This theoretical asteroid would know no man-made boundaries. It's unlikely that the overall effect that it will produce would be able to be narrowed down to a single nation or even a small group of them. The ripple such an event would cause would touch everyone's life in some fashion.
Either way, I have zero faith in the UN being able to put together anything bigger or more complex than a boy scout weekend camping trip without massive corruption, waste and/or bad blood being created between member nations.
"It's rare in human history that a billionth of anything has been shipped by one company," said Logitech's general manager Rory Dooley. "Look at any other industry and it has never happened. This is a significant milestone."
The people at Coca Cola and Anheuser Bush are pissing themselves out of laughter right about now. Coca Cola is likely to do that in a day.
Hey now! People are being forced to buy the Windows Asus and are installing Linux over it. It's that damned Microsoft tax. Don't you know that? That's how MS and Apple keep the Linux marketshare down artificially. We all know this.
Firefox specifically is proving that one doesn't need MS to do normal activity
Apples and oranges. The last time I looked I can run FF on a Windows box. Users switching from IE to FF means nothing in the long run. If I had to run an alternate OS to run FF I guess I wouldn't be seeing much of FF.
When no website "breaks" because one is using FF, they subtly say "wow". When they learn of new features (tabs) in IE and realize that those were available in FF long before MS got to them, they go "wow".
Actually, I know of a lot of people having problems with the new FF running content on MySpace. Or is that a stupid user error? If it is I'd love to be enlightened.
And as for having a feature first? Big whoop. Pontiac had airbags before any other auto manufacturer, IIRC. Does that make me give Pontiac a second look today? Hell no. Far from it.
The next big push should be OpenOffice. My kid comes in and shows me her "Powerpoint" (her words) and I know that I haven't put MS Office on her computer, then I point out that it isn't "PowerPoint" but a presentation. She realizes it isn't Microsoft Office and I now have someone who can tell her friends "I didn't use MS Office" (and she will too!).
Yeah, and it is great that she can use it to her own ends. This doesn't make it a superior product. Just like the number of users who pirate Photoshop when all they need is Gimp. So there certainly is a niche for it at this point but honesty, MS's gains with Office is still in the corporate market place and I haven't seen it budge yet.
When people realize they can surf the net (already there) and make "PowerPoints" and "Word Documents" and "Excel Spreadsheet", it will increase the options for discovering that one CAN get along quite nicely without Microsoft.
Aside from a small home MS Office market this doesn't mean much in the ways of market share. As long as these tools are on Windows boxes there's not much for MS to lose. Apple made some gains, Linux kind of did but there still isn't any real traction and the usage curve of OS X vs Linux since the release of OS X is a sure mark of how much Linux is still being toyed with by the mass populace.
I've long said that 2007-8 is going to be the beginning of the end for MS. The writing is on the walls, it is just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses.
It's happening again? Geez. To hear people talk this up around here MS nailed it's coffin lid shut with Windows 98SE. But we're still firmly planted in Microsoft's product today. I'm all for alternatives, and use many of them myself, but let's keep it in perspective. Even at the rate Apple is going it's going to be many years after Windows 7 finally hits the shelves before they get the kinds of numbers it's going to take to get a majority of software vendors to take notice. MS has a damn good chance at redeeming itself in the meantime. Look at how bad a blunder ME was. Today the Joe Sixpacks who had to deal with that train wreck of an OS just shrug it off as they turn back to their XP machines. Vista will be no different of a story in another couple of years and we will still be hearing the same thing around here from the same people.
And I'll be 100% honest, I really use to be big on the anti-MS band wagon until all the promises that were made to me as a user from all these different camps became mainly vaporware. I spent years of talking down MS and saying that great alternatives are going to throw down this giant any day. Tick tock, tick tock... Apple is the only ones who've ever delivered and I really really hate the idea of Apple would become if they had MS type of numbers in the desktop community. I'd definitely go Linux before I'd go Apple only because of politics.
