IANAL, but I frequently encounter statements like:
Acceptance of this is hereby granted contingent upon strict accordance to all rules, regulations and provisions required by all Private, Local, State and Federal agencies, policies, and organizations having jurisdiction...quidquid latinum dictum est, altum viditur...
In plain english: "It's okay by us as long as it's okay with everyone else."
There. Your "other regulations" conundrum is solved! =Smidge=
That means brought up to date. And that means - No more vulnerabilities, no more infections, no more spam-relays...
Correction: That means brought up to date. And that means - The particular vulnerability is fixed, only the infected machines are patched, and none of the articles I've read say anything about spam relays. While it may be true that if a machine is vulnerable to this worm it may also be vulnerable to becomming a spam relay, there is no real correlation.
In short, the virus writer probably just wanted to be a dick and screw with everyone's infastructure, as opposed to having some kind of altruistic "I'll make the world see the error of their ways" agenda. =Smidge=
No, but if the cops can't run a plate or license number check during a routine traffic stop, you won't know if there's a warrent out on the guy for a series of violent crimes.
Just an example. The ability for the police to do thier job in any capacity relies on the ability to get and share information. It's pretty rare that the cop actually witnesses the mugging, but a witness description, cross referenced with other reports from the head office, might lead to the ID of a suspect. =Smidge=
VNC and similar virtual computing programs are useful, but they don't compare with direct access. No latency, no compromise on color depth or resolution, no compression or update artifacts. There's also no dependency on the VNC software, which means you can access/view parts of the machine outside of the OS (BIOS configuration, etc).
There's also a ZERO percent chance that a third party can access the machine remotely. Even with the best security practices and software, if you're connected to a network there's still a chance of a break-in.
VNC has it's uses, but a direct connection is preferable if the physical machine is right next to you. The advantage of a KVM switch increases with the number of machines, too! =Smidge=
Re:One thing that's never been clear
on
Hairy Adhesives
·
· Score: 0
From my post to which you replied:
Finally, the article gives a rational answer! Huzzah for science!
=Smidge=
One thing that's never been clear
on
Hairy Adhesives
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
There's been a few stories about how spiders and geckos and the like have "super atomic grip" that allows them to cling to just about any surface. What always kinda throws me is, if these critters can theoretically hold many times their own body weight with the adhesive force of their feet... how do they manage to walk?
Finally, the article gives a rational answer! Huzzah for science! =Smidge=
Too bad that, for many, religion *is* an alternative to science. (And sometimes even common sense, for that matter...) =Smidge=
Re:Openness is the first casualty of going public?
on
How does Google do it?
·
· Score: 1
Which is directly tied to their "brand". Google is a household name because they provide fast, relavent search results with a clean interface and relavent ads. This is only possible because of the hardware and software they run. It is what made them famous, and it is what keeps them up front. Their hardware and software is critical to their livelyhood.
This is not the case with a company like General Elecrtic. =Smidge=
I don't really talk to my computers per say (Except, of course, the occasional expletive if something goes wrong) But certainly I attribute human characteristics to them.
For example, one of the machines at work has a tendency to go into "sleep" mode and can't be revived without shutting them off. I tell my boss it has narcolepsy. Another won't connect to the network drive (where the data is kept) until you manually access it, even though it says the drive is mounted and ready. That one just doesn't like to get up in the morning.:)
People have been anthropomorphizing animals and machines for as long as they've been a part of society. I'm sure everyone knows at least one person who refers to their car/boat as if it was a person (usually female?). I think it's just a way to express personal attachment and to rationalize behavior in a way we're naturally comfortable with.
The car isn't broken down, it just "isn't feeling good". If you can't get the drivers to work with your new sound card, it's "being stubborn", or "it doesn't like it".
Once you've made that kind of attachment to something, of course you're going to integrate it more fully into your life. It becomse your "favorite" machine. It's definately a step above mere habit.
