Windows has this capability. It has it in spades. And Apple is moving faster and faster up that chain. But Linux? Not at all.
Maybe I'm taking you wrong but I'd like to think that the vast majority of EVE players, myself included, would never see real harm come to someone else over our game. BUT... It's still a game. Your post would be just as relevent about 99.98% of all articles on Slashdot, why wait to choose EVE to be the punching bag of what you feel is misguided interest? Why not instead shout down all the fans who paid thousands of dollars to see the latest Superbowl? Or perhaps the millions who paid more attention to what Michelle Obama was wearing during Inaguration Day instead of what the platform of the new administration was?
What do you think the average EVE player should be doing about the global situation?
Ultimatly, I'm sure everyone reading this and posting here is well aware that there are bad things going on all over the world. But we are who we are. Everyone produces in their own way and everyone takes something from the system on what some unfortunate souls in the Congo would consider a selfish way. By some people's standards even you are living a better life than they are.
So what exactly do you want from us? Do you want every thought on our mind to be about how horrible the world can be? Do you want every article on Slashdot to be about what you feel is most important in the world? I honor your work and sacrifice but I think it's out of line when you say stuff like "But there are enough people who are so totally insulated from this sort of thing that the EVE Online game is vastly more important to them."
Trying to make one big distro is absolutely the wrong thinking, it would be impossible to decide on anything first of all, and its been proved this concept doesn't work already, by a company called Microsoft.
Yeah, I'd never trust the company that has ~88% market share. It's absolute proof that they know nothing.
This isn't a firing. This is layoffs. There is a system to doing layoffs that companies must abide by or face the consequences. You're acting like it's personal.
Sure, companies should keep on dead wood through a decline so that they don't just ride the edge but they go over and EVERYONE loses their jobs.
I know that it's a popular option around here for the future of MS but try to understand that keeping the same staff to produce less product isn't a very good business model. A company should not be forced into the red before they do what's best. AFAIC Microsoft has an obligation to shareholders to keep things running in a possitive direction.
Funny how when a company does this it's nothing but greed but as their going out of business so many around here cry out that they didn't do enough to adopt to changing market coniditions. Pretty ironic, eh?
I know this is/. and I know people can't be bothered to read...
Nice. What about my post says that I didn't know that:
However, if you'd been following the story, you'd know the White House IT people dropped the ball. When the Obama staff walked in at 12:01 to take over, they had phones that didn't work, computers that didn't work, users couldn't log in, and the e-mail servers, for which the White House is infamously known, seemed to be down.
What I was saying is that if there was a dedicated staff (ie. independent of the administration) that this kind of thing wouldn't have happened.
The problem is that every administration brings in their own IT staff which, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't get their hands into anything until day 1.
It's a pretty poor system, IMHO. Imagine a complete refresh of IT staff in an office. There would be chaos for weeks.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I've been reading in the media that it's a milestone and a victory. So it must already be successful.
Do what you will be if that's going to be your attitude towards it than don't act like you have a real interest in seeing this technology along. You're looking for star trek technology on an oil budget. It will NEVER work that way.
And I wasn't talking about the home computing market either.
Don't forget that early electronic computers weren't "viable" alternatives to guys who knew how to really use an abacus either.
Killing a technology that is in it's infancy because it doesn't produce the exact results that you are looking for today is extremely short sighted. The bottom line is that ethanol production can be refined to make better gains but if the technology never gets off the ground? There will be growing pains with any alternative fuel, are we going to back down from each one because we can't get the bang out of them that we can out of oil? If that's the case than let's just drop this whole pretense of being willing to do what's needed and just let Detroit go about their normal business with the internal combustion engine instead of wasting money and time on alternative this and that.
Maybe you can do your best to clean up your own back yard first instead of waiting for the government to do something. If all these supporters who voted for Obama refused to play either big oil or big media's game than the issues involved would cease to exist. It's only going to take a small portion of the population to take an active (read: economically fueled) interest in these problems and a shift will start to happen.
It's a shame that under Bush we were starting to see a swing away from oil by ethanol use (granted, it's a minor step but it's more than most naysayers ever did) but today ethanol is a dying market. People must get behind this with their voices and with their dollars or it will not work. It's that simple. If you let the economy fuel your voice in these matters the powers that be will be sure to do what they have to to maintain control.
It's not like politicians have really cared that much about what the constitution has had to say for the past few decades anyway.
Again, sorry you missed the entire point. Wildly actually, but as I can tell so did most slashdotters.
Sorry that you completely missed the point.
Would you expect them to squander the obvious opportunity to garner billions in cash just to satisfy your prudish sensibility?
Sadly, this is exactly what these naysayers demand. They keep the joke rolling around about Viagra for years even though the truth of the drug came out before the first pill was ever even sold. Gotta love the meme mentality.
They'd rather throw the baby out with the bath water to satisfy their rantings and ravings instead of giving the industry a honest look and deciding for themselves if 20/20 or 60 Minutes didn't go out of it's way to drum up some sensational headline. This is much like the economic crisis of today. Trillions of dollars have been lost but the average guy on the street is still screaming "they spent 5 million on a corporate retreat!?!?!" Granted, it's a high figure and it is wasteful spending but the media has us so focused on the 2-3% spent on retreats, bonuses and CEO paychecks that we're not even considering what happened to the 97% that automagically disappeared.
Funny how many here caw on about Fox news but they're no better informed by what they think is legitimate news organizations.
