1st will likely be a means of sharing over wireless without the self-destruct "feature".
Probably shortly to follow, either a firmware update that adds more codecs, or a software app that transcodes to whatever Windows format is being used for video on that platform.
Next, a web-browser that can take you to various pages you have saved as favorites.
Finally, complete Linux port.
Any other good ideas?
Military tests them on animals, sensor-lined dummies.
OMG the Military is... wait, what?
PETA: testing them on ANIMALS! Everyone Else: Oh go away PETA.
Dummies: OMG the Military is testing them on us! Everyone: OH SHIT ZOMBIE DUMMIES KEEP FIRING AT THEM! GET THE LETHAL WEAPONS BACK HERE!
Perhaps now those people wearing those often-times unseen Bluetooth headsets will have a picture appear next to them, so they don't look like they're just talking to themselves? Or maybe we could make the ads say "Look, everyone around you thinks you're schitzo. Turn your head a little more so they can see the device jammed into your ear!"
'Boycott Duke Nukem Forever. Keep your old Duke Nukem 3D disks around. Don't buy a new game. That's the only way we have to let 3D Realms know Duke Nukem Forever is an overhyped, late, and pointless update to Duke Nukem 3D -- a perfectly fine game.'
Well if he's showing off the old-man belly, he's not gonna have any luck picking up the hot alien chicks (that is, if Riker doesn't get to them first), so that's tactically sound in my book.
Oh yeah, and never mind that whole little combat maneuver used during the first encounters with the Ferengi... totally unrelated.:-)
I'd have to put Sisco above Archer, and I'd put Janeway as a very close runner up to Picard. However, I think Janeway's abilities would be better used behind and Admiral's desk, with Chakotay captaining under her. Sisco was kind of average as a captain, he just had some extraordinary people working under him (a Trill, a genetically engineered genious doctor, a pretty good engineer [not Geordi, but what can you do], and later a well cultured Klingon). If anything, his best strength was delegating. Kirk was pretty gung-ho about everything, but fails on several diplomatic points. He's a man of action, but I wouldn't trust him to mediate any talks. Picard was a truely multi-talented individual. Excellent tactical ability (Picard maneuver), diplomatic ability (numerous examples including playing the Arbitor of Succession), historical knowledge (he's an archeologist), scientist (first impulse is almost always to scan and lay low), spying (trip to the Romulan homeworld to find Spock), and many others. He was also surrounded by many very talented people, as was Sisco, but he didn't rely on them as much as the Sisco did. He accomplished so much, and yet rarely had to fire a phaser himself. If this isn't the epitomy of the kinder, gentler Federation of his time, then I don't know what is.
Actually, spam isn't a good way of advertising, esp. not any more. Its been a number of years since internet usage hit the mainstream, and the number of people who fall for blatant advertising has fallen dramatically (phishing doesn't count here). Further, spam blockers are becoming more and more common. Even those that bother to open spam are likely to be distrusting of V!@gr@ and C1al!5, if they can even read it. Also, the number of companies that are willing to pay spammers for their "direct marketing" service is dwindling, and the spammers themselves are having to start paying for services overseas to continue to spam. All this is contributing to make spamming a less and less profitable endeavor.
2) Engineer a sort of "antibody cell" specific to each cancer patient that can be used to target problem cell divisions specifically while also eradicating the more general problem it has created in the surrounding area using current chemo techniques.
So, like the recent breakthrough in white blood cell modification to target cancer cells?
The internet itself may not be owned by anyone, but the hardware that lets the internet work most assuredly is owned and operated by real individuals, who not only pay for its purchase but its upkeep and bandwidth. So no, this is not exactly the same as sending things over snail mail. Using snail mail, you pay a certain amount in postage fees for the mail to be delivered by a certain amount in postage fees. Email, however, does not require the spammer to pay anything other than the miniscule electric and bandwidth costs, and does not reimburse all the machines between himself and his targets for using their services. This would be analogous to having a piece of junk mail go through the hands of every person between the spammer and the target without paying the middle men for their time and travel expenses. That analogy is a bit of a stretch, I admit, but it shows that it is *not* exactly the same.