Oh, I'd also like to be the first to make a Ghost in the Shell reference! Batou and the Tachikoma. Each Tachikoma is exactly identical, even sharing the same experiences thanks to syncronizing their data every night, but Batou always chooses one specific one to help him with stuff, and only gives that particular unit the natural oil. (Much to the confusion of the other Tachikoma) =Smidge=
Re:Openness is the first casualty of going public?
on
How does Google do it?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The problem with that analogy is that what software they run has absolutely nothing to do with what they do to make money.
With Google, their entire "business" - their means of generating cash flow - relies on sheer quantity of computing muscle and high performance software for their search databases. With GE, their business is making lightbulbs, dishwashers, hair dryers, electric motors and any more of thousands of different products used in residential, commercial and industrial settings. How many Unix computers they have in all their offices around the world is a causality of doing business, not their means of doing business.
I'm sure if you asked the GE Investor Relations department something relevant about how their business operates, you might get somewhere. =Smidge=
2) Bank on the fact that only a small percentage of customers actually mail in for the rebate, and do so correctly.
3) Profit
So MS's business model is looking more and more like:
1) Do whatever you want and let others/the government file antitrust suits.
2) Settle suits knowing almost nothing will be done to enforce/cash in on them
3) Profit
If Dubya wants to convince the public that the US economy is getting better, he should just designate litigation settlement income as a business sector instead of trying to classify burger flippers as "manufacturing jobs". =Smidge=
"On the other hand, if the PV panels do not generate enough electricity to power the electrolysis system, power will be drawn from the grid."
As for explosions... well, the article doesn't give specifics about the construction of the storage system.
Of course, relying on the grid at all kinda shoots the whole idea down. If the house doesn't have enough capacity to make it through one or two cloudy days then that pretty much rules out some 80% of the planet where this concept would be worth investing in. =Smidge=
Does your child know how to "run" Windows? Does he know all the intricacies of Windows and closed-source software in general? And what does "run" mean?
I think, in terms of software, "run" is the equivalent of "operate". As far as this goes, I'd say yes, a good portion of 7 year olds can "run" windows easily enough to do whatever it is they want to do - providing the task itself is not beyond their capabilities. (ie: I know a lot of 7yos that want to make computer games, and while able to launch a compiler and run some of the demo apps really don't have the skill to design and build an entire game)
You think the average user of a remote control doesn't know how to put the batteries in? I doubt that.
I think that was his point... I can't think of anyone I've ever met that would need instructions to put batteries in a remote control - but that doesn't mean they should be excluded. It's good business to make your product as accessible to your target market as possible. Never assume the end user is even going to know which end to point at the TV. Same thing can be said for an OS; assume the user will shoot themselves in the foot with the computer and design to make it as foolproof as possible. Linux has not made it very far in this area, especially compared to Windows or OSX. Just because you and everyone you know can handle it doesn't mean even the majority of users can.
I doubt your 'average user' could do any configuration of anything on Windows either.
To be fair, there isn't much a typical user needs to "configure" to get Windows to work. Granted, this is the source of some of their security issues, but there's still plenty of good examples. Plug and play hardware. Autodetect and autoconfigure network and internet connections. CLEAN install and uninstall (providing the 3rd party vendor did it right, but that's a whole other issue). I've tried using apt-get, and not only did it take me a good half an hour to find the exact filename of what I wanted, but then it took another hour of fiddling with stuff to get it to install, only to discover that what I just installed required some other thing that took me another hour to find and install.
However, if typical users are how you represent, them, then they probably have trouble using anything that isn't totally set-up for them to begin with, and how is a totally set-up Linux box more difficult than a totally set-up Windows box? Either way, all I have to do is click on stuff.
There's a totally set up Linux box?:)
Just so you know, the afore-mentioned apt-get experience was on a Lindows machine that I bought. (Hey, it was good machine for the price, and I figured it was worth at least trying before installing Win2K...) It was already set up to do a bunch of things, and their click-to-run software worked kinda, but anything they didn't offer was nearly impossible to install. For an "out of the box" Linux system it left a lot to be desired, both in usability and performance. (Performance is another issue, though)
Most car owners do service jobs that can be wholly or partly done remotely, either from smaller regional offices, or from home. The 'cubicle farms' of US corporations are a totally senseless way of bringing employees together.