The only people who are getting a thrill out of these kinds of stories are Apple users and those who are so blindly anti-MS that they can't see what the future will hold if Apple takes the brass ring. And believe me, Apple has a much better chance at doing what the Linux community thinks it will do. The numbers are proof.
I really don't understand why this was modded as flamebait. The fact is that to sell new alternative fuel technologies to people we're going to need to approach the public's perception of the current problem on many levels. As long as it gets something better on the roads who cares if someone is doing it for the environment or for political reasons. I see it as win-win. In fact, I think it's going to bring about more and more people if we keep adding to the reasons why we should move in this direction. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.
This is another area of a common ground that many of us can agree on but we let nit picking lead to infighting that holds us back. Common goals shouldn't suffer because someone else who's working towards them is doing it for a different reason than you are.
Unless I'm reading into this wrong, you're missing something...
For Obama's plan for the US to be the leader in alternative fuels we're going to need Detroit. He needs an auto industry that he can lay hands on and manipulate. Otherwise he's going to be relying on the goodwill of other auto makers to meet him half way to his goal and that's probably still going to involve subsidies. If these subsidies are going to exist either way I'd much rather have them here than abroad. By using resources in the US he will have some say and legislation will give him a hand to work with these assets.
We need to draw a line between the oil industry and the auto industry. As long as we treat them as the same we're never going to rise above the muck that keeps alternative fuels beached. It's a hard pill to swallow but it's still there regardless of our outlook on all of it.
Space is crammed with a chaotic mess of strange crap on the macroscale and a lot more weird junk on the micro. Quasars, dark matter, nebulae, dark energy, black holes, virtual particles, gluon soup, quarks....
Space is only chaotic if you don't yet know the math. In time, regardless if there is a God or not, the cosmos will be much like a simple clock.
People from times past seen comets and meteor shows as chaotic because they didn't understand the math and the mechanism. We have that today as well but as observations increase the order of these events will work themselves out as we have worked them out to a logical conclusion much like they did from the times gone by.
All this is going to do is fan the fires of further ignorance.
I do not dismiss religion in and of itself. That being said, if it makes your day to think that order is a sign of God than feel free to take comfort in that, I have no real problem with it. But at the same time don't think that it's ultimate proof (as in science), there are enough explanations without needing to raise the name of a deity to defend what appears as order to you.
For me? I think things work well in their proper frame. I'd like to think that my morality and outlook on life would be relatively the same regardless of a God figure or not. That's good enough for me. I certainly don't lose any sleep over it.
Are you crazy? Do you realize how much a choking hazard keys are? I know ThinkPads are durable but they're not indestructible. Spend the 20 bucks on a toy that has the same intellectual return value. These toys are designed with the safety of a child in mind, a ThinkPad isn't.
Can you tell us the law that makes this a criminal act? The last I seen they're innocent until proven guilty.
And I'm truely interested in a real answer to this. We had a bit of speculation on this subject last week and I have yet to see anyone come out and name the legislation that makes this a prosecutable offense. My guess is that either there is no law about this or that Obama would rather not have the issue become anything more than it already is in order to avoid bad blood or suspicion.
After all, look at how both candidates slandered each other openly during their run for office. If they really wanted to make an issue of it they could but imagine the backlash.
The universe is believed to be composed of about 25% dark matter, but there has been little evidence of it. This discovery, if correct, would be the first.
If this would be the first evidence how can we already have a little evidence of it?
How much technology did they have in the first place?
You see, I'm still not sold on the idea that PCs in every classroom is a solution to the woes of modern education but it would be nice to know what your experience is compared to mind. I haven't been in a non-college classroom in nearly 20 years and at that point it was mainly the computer labs plus a handful scattered between other departments. The PCs outside of the computer lab didn't seem to serve any educational use at all even though students had access to them.
Also, a bit off topic but, why isn't this an AskSlashdot topic? I think that line is getting badly blurred.
Actually, that's very legitimate of Verizon to say when it comes down to it.