Also, why *should* we accept spam? Why should we have to just sigh and give up on fighting this plague of the internet? Think of how much faster the net would be if all the equipment on the backbone were not bogged down with all this traffic that is both not wanted and deleted upon receipt? How many man-hours would be saved each day if every person with an email account did not spend 30 seconds deleting spam? This may be a small problem on an individual level, but its impact on a larger scale is huge.
Alternatly, find customers that are more familiar with technological advancements since the mid 90's (if not earlier - Wikipedia didn't have information on the date of origin of context menu's). Here's how to find them:
Ask them if they have any experience with 1960's era tape-driven Honeywell mainframes.
Ask them if they know what an iPod is.
If they answered no to the first and yes to the second, then you'll probably be fine.
Um, not quite. Your nervous system isn't an electrical grid, there's a great deal of chemical activity going on as well, due to these little things in the synapse called neurotransmitters. Imbalances or lack of some of these chemicals is what causes certain disorders, like some forms of depression. To be sure, there is some electrical activity there as well, but it would be folly to assume that the few millivolts running through your system is all that matters there.
Also, the energy being emitted by cell phones and the majority of these devices is non-ionizing radiation, meaning it doesn't have the energy to break the molecular bonds in DNA and cause mutations. All this energy is capable of is a mild heating effect. So your "microwave set on low" analogy is somewhat accurate, if misleading. The majority of studies that have found some kind of health effects of cell phone radiation have been inconsistant and inconclusive, and others failed to demonstrate causality. Now, studies on mobile phone base stations show a cause for concern there, but studies are still being performed in this area. Until you can show me some hard scientific data over a statistically relevant sample with a control group, that can definitively show causation, then stop spreading FUD . There are around 2 billion cell phone users worldwide, and cell phones have been in use for around 20 years now in one form or another, and meanwhile many studies have been done on the safety of these devices. I'm not seeing a drastic uptick in brain cancer cases, are you?
Oh yeah, and people do stop smokers. Lots of money each year is spent on stop-smoking and smoking prevention campaigns, and a number of cities have outlawed smoking within their limits or within their restaurants.
I suppose what you say makes sense - I was basing my ramblings on the pains associated with changing the batteries on a wireless mouse that my brother used to own.
As with most forms of radiation in use for communications (including cell phones), I suspect that the wavelength that this equipment transmits on is too wide to meaningfully interact with human cells, except to be blocked by them.
Then again, you could always wear a portable Faraday cage if you're really that paranoid. Remember, tin foil doesn't work!
So does this thing run on batteries or wall power? I mean, would I be able to, say, charge an iPod off of it? If I were to plug in my favorite wired Logitech mouse, would I still have to deal with the annoyance of replacing batteries for the convenience of being able to controlling my PC from the couch?
I'd have to imagine that this thing, due at least to its own wireless power demands, would have to get wall power, but then is it truely "wireless"? Even with this kind of limitation, I can easily see uses for such a device, however.
What you truely feel about the subject can likely be inferred due to your use of the "micro and macro" statement. Micro and macro evolution are primarily terms used by those with an poor or incorrect understanding of evolutionary science in an attempt to try to reconcile percieved small and large scale changes (thus micro and macro). Some also use the terminology to allow them to accept some observed evolutionary changes (labeling it micro) while still allowing them to reject the idea that different species come from common ancestors (or if they have a very poor understanding of the subject, the old and tired "I didn't evolve from an ape!" arguement). The problem is that the percieved large changes, such as "species change" are the result of millions of years worth of small changes. Also, the whole field of speciation and cladistics arbitrary (to a degree) anyhow, as these are man-made labels and cut-off points. Our current understanding of the way things work says that micro- and macro- prefixes are unneccesary. There is only evolution. Evolution is fact - we can observe it. The Theory of Evolution is our study of Evolution, and our attempts to uncover the how's and why's of it.