In 2001, only 36.3% of the nation's employment involved things that I feel *might* be able to be done from home or local offices. Of course, it depends quite a bit on what the job entails exactly since the list is kinda vauge on specifics. These include: Management, Business and financial operations, Architecture and engineering, Arts design entertainment sports and media, Office and administrative, support, Computer and mathematical, Life physical and social science, Legal, Healthcare support.
That leaves at least 63.7% of the American labor force that has to commute a reasonable distance each day. I'd think you're stretching the definition of "most" a bit...
Cities... actually one of the most efficient ways of living, in terms of cost to the environment per head.
Um. Considering how the density of pollution increases as you get closer to major cities, real life seems to disagree with that theory.
Each person produces an average amount of pollution, x. As the population density increases, so does the concentration of pollution. It stands to reason that the higher the concentration of pollution the more harmful to the environment as a whole. Each person consumes so much energy as electricity, fuel, food, and so forth, no matter where they live. If you live in a city you might, as an individual, consume less gasoline than a suburbanite, but consider the extra resources required for the city to even exist in the first place and it balances out. =Smidge=
Religion is a whole other problem. I can easily imagine someone fighting to have creation taught in public schools and then advocating nuclear power because it's less harmful to the atmosphere. I can also see them running out to pick up the latest drug, buying the newest fad in home exercise equipment, and watching the weather report every morning... because they honestly belive that the fruits of science cannot fail them.
Of course, if they're fighting for creationism in public schools that says all you need to know about their beliefs. =Smidge=
Re:It occurs to me...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
My whole point, which you seemed to have completely glanced over during your little crusade, is that scientists make statements that the public in general doesn't completely understand. This half-knowledge scientific rhetoric then becomes so widespread throughout society it "becomes fact", when in reality it's only half the story.
Did I ever say we'd never run out of oil? No. Did I say Global Warming is a myth? No. I never used the words "it hasn't happened yet therefore it won't happen." I think we both agree that's the worst attitude you can have in any situation. My point is that, in the 1970's, we knew we would "run out of oil in about 20 years", and today we know that global warming will destroy the planet as we know it in 10 years (or whatever they're saying nowadays). When in fact what we as a society know is really only half the story. However, it's "popular" that global warming is going to destroy the planet in our lifetimes, and that somehow makes it fact when it's really just one of many, many possibilities we don't fully understand. =Smidge=
Re:It occurs to me...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't think the parent was referring to the magazine "Popular Science" but rather the current theories that permeate society, eg: "Global warming" and "We only have 20 years worth of oil reserves left". (That second one was popular around the 1970's, and 30 years later they still say we have 20 years worth left...)
Unfortunately, it's popular science that the laymen take as truth. The public has SO MUCH blind faith in science its disturbing. Everyone figures "well these guys are scientists, so they must know what they're talking about" - It's not that that the public is stupid (debatable...) but rather they are just so uninformed about how everything works that they really can't critique the claims.
And all too often the laymen are the policy makers and social/political reactionaries. That's when the problems start. =Smidge=
The problem is, which version of windows has the standardised interface? Where do you want to go to find the same item on half a dozen windows machines today?
With *very* few exceptions, all windows programs have:
- A "File" menu, inside which is "Open", "Save", "Save As", "Print" and "Exit". In programs that support multiple files in one session, there's also a "Close". If a program is missing any of these options it's probably because the program can't do it at all (ie: image viewing programs might not have a "Save" option...)
- An "Edit" menu, which typically has "Copy", "Cut" and "Paste" and "Delete" at the least. Also the place you'll find "Undo" and maybe "Redo".
- Standardized shortcuts. CTRL-X/C/V for Cut/Copy/Paste respectively. CTRL-P for print. CTRL-[SHIFT]-TAB for switching between documents in multi-file programs. Also, ALT keystrokes for accessing menu options without the mouse.
- Minimize, Restore and Close icons in the upper right corner. The developer has to put in extra effort to change that, too.