Verizon has zero legal authority in this matter. God only knows if anyone is ever going to get prosecuted in this case. You can't be brought up on legal charges for violating company policy if the actions were legal. And as you said, I don't know if there is a law against what those who violated company policy may have done.
So they may well be in violation of company policy and still be legally in the right. Heck, my company can fire me for passing out political/religious materials while on the job but it's certainly not illegal.
If nothing else Verizon may be saving themselves some time against a frivolous lawsuit of slander if someone gets the boot over this incident. It sounds outrageous but someone may be able to hold them liable for putting out a memo that would make it seem like anyone involved in the incident who violated company policy was also a criminal in their actions. Deumber lawsuits have been filed for less.
Actually, they're probably going to review Mozilla's tax-exemption status. I don't know what the law is on this but I imagine that there are implications of having such a large chunk of funding come from one entity and having the same entity glean a clear and direct benefit from the not-for-profit organization.
Seeings as to where I've made no claims to being religious I guess the jokes on you, kind of. You don't think that atheists can respect difference in religious thinking? I'm starting to understand why you're posting AC.
As for murder... you think it's ok to let someone attack you, potentially to the point of death, without taking steps to prevent it. In this knowing that they may go on to kill others? Again, I can understand why you posted AC.
Seriously, there are some mighty logic holes going on there. If Dawkins holds these same kind of generalizations and illogic I know I can pretty much ignore him too. The shame is that I don't know if you're just name dropping or if you really represent his way of thinking. I know many fine atheists out there and I certainly have no problem with their ideals but this sounds fairly fanatical.
Every day on/. I see people throw away someone else's statements without any sort of convincing argument or persuasion, and it's lazy.
I would feel the need to back it up if it were an opinion but this is a fact. Regardless if you believe what the Upanishads say is a whole different matter. You're making it sound like someone using a mathematics principle is lazy if they don't explain all the proofs associated with it. Are you really going to take it that far?
If the Upanishads say different, explain the differences. I'm not asking for a treatise here, just a quick explanation of how the Upanishads' definition of the soul is different.
Ok, now this is valid. I don't expect everyone here to be familiar with the Upanishads. The basics is that all life has a soul and this soul transmigrates on the time of death to another living form, this is the basis of reincarnation. So even as the bodies a soul takes change the soul is essentially the same. So with this in mind it is possible that a soul can pass from a human body to the body of a goat, for example.
And that's the really simple form of it all. There are various sects out there that have their own take on it so if we were to get a few eyes on this post who are familiar with the Upanishads you'd find that there is some different ideas on what takes place.
The religious will argue that a soul is something unique to mankind
Really? That's not what I've read in the Upanishads. Please don't lump all religions or all religious thinkings as one and the same. The simple approach to theism (and atheism for that matter) is not only ignorant but also breeds bias and prejudice that is unfounded.
Care to back that up? Seriously, while I do understand and appreciate the atheistic outlook on life it's far from "proven". And that's not even to give any credence to the theists either. I just find it a far notion that you use the term "proving" (as in science, I take it) in this case. I think we would do well to remember the fundamentals of science before making such proclamations. Proof is a tricky matter. When it comes down to it we have precious little understanding of such matters and to just go off and claim that consciousness is nothing more than a few neurons firing as a fact is fairly assuming.
Simply put, I think what appears "incredibly obvious" is that we're very early on in our understanding of the nature of things and consciousness may be more than what we think of it today. We're all too fast to assume that we're at the apex of human understanding. If nothing else it's best to shrug of the question with a simple "maybe".
Slashdot Mirror
This theoretical asteroid would know no man-made boundaries. It's unlikely that the overall effect that it will produce would be able to be narrowed down to a single nation or even a small group of them. The ripple such an event would cause would touch everyone's life in some fashion.
Either way, I have zero faith in the UN being able to put together anything bigger or more complex than a boy scout weekend camping trip without massive corruption, waste and/or bad blood being created between member nations.