Actually, 70% of all R&D costs are spent on clinical trials. This has to happen for every single drug regardless if it is simply slightly different than a precursor. Clinical trials can not be paid for with public funding! (http://www.ifpma.org/issues/index.php?id=421)
I think it's time you revise your rant.
shitholiness
I think I see a new meme coming out of this one.
It's funny how if people complain about problems with the latest ATI video card being 600 dollars we hear the peanut gallery mock about early adopters but when people complain about the same thing involving drugs we hear that it's nothing but greed on the manufacturers part.
Drugs cost a ton to do R&D on. Let's be at least a little sympathetic to the plight of manufacturers trying to gain back their costs involved in bringing you the latest cures.
So flat panel monitors are a sign of how advanced someone is? And can you quote me a source that shows that the Bush administration was using Windows ME?
I'd also like to question your lumping Google in with companies we should just go to. Google has a pretty shaky record at this point and most of it's cool factor is still mostly untested by government standards.
I think you need to work on your theory here before making sweeping statements than "The naysayers will have their marketing misinformation and obsolete disinformation." If anything you've completely failed to provide any real information.
I can't speak for anyone else but I play video games so I can shoot people in the nutsack.
If you use my idea on how to reward your employees for their ideas do I get a shot in your raffle too?
But at the same time I can drink a beer and get no real effect from it. It comes down to a matter of tolerences.
Actually, there is one spin that can be put on all of this... You can drink without getting to the point of getting drunk.
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for legalization of marijuana but it's simply not the same as alcohol in that aspect.
If you have to belong to a private club to drink outside of your home how does this cause a problem for tourism? What tourists are joining these clubs just to have a few drinks during their visits to the state? Maybe the "private club" concept is different in Utah than PA but around here if you had to join a private club to get a drink it just wouldn't happen in the matter of a week or two.
You may have valid points but I think you place too much value on them.
The majority of "people who do nothing on their computer but check email, watch youtube and browse social networking sites" have no interest in learning a new OS even if it means get a PC for 50 bucks cheaper or shaving a few seconds off of transferring their pictures from a SD card. These are the same people who are feeding The Geek Squad a few $20s to do a system restore on their PCs. How do you think these same people are going to react when their new Kodak 10 megapixel SLR doesn't come with some Linux executable GUI that whisks their photos into neat little albums? How are these same people going to feel when their new iPod Touch doesn't work with Linux?
The GP was correct but he promoted his ideas in a way that most people can't relate to. Without application support Linux just can not do the job. The average user has no real desire to move from Windows to another platform, if anything they want Windows to "just work." You can claim that Linux "just works" all you want but until I can buy a vast majority of the little gadgets and gizmos everyone seems so in love with in their new Internets [sic] life and have it work with a majority of the distros on the CD ROM they get with the item it just doesn't work. Windows has this capability. It has it in spades. And Apple is moving faster and faster up that chain. But Linux? Not at all.
Maybe I'm taking you wrong but I'd like to think that the vast majority of EVE players, myself included, would never see real harm come to someone else over our game. BUT... It's still a game. Your post would be just as relevent about 99.98% of all articles on Slashdot, why wait to choose EVE to be the punching bag of what you feel is misguided interest? Why not instead shout down all the fans who paid thousands of dollars to see the latest Superbowl? Or perhaps the millions who paid more attention to what Michelle Obama was wearing during Inaguration Day instead of what the platform of the new administration was?
What do you think the average EVE player should be doing about the global situation?
Ultimatly, I'm sure everyone reading this and posting here is well aware that there are bad things going on all over the world. But we are who we are. Everyone produces in their own way and everyone takes something from the system on what some unfortunate souls in the Congo would consider a selfish way. By some people's standards even you are living a better life than they are.
So what exactly do you want from us? Do you want every thought on our mind to be about how horrible the world can be? Do you want every article on Slashdot to be about what you feel is most important in the world? I honor your work and sacrifice but I think it's out of line when you say stuff like "But there are enough people who are so totally insulated from this sort of thing that the EVE Online game is vastly more important to them."
Trying to make one big distro is absolutely the wrong thinking, it would be impossible to decide on anything first of all, and its been proved this concept doesn't work already, by a company called Microsoft.
Yeah, I'd never trust the company that has ~88% market share. It's absolute proof that they know nothing.
This isn't a firing. This is layoffs. There is a system to doing layoffs that companies must abide by or face the consequences. You're acting like it's personal.
Sure, companies should keep on dead wood through a decline so that they don't just ride the edge but they go over and EVERYONE loses their jobs.
I know that it's a popular option around here for the future of MS but try to understand that keeping the same staff to produce less product isn't a very good business model. A company should not be forced into the red before they do what's best. AFAIC Microsoft has an obligation to shareholders to keep things running in a possitive direction.
Funny how when a company does this it's nothing but greed but as their going out of business so many around here cry out that they didn't do enough to adopt to changing market coniditions. Pretty ironic, eh?
All kernels are equal but some kernels are more equal than others.
I know this is /. and I know people can't be bothered to read...
Nice. What about my post says that I didn't know that:
However, if you'd been following the story, you'd know the White House IT people dropped the ball. When the Obama staff walked in at 12:01 to take over, they had phones that didn't work, computers that didn't work, users couldn't log in, and the e-mail servers, for which the White House is infamously known, seemed to be down.
What I was saying is that if there was a dedicated staff (ie. independent of the administration) that this kind of thing wouldn't have happened.
The problem is that every administration brings in their own IT staff which, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't get their hands into anything until day 1.
It's a pretty poor system, IMHO. Imagine a complete refresh of IT staff in an office. There would be chaos for weeks.