Now, I'm not saying that I know what you believe, but your statement gives some clues. If I have read those clues correctly, then my above statement, I hope, clears up any misconceptions you may have about the subject. I am not, however, an evolutionary biologist, and I encourage you to look up the subject on your own (using reputable scientific sources) so as to better understand it.
As for the rest of your comment, I too believe that it was likely a clerical error, as it has already been fixed. I would say that it is absolutely necessary to fund this subject of study - not because of any "us vs them" arguement against those with faith, but rather simply because this is the study of how we came to be what we are, to say nothing of how the rest of life on earth came to be in its current form. This is the history of life! This is the study of where we have been, and where we are going! It also makes for great TV on the Discovery Channel.
So we should not try to learn about our biological history? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, so I'd rather avoid the risk of becoming another "puddle of goo" thanks.
As for a lot of your "fundamentals of the human mind", many of those very behaviors are based in biology. Violence, stealing, self-promotion at the expense of others, and trying to screw everything in sight... before the advent of society, these things made you better off, enhanced your standards of living, all in the interest of spreading your genetics. Basically, without the trapings of society, those who cheat will win, and those who win will have more progeny, which are more likely to win as well. Only with a structured society and a sense of "right" and "wrong" did these behaviors begin to be seen in a bad light. What you speak of is a desire to affect a cultural change, an intellectual one, and one running counter to our biological instincts to do "bad things" to better ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
1st will likely be a means of sharing over wireless without the self-destruct "feature".
Probably shortly to follow, either a firmware update that adds more codecs, or a software app that transcodes to whatever Windows format is being used for video on that platform.
Next, a web-browser that can take you to various pages you have saved as favorites.
Finally, complete Linux port.
Any other good ideas?
Military tests them on animals, sensor-lined dummies.
OMG the Military is... wait, what?
PETA: testing them on ANIMALS!
Everyone Else: Oh go away PETA.
Dummies: OMG the Military is testing them on us!
Everyone: OH SHIT ZOMBIE DUMMIES KEEP FIRING AT THEM! GET THE LETHAL WEAPONS BACK HERE!
Perhaps now those people wearing those often-times unseen Bluetooth headsets will have a picture appear next to them, so they don't look like they're just talking to themselves? Or maybe we could make the ads say "Look, everyone around you thinks you're schitzo. Turn your head a little more so they can see the device jammed into your ear!"
'Boycott Duke Nukem Forever. Keep your old Duke Nukem 3D disks around. Don't buy a new game. That's the only way we have to let 3D Realms know Duke Nukem Forever is an overhyped, late, and pointless update to Duke Nukem 3D -- a perfectly fine game.'
Well if he's showing off the old-man belly, he's not gonna have any luck picking up the hot alien chicks (that is, if Riker doesn't get to them first), so that's tactically sound in my book.
:-)
Oh yeah, and never mind that whole little combat maneuver used during the first encounters with the Ferengi... totally unrelated.
Looks like they have failed to successfully fill in the blank in Step 2, and will be unable to proceed to Step 3.
So is this what YouTube would be like if they decided to play along with the MPAA and charge subscription fees?
I'd have to put Sisco above Archer, and I'd put Janeway as a very close runner up to Picard. However, I think Janeway's abilities would be better used behind and Admiral's desk, with Chakotay captaining under her. Sisco was kind of average as a captain, he just had some extraordinary people working under him (a Trill, a genetically engineered genious doctor, a pretty good engineer [not Geordi, but what can you do], and later a well cultured Klingon). If anything, his best strength was delegating. Kirk was pretty gung-ho about everything, but fails on several diplomatic points. He's a man of action, but I wouldn't trust him to mediate any talks. Picard was a truely multi-talented individual. Excellent tactical ability (Picard maneuver), diplomatic ability (numerous examples including playing the Arbitor of Succession), historical knowledge (he's an archeologist), scientist (first impulse is almost always to scan and lay low), spying (trip to the Romulan homeworld to find Spock), and many others. He was also surrounded by many very talented people, as was Sisco, but he didn't rely on them as much as the Sisco did. He accomplished so much, and yet rarely had to fire a phaser himself. If this isn't the epitomy of the kinder, gentler Federation of his time, then I don't know what is.