"It's rare in human history that a billionth of anything has been shipped by one company," said Logitech's general manager Rory Dooley. "Look at any other industry and it has never happened. This is a significant milestone."
The people at Coca Cola and Anheuser Bush are pissing themselves out of laughter right about now. Coca Cola is likely to do that in a day.
Say that as much as you want but when it comes down to imbedded content I still have to go back to IE to see it.
Granted, a Mac will cost you more for the hardware, but the OS is pretty darned cheap and gives you license to put it on multiple pieces of hardware.
Yeah, assuming that it's Apple hardware. What are you missing in this formula?
Hey now! People are being forced to buy the Windows Asus and are installing Linux over it. It's that damned Microsoft tax. Don't you know that? That's how MS and Apple keep the Linux marketshare down artificially. We all know this.
Damn it! It's a fact!
Firefox specifically is proving that one doesn't need MS to do normal activity
Apples and oranges. The last time I looked I can run FF on a Windows box. Users switching from IE to FF means nothing in the long run. If I had to run an alternate OS to run FF I guess I wouldn't be seeing much of FF.
When no website "breaks" because one is using FF, they subtly say "wow". When they learn of new features (tabs) in IE and realize that those were available in FF long before MS got to them, they go "wow".
Actually, I know of a lot of people having problems with the new FF running content on MySpace. Or is that a stupid user error? If it is I'd love to be enlightened.
And as for having a feature first? Big whoop. Pontiac had airbags before any other auto manufacturer, IIRC. Does that make me give Pontiac a second look today? Hell no. Far from it.
The next big push should be OpenOffice. My kid comes in and shows me her "Powerpoint" (her words) and I know that I haven't put MS Office on her computer, then I point out that it isn't "PowerPoint" but a presentation. She realizes it isn't Microsoft Office and I now have someone who can tell her friends "I didn't use MS Office" (and she will too!).
Yeah, and it is great that she can use it to her own ends. This doesn't make it a superior product. Just like the number of users who pirate Photoshop when all they need is Gimp. So there certainly is a niche for it at this point but honesty, MS's gains with Office is still in the corporate market place and I haven't seen it budge yet.
When people realize they can surf the net (already there) and make "PowerPoints" and "Word Documents" and "Excel Spreadsheet", it will increase the options for discovering that one CAN get along quite nicely without Microsoft.
Aside from a small home MS Office market this doesn't mean much in the ways of market share. As long as these tools are on Windows boxes there's not much for MS to lose. Apple made some gains, Linux kind of did but there still isn't any real traction and the usage curve of OS X vs Linux since the release of OS X is a sure mark of how much Linux is still being toyed with by the mass populace.
I've long said that 2007-8 is going to be the beginning of the end for MS. The writing is on the walls, it is just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses.
It's happening again? Geez. To hear people talk this up around here MS nailed it's coffin lid shut with Windows 98SE. But we're still firmly planted in Microsoft's product today. I'm all for alternatives, and use many of them myself, but let's keep it in perspective. Even at the rate Apple is going it's going to be many years after Windows 7 finally hits the shelves before they get the kinds of numbers it's going to take to get a majority of software vendors to take notice. MS has a damn good chance at redeeming itself in the meantime. Look at how bad a blunder ME was. Today the Joe Sixpacks who had to deal with that train wreck of an OS just shrug it off as they turn back to their XP machines. Vista will be no different of a story in another couple of years and we will still be hearing the same thing around here from the same people.
And I'll be 100% honest, I really use to be big on the anti-MS band wagon until all the promises that were made to me as a user from all these different camps became mainly vaporware. I spent years of talking down MS and saying that great alternatives are going to throw down this giant any day. Tick tock, tick tock... Apple is the only ones who've ever delivered and I really really hate the idea of Apple would become if they had MS type of numbers in the desktop community. I'd definitely go Linux before I'd go Apple only because of politics.