- Additional window management commands by clicking on the program's icon in the upper left of the window, or right-clicking on the program in the taskbar.
- Standard control element sets: Checkboxes, drop down lists, "Open" and "Save As" dialogs, Radio buttons, tab interfaces, and so forth.
All versions of Windows since 95 have:
- A Taskbar with "Start" button, system tray, and clock.
- ALT-[SHIFT}-TAB for switching between applications in the taskbar.
- WINDOWS-? Shortcuts. (M)inimize all windows, (E)xplorer file manager, (R)un program, and so forth.
- A control panel for accessing the deeper system settings.
- A "Desktop" with familiar icons such as "My Computer" and "Recycle Bin".
- A "Start" button that contains folders for "Programs", Recently accessed document history, control panel, search, and shutdown/logoff.
That's just off the top of my head, too. I bet you'll have a tough time finding 5 native Windows applications that break any one of these design standards, and for each one you do find I'll dig up twenty that don't.
With many programs it is possible to choose settings which prevent the program from running at all
Then the programmer was either lazy or a sh*thead for letting those settings get saved! Another benefit of having an in-program editor is that you can check to make sure the settings don't break the program before committing to them. I won't argue that settings in readable files is a good thing, ini files are better for the user than the registry.
It's a case of different forms of memory - visual memory which some people are good at, or being able to remember a method or sequence of events. Being able to group things into sets should work - but it doesn't because menu options either cannot or are not sorted into logical groups
If your menus are not grouped logically then you haven't put enough thought about it. The typical menu setups in Windows apps are very logical: "File" contains all things that go with file operations. "Edit" contains all document editing functions. "View" contains all document viewing and program appearance settings, etc. If an app breaks the pattern (and some definitely do), then either the developer has a really good reason to be different or has not considered the user interface carefully enough. With all the cash MS dumps into usability studies, you'd think the way they have everything laid out would be pretty optimal for Jow Q User.
Syntax can be looked up
Which takes time, and for some people learning syntax for some programs would be like learning a whole other language. I'm amazed our office's secretary can find her way to work every day, let alone be able to understand a conf file filled with technical poo.
Your next paragraph deserves an insightful moderation. You are absolutely correct that just beneath the surface computers start to get m
A big part of what keeps many users from switching is fear of being in a totally new environment that don't understand. This provides a midpoint between the two worlds: get a taste of Linux, and if you start to panic just hit the good old "Windows" key on the keyboard and you're back to familiar territory. (Or CTRL-ESC, but chances are if you're running Windows you have a keyboard with a "Windows" key...)
Of course, the second biggest part of the hurdle is customizing the system without having to learn all the nuts and bolts of operating system function. This is *almost* solved, but compared to the rather intuitive and standardized interface that Windows has nothing in the OSS community has been able to match it.
For example, tweaking options for a program should be done via an "options" menu of some kind there is a logical, visual organization to the settings with checkboxes and drop down lists, not a 30+ page.conf file that you have to edit by hand.
God help you if it's case sensitive or syntactically anal, too; you may never get it right unless you've done it several times before. Your average home user doesn't have the patience to deal with that kind of thing, and until this hurdle is taken down they'll stick with Windows for sure. =Smidge=
That's funny, I earn about 30K and I pay sh*tloads of taxes. My boss earns over 150K and pays less tax than I do because he writes off everything to the company. I don't doubt that this is common.
Not only that, but the website you link to (which is highly suspect of being politically bias...) doesn't seem to tell you how it got those numbers.
Just looking at the picture, the cuts seem to be about 1/20th the width of the piece, with 9 cuts in each direction plus a little extra for the lobes... that works out to about one whole row of piece worth of material removed (figure somewhat uniform density and thickness) (9 + 9 = 18 + a little extra = 20, line is 1/20th width of piece and full width)
So 10 piece gone and 100 remaining, which comes out to about 10% loss. =Smidge=
That's government funding, I was suggesting private funding (since I was talking about wealth on the citizen level). Even corporate sponsorship can be difficult depending on the project...