Actually, according to this site there is no direct translation for the word "lonely".
Thank you for getting my joke. I hope your parent poster remembers that getting modded funny doesn't help karma.
[to ask] Microsoft. They might [to know]. They seem [to patent] everything anyways.
Actually, spam isn't a good way of advertising, esp. not any more. Its been a number of years since internet usage hit the mainstream, and the number of people who fall for blatant advertising has fallen dramatically (phishing doesn't count here). Further, spam blockers are becoming more and more common. Even those that bother to open spam are likely to be distrusting of V!@gr@ and C1al!5, if they can even read it. Also, the number of companies that are willing to pay spammers for their "direct marketing" service is dwindling, and the spammers themselves are having to start paying for services overseas to continue to spam. All this is contributing to make spamming a less and less profitable endeavor.
2) Engineer a sort of "antibody cell" specific to each cancer patient that can be used to target problem cell divisions specifically while also eradicating the more general problem it has created in the surrounding area using current chemo techniques.
So, like the recent breakthrough in white blood cell modification to target cancer cells?
So then, perhaps if the recent breakthrough on white-blood cell modifications to target cancerous cells can be improved, then we'll be in good shape?
The internet itself may not be owned by anyone, but the hardware that lets the internet work most assuredly is owned and operated by real individuals, who not only pay for its purchase but its upkeep and bandwidth. So no, this is not exactly the same as sending things over snail mail. Using snail mail, you pay a certain amount in postage fees for the mail to be delivered by a certain amount in postage fees. Email, however, does not require the spammer to pay anything other than the miniscule electric and bandwidth costs, and does not reimburse all the machines between himself and his targets for using their services. This would be analogous to having a piece of junk mail go through the hands of every person between the spammer and the target without paying the middle men for their time and travel expenses. That analogy is a bit of a stretch, I admit, but it shows that it is *not* exactly the same.
Also, why *should* we accept spam? Why should we have to just sigh and give up on fighting this plague of the internet? Think of how much faster the net would be if all the equipment on the backbone were not bogged down with all this traffic that is both not wanted and deleted upon receipt? How many man-hours would be saved each day if every person with an email account did not spend 30 seconds deleting spam? This may be a small problem on an individual level, but its impact on a larger scale is huge.
Let's just hope that IE 7 will like CSS more than IE 6!
They could make a huge leap forward on this front by making one small change: Turning on the "standards compliant"* mode by DEFAULT!
*I use this term in the loosest possible sense
According to my Blackberry, I've got 5 minutes free next April in which we could discuss possibilities for socializing.
If they answered no to the first and yes to the second, then you'll probably be fine.
'the laptop has helped her twelve-year-old son master critical professional skills like how to compile a PowerPoint presentation.'
So now he's prepared to show his friends a 15 minute slideshow about why girls have cooties?
Um, not quite. Your nervous system isn't an electrical grid, there's a great deal of chemical activity going on as well, due to these little things in the synapse called neurotransmitters. Imbalances or lack of some of these chemicals is what causes certain disorders, like some forms of depression. To be sure, there is some electrical activity there as well, but it would be folly to assume that the few millivolts running through your system is all that matters there.