The only people who are getting a thrill out of these kinds of stories are Apple users and those who are so blindly anti-MS that they can't see what the future will hold if Apple takes the brass ring. And believe me, Apple has a much better chance at doing what the Linux community thinks it will do. The numbers are proof.
Why didn't he just use a computer for this? I swear, those people were so dense.
I really don't understand why this was modded as flamebait. The fact is that to sell new alternative fuel technologies to people we're going to need to approach the public's perception of the current problem on many levels. As long as it gets something better on the roads who cares if someone is doing it for the environment or for political reasons. I see it as win-win. In fact, I think it's going to bring about more and more people if we keep adding to the reasons why we should move in this direction. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.
This is another area of a common ground that many of us can agree on but we let nit picking lead to infighting that holds us back. Common goals shouldn't suffer because someone else who's working towards them is doing it for a different reason than you are.
ditch no-future subsidies for ethanol & Detroit
Unless I'm reading into this wrong, you're missing something...
For Obama's plan for the US to be the leader in alternative fuels we're going to need Detroit. He needs an auto industry that he can lay hands on and manipulate. Otherwise he's going to be relying on the goodwill of other auto makers to meet him half way to his goal and that's probably still going to involve subsidies. If these subsidies are going to exist either way I'd much rather have them here than abroad. By using resources in the US he will have some say and legislation will give him a hand to work with these assets.
We need to draw a line between the oil industry and the auto industry. As long as we treat them as the same we're never going to rise above the muck that keeps alternative fuels beached. It's a hard pill to swallow but it's still there regardless of our outlook on all of it.
Space is crammed with a chaotic mess of strange crap on the macroscale and a lot more weird junk on the micro. Quasars, dark matter, nebulae, dark energy, black holes, virtual particles, gluon soup, quarks....
Space is only chaotic if you don't yet know the math. In time, regardless if there is a God or not, the cosmos will be much like a simple clock.
People from times past seen comets and meteor shows as chaotic because they didn't understand the math and the mechanism. We have that today as well but as observations increase the order of these events will work themselves out as we have worked them out to a logical conclusion much like they did from the times gone by.
All this is going to do is fan the fires of further ignorance.
I do not dismiss religion in and of itself. That being said, if it makes your day to think that order is a sign of God than feel free to take comfort in that, I have no real problem with it. But at the same time don't think that it's ultimate proof (as in science), there are enough explanations without needing to raise the name of a deity to defend what appears as order to you.
For me? I think things work well in their proper frame. I'd like to think that my morality and outlook on life would be relatively the same regardless of a God figure or not. That's good enough for me. I certainly don't lose any sleep over it.
Are you crazy? Do you realize how much a choking hazard keys are? I know ThinkPads are durable but they're not indestructible. Spend the 20 bucks on a toy that has the same intellectual return value. These toys are designed with the safety of a child in mind, a ThinkPad isn't.
I like my keyboard, you insensitive clod!
Hit it with a missile or go Armageddon style on it?
As long as it gets rid of Bruce Willis it's a win-win situation.
Can you tell us the law that makes this a criminal act? The last I seen they're innocent until proven guilty.
And I'm truely interested in a real answer to this. We had a bit of speculation on this subject last week and I have yet to see anyone come out and name the legislation that makes this a prosecutable offense. My guess is that either there is no law about this or that Obama would rather not have the issue become anything more than it already is in order to avoid bad blood or suspicion.
After all, look at how both candidates slandered each other openly during their run for office. If they really wanted to make an issue of it they could but imagine the backlash.
The universe is believed to be composed of about 25% dark matter, but there has been little evidence of it. This discovery, if correct, would be the first.
If this would be the first evidence how can we already have a little evidence of it?
How much technology did they have in the first place?
You see, I'm still not sold on the idea that PCs in every classroom is a solution to the woes of modern education but it would be nice to know what your experience is compared to mind. I haven't been in a non-college classroom in nearly 20 years and at that point it was mainly the computer labs plus a handful scattered between other departments. The PCs outside of the computer lab didn't seem to serve any educational use at all even though students had access to them.