I'm not an american and I'm impressed by what your country is able to achieve. But then again, I wouldn't expect much less of an abundantly rich western country with 285 million citizens.
I'm not quite sure about "abundantly rich"... at least on the citizen level. That top 20% didn't get that rich by spending money on space probes, either. It's amazingly hard to get funding for something that has no monetary return on the investment.
Which makes it that much more impressive, IMHO. =Smidge=
To the best of my knowledge, there are three sets of magnets involved in real-life Maglevs: Levitation, Guidance, and Propulsion. All three need realtime computer control to keep the train floating within inches of the track and to keep it moving smoothly. In all of the real working systems I've read about, electromagnets on both the track and train are used to accomplish this.
I believe there are some systems however that use inductive principles to provide most of the lifting force - using wheels until the train is up to speed and the car can levitate properly. This cuts down on the amount of on-board power required, but a good deal is still required for the other systems.
I've never heard of a real train using permanent magnets. Only desktop models. I can easily see how cost, since cost per gauss - no rhyme intended - is much less for electromagnets than permanent ones when you get into really powerful fields. Safety is also an issue, since a service tech will probably have to take a wrench to the thing sooner or later, and that can cause a few lost fingers...
So all told the train will definitely require on-board power generation. I honestly can't tell you if it would be more or less than a regular train, but it would probably be over 200kw easily. (For reference, a normal commuter train powerplant is around the megawatt rage and up) =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but I frequently encounter statements like:
Acceptance of this is hereby granted contingent upon strict accordance to all rules, regulations and provisions required by all Private, Local, State and Federal agencies, policies, and organizations having jurisdiction...quidquid latinum dictum est, altum viditur...
In plain english: "It's okay by us as long as it's okay with everyone else."
There. Your "other regulations" conundrum is solved!
=Smidge=
That means brought up to date. And that means - No more vulnerabilities, no more infections, no more spam-relays...
Correction:
That means brought up to date.
And that means -
The particular vulnerability is fixed, only the infected machines are patched, and none of the articles I've read say anything about spam relays. While it may be true that if a machine is vulnerable to this worm it may also be vulnerable to becomming a spam relay, there is no real correlation.
In short, the virus writer probably just wanted to be a dick and screw with everyone's infastructure, as opposed to having some kind of altruistic "I'll make the world see the error of their ways" agenda.
=Smidge=
No, but if the cops can't run a plate or license number check during a routine traffic stop, you won't know if there's a warrent out on the guy for a series of violent crimes.
Just an example. The ability for the police to do thier job in any capacity relies on the ability to get and share information. It's pretty rare that the cop actually witnesses the mugging, but a witness description, cross referenced with other reports from the head office, might lead to the ID of a suspect.
=Smidge=
VNC and similar virtual computing programs are useful, but they don't compare with direct access. No latency, no compromise on color depth or resolution, no compression or update artifacts. There's also no dependency on the VNC software, which means you can access/view parts of the machine outside of the OS (BIOS configuration, etc).
There's also a ZERO percent chance that a third party can access the machine remotely. Even with the best security practices and software, if you're connected to a network there's still a chance of a break-in.
VNC has it's uses, but a direct connection is preferable if the physical machine is right next to you. The advantage of a KVM switch increases with the number of machines, too!
=Smidge=
From my post to which you replied:
Finally, the article gives a rational answer! Huzzah for science!
=Smidge=
There's been a few stories about how spiders and geckos and the like have "super atomic grip" that allows them to cling to just about any surface. What always kinda throws me is, if these critters can theoretically hold many times their own body weight with the adhesive force of their feet... how do they manage to walk?
Finally, the article gives a rational answer! Huzzah for science!
=Smidge=
Science is not some alternative to religion...
Too bad that, for many, religion *is* an alternative to science. (And sometimes even common sense, for that matter...)
=Smidge=
Which is directly tied to their "brand". Google is a household name because they provide fast, relavent search results with a clean interface and relavent ads. This is only possible because of the hardware and software they run. It is what made them famous, and it is what keeps them up front. Their hardware and software is critical to their livelyhood.