Also, the energy being emitted by cell phones and the majority of these devices is non-ionizing radiation, meaning it doesn't have the energy to break the molecular bonds in DNA and cause mutations. All this energy is capable of is a mild heating effect. So your "microwave set on low" analogy is somewhat accurate, if misleading. The majority of studies that have found some kind of health effects of cell phone radiation have been inconsistant and inconclusive, and others failed to demonstrate causality. Now, studies on mobile phone base stations show a cause for concern there, but studies are still being performed in this area. Until you can show me some hard scientific data over a statistically relevant sample with a control group, that can definitively show causation, then stop spreading FUD . There are around 2 billion cell phone users worldwide, and cell phones have been in use for around 20 years now in one form or another, and meanwhile many studies have been done on the safety of these devices. I'm not seeing a drastic uptick in brain cancer cases, are you?
Oh yeah, and people do stop smokers. Lots of money each year is spent on stop-smoking and smoking prevention campaigns, and a number of cities have outlawed smoking within their limits or within their restaurants.
I suppose what you say makes sense - I was basing my ramblings on the pains associated with changing the batteries on a wireless mouse that my brother used to own.
Jeeze, from those pictures it looks as though the head tore all the way through that top platter in a few place! Just how deep was that groove?
As with most forms of radiation in use for communications (including cell phones), I suspect that the wavelength that this equipment transmits on is too wide to meaningfully interact with human cells, except to be blocked by them.
Then again, you could always wear a portable Faraday cage if you're really that paranoid. Remember, tin foil doesn't work!
So does this thing run on batteries or wall power? I mean, would I be able to, say, charge an iPod off of it? If I were to plug in my favorite wired Logitech mouse, would I still have to deal with the annoyance of replacing batteries for the convenience of being able to controlling my PC from the couch?
I'd have to imagine that this thing, due at least to its own wireless power demands, would have to get wall power, but then is it truely "wireless"? Even with this kind of limitation, I can easily see uses for such a device, however.
What you truely feel about the subject can likely be inferred due to your use of the "micro and macro" statement. Micro and macro evolution are primarily terms used by those with an poor or incorrect understanding of evolutionary science in an attempt to try to reconcile percieved small and large scale changes (thus micro and macro). Some also use the terminology to allow them to accept some observed evolutionary changes (labeling it micro) while still allowing them to reject the idea that different species come from common ancestors (or if they have a very poor understanding of the subject, the old and tired "I didn't evolve from an ape!" arguement). The problem is that the percieved large changes, such as "species change" are the result of millions of years worth of small changes. Also, the whole field of speciation and cladistics arbitrary (to a degree) anyhow, as these are man-made labels and cut-off points. Our current understanding of the way things work says that micro- and macro- prefixes are unneccesary. There is only evolution. Evolution is fact - we can observe it. The Theory of Evolution is our study of Evolution, and our attempts to uncover the how's and why's of it.
Now, I'm not saying that I know what you believe, but your statement gives some clues. If I have read those clues correctly, then my above statement, I hope, clears up any misconceptions you may have about the subject. I am not, however, an evolutionary biologist, and I encourage you to look up the subject on your own (using reputable scientific sources) so as to better understand it.
As for the rest of your comment, I too believe that it was likely a clerical error, as it has already been fixed. I would say that it is absolutely necessary to fund this subject of study - not because of any "us vs them" arguement against those with faith, but rather simply because this is the study of how we came to be what we are, to say nothing of how the rest of life on earth came to be in its current form. This is the history of life! This is the study of where we have been, and where we are going! It also makes for great TV on the Discovery Channel.
So we should not try to learn about our biological history? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, so I'd rather avoid the risk of becoming another "puddle of goo" thanks.
As for a lot of your "fundamentals of the human mind", many of those very behaviors are based in biology. Violence, stealing, self-promotion at the expense of others, and trying to screw everything in sight... before the advent of society, these things made you better off, enhanced your standards of living, all in the interest of spreading your genetics. Basically, without the trapings of society, those who cheat will win, and those who win will have more progeny, which are more likely to win as well. Only with a structured society and a sense of "right" and "wrong" did these behaviors begin to be seen in a bad light. What you speak of is a desire to affect a cultural change, an intellectual one, and one running counter to our biological instincts to do "bad things" to better ourselves.