Also, a bit off topic but, why isn't this an AskSlashdot topic? I think that line is getting badly blurred.
Not arrested and prosecuted but fired.
Actually, that's very legitimate of Verizon to say when it comes down to it.
Verizon has zero legal authority in this matter. God only knows if anyone is ever going to get prosecuted in this case. You can't be brought up on legal charges for violating company policy if the actions were legal. And as you said, I don't know if there is a law against what those who violated company policy may have done.
So they may well be in violation of company policy and still be legally in the right. Heck, my company can fire me for passing out political/religious materials while on the job but it's certainly not illegal.
If nothing else Verizon may be saving themselves some time against a frivolous lawsuit of slander if someone gets the boot over this incident. It sounds outrageous but someone may be able to hold them liable for putting out a memo that would make it seem like anyone involved in the incident who violated company policy was also a criminal in their actions. Deumber lawsuits have been filed for less.
Actually, they're probably going to review Mozilla's tax-exemption status. I don't know what the law is on this but I imagine that there are implications of having such a large chunk of funding come from one entity and having the same entity glean a clear and direct benefit from the not-for-profit organization.
Seeings as to where I've made no claims to being religious I guess the jokes on you, kind of. You don't think that atheists can respect difference in religious thinking? I'm starting to understand why you're posting AC.
As for murder... you think it's ok to let someone attack you, potentially to the point of death, without taking steps to prevent it. In this knowing that they may go on to kill others? Again, I can understand why you posted AC.
Seriously, there are some mighty logic holes going on there. If Dawkins holds these same kind of generalizations and illogic I know I can pretty much ignore him too. The shame is that I don't know if you're just name dropping or if you really represent his way of thinking. I know many fine atheists out there and I certainly have no problem with their ideals but this sounds fairly fanatical.
I didn't know if anyone was going to get it or not. Thanks.
Every day on /. I see people throw away someone else's statements without any sort of convincing argument or persuasion, and it's lazy.
I would feel the need to back it up if it were an opinion but this is a fact. Regardless if you believe what the Upanishads say is a whole different matter. You're making it sound like someone using a mathematics principle is lazy if they don't explain all the proofs associated with it. Are you really going to take it that far?
If the Upanishads say different, explain the differences. I'm not asking for a treatise here, just a quick explanation of how the Upanishads' definition of the soul is different.
Ok, now this is valid. I don't expect everyone here to be familiar with the Upanishads. The basics is that all life has a soul and this soul transmigrates on the time of death to another living form, this is the basis of reincarnation. So even as the bodies a soul takes change the soul is essentially the same. So with this in mind it is possible that a soul can pass from a human body to the body of a goat, for example.
And that's the really simple form of it all. There are various sects out there that have their own take on it so if we were to get a few eyes on this post who are familiar with the Upanishads you'd find that there is some different ideas on what takes place.
The religious will argue that a soul is something unique to mankind
Really? That's not what I've read in the Upanishads. Please don't lump all religions or all religious thinkings as one and the same. The simple approach to theism (and atheism for that matter) is not only ignorant but also breeds bias and prejudice that is unfounded.
Care to back that up? Seriously, while I do understand and appreciate the atheistic outlook on life it's far from "proven". And that's not even to give any credence to the theists either. I just find it a far notion that you use the term "proving" (as in science, I take it) in this case. I think we would do well to remember the fundamentals of science before making such proclamations. Proof is a tricky matter. When it comes down to it we have precious little understanding of such matters and to just go off and claim that consciousness is nothing more than a few neurons firing as a fact is fairly assuming.
Simply put, I think what appears "incredibly obvious" is that we're very early on in our understanding of the nature of things and consciousness may be more than what we think of it today. We're all too fast to assume that we're at the apex of human understanding. If nothing else it's best to shrug of the question with a simple "maybe".
Even Richard Nixon has got soul.