This is not the case with a company like General Elecrtic.
=Smidge=
I don't really talk to my computers per say (Except, of course, the occasional expletive if something goes wrong) But certainly I attribute human characteristics to them.
:)
For example, one of the machines at work has a tendency to go into "sleep" mode and can't be revived without shutting them off. I tell my boss it has narcolepsy. Another won't connect to the network drive (where the data is kept) until you manually access it, even though it says the drive is mounted and ready. That one just doesn't like to get up in the morning.
People have been anthropomorphizing animals and machines for as long as they've been a part of society. I'm sure everyone knows at least one person who refers to their car/boat as if it was a person (usually female?). I think it's just a way to express personal attachment and to rationalize behavior in a way we're naturally comfortable with.
The car isn't broken down, it just "isn't feeling good". If you can't get the drivers to work with your new sound card, it's "being stubborn", or "it doesn't like it".
Once you've made that kind of attachment to something, of course you're going to integrate it more fully into your life. It becomse your "favorite" machine. It's definately a step above mere habit.
Oh, I'd also like to be the first to make a Ghost in the Shell reference! Batou and the Tachikoma. Each Tachikoma is exactly identical, even sharing the same experiences thanks to syncronizing their data every night, but Batou always chooses one specific one to help him with stuff, and only gives that particular unit the natural oil. (Much to the confusion of the other Tachikoma)
=Smidge=
The problem with that analogy is that what software they run has absolutely nothing to do with what they do to make money.
With Google, their entire "business" - their means of generating cash flow - relies on sheer quantity of computing muscle and high performance software for their search databases. With GE, their business is making lightbulbs, dishwashers, hair dryers, electric motors and any more of thousands of different products used in residential, commercial and industrial settings. How many Unix computers they have in all their offices around the world is a causality of doing business, not their means of doing business.
I'm sure if you asked the GE Investor Relations department something relevant about how their business operates, you might get somewhere.
=Smidge=
It's almost like those rebate programs:
1) Overprice your product and offer a rebate
2) Bank on the fact that only a small percentage of customers actually mail in for the rebate, and do so correctly.
3) Profit
So MS's business model is looking more and more like:
1) Do whatever you want and let others/the government file antitrust suits.
2) Settle suits knowing almost nothing will be done to enforce/cash in on them
3) Profit
If Dubya wants to convince the public that the US economy is getting better, he should just designate litigation settlement income as a business sector instead of trying to classify burger flippers as "manufacturing jobs".
=Smidge=
"On the other hand, if the PV panels do not generate enough electricity to power the electrolysis system, power will be drawn from the grid."
As for explosions... well, the article doesn't give specifics about the construction of the storage system.
Of course, relying on the grid at all kinda shoots the whole idea down. If the house doesn't have enough capacity to make it through one or two cloudy days then that pretty much rules out some 80% of the planet where this concept would be worth investing in.
=Smidge=
Does your child know how to "run" Windows? Does he know all the intricacies of Windows and closed-source software in general? And what does "run" mean?
:)
I think, in terms of software, "run" is the equivalent of "operate". As far as this goes, I'd say yes, a good portion of 7 year olds can "run" windows easily enough to do whatever it is they want to do - providing the task itself is not beyond their capabilities. (ie: I know a lot of 7yos that want to make computer games, and while able to launch a compiler and run some of the demo apps really don't have the skill to design and build an entire game)
You think the average user of a remote control doesn't know how to put the batteries in? I doubt that.
I think that was his point... I can't think of anyone I've ever met that would need instructions to put batteries in a remote control - but that doesn't mean they should be excluded. It's good business to make your product as accessible to your target market as possible. Never assume the end user is even going to know which end to point at the TV. Same thing can be said for an OS; assume the user will shoot themselves in the foot with the computer and design to make it as foolproof as possible. Linux has not made it very far in this area, especially compared to Windows or OSX. Just because you and everyone you know can handle it doesn't mean even the majority of users can.
I doubt your 'average user' could do any configuration of anything on Windows either.
To be fair, there isn't much a typical user needs to "configure" to get Windows to work. Granted, this is the source of some of their security issues, but there's still plenty of good examples. Plug and play hardware. Autodetect and autoconfigure network and internet connections. CLEAN install and uninstall (providing the 3rd party vendor did it right, but that's a whole other issue). I've tried using apt-get, and not only did it take me a good half an hour to find the exact filename of what I wanted, but then it took another hour of fiddling with stuff to get it to install, only to discover that what I just installed required some other thing that took me another hour to find and install.
However, if typical users are how you represent, them, then they probably have trouble using anything that isn't totally set-up for them to begin with, and how is a totally set-up Linux box more difficult than a totally set-up Windows box? Either way, all I have to do is click on stuff.
There's a totally set up Linux box?
Just so you know, the afore-mentioned apt-get experience was on a Lindows machine that I bought. (Hey, it was good machine for the price, and I figured it was worth at least trying before installing Win2K...) It was already set up to do a bunch of things, and their click-to-run software worked kinda, but anything they didn't offer was nearly impossible to install. For an "out of the box" Linux system it left a lot to be desired, both in usability and performance. (Performance is another issue, though)
Needs work...
=Smidge=
Most car owners do service jobs that can be wholly or partly done remotely, either from smaller regional offices, or from home. The 'cubicle farms' of US corporations are a totally senseless way of bringing employees together.
In 2001, only 36.3% of the nation's employment involved things that I feel *might* be able to be done from home or local offices. Of course, it depends quite a bit on what the job entails exactly since the list is kinda vauge on specifics. These include: Management, Business and financial operations, Architecture and engineering, Arts design entertainment sports and media, Office and administrative, support, Computer and mathematical, Life physical and social science, Legal, Healthcare support.
That leaves at least 63.7% of the American labor force that has to commute a reasonable distance each day. I'd think you're stretching the definition of "most" a bit...
Cities... actually one of the most efficient ways of living, in terms of cost to the environment per head.
Um. Considering how the density of pollution increases as you get closer to major cities, real life seems to disagree with that theory.
Each person produces an average amount of pollution, x. As the population density increases, so does the concentration of pollution. It stands to reason that the higher the concentration of pollution the more harmful to the environment as a whole. Each person consumes so much energy as electricity, fuel, food, and so forth, no matter where they live. If you live in a city you might, as an individual, consume less gasoline than a suburbanite, but consider the extra resources required for the city to even exist in the first place and it balances out.
=Smidge=
Religion is a whole other problem. I can easily imagine someone fighting to have creation taught in public schools and then advocating nuclear power because it's less harmful to the atmosphere. I can also see them running out to pick up the latest drug, buying the newest fad in home exercise equipment, and watching the weather report every morning... because they honestly belive that the fruits of science cannot fail them.
Of course, if they're fighting for creationism in public schools that says all you need to know about their beliefs.
=Smidge=
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
My whole point, which you seemed to have completely glanced over during your little crusade, is that scientists make statements that the public in general doesn't completely understand. This half-knowledge scientific rhetoric then becomes so widespread throughout society it "becomes fact", when in reality it's only half the story.
Did I ever say we'd never run out of oil? No. Did I say Global Warming is a myth? No. I never used the words "it hasn't happened yet therefore it won't happen." I think we both agree that's the worst attitude you can have in any situation. My point is that, in the 1970's, we knew we would "run out of oil in about 20 years", and today we know that global warming will destroy the planet as we know it in 10 years (or whatever they're saying nowadays). When in fact what we as a society know is really only half the story. However, it's "popular" that global warming is going to destroy the planet in our lifetimes, and that somehow makes it fact when it's really just one of many, many possibilities we don't fully understand.
=Smidge=
I don't think the parent was referring to the magazine "Popular Science" but rather the current theories that permeate society, eg: "Global warming" and "We only have 20 years worth of oil reserves left". (That second one was popular around the 1970's, and 30 years later they still say we have 20 years worth left...)
Unfortunately, it's popular science that the laymen take as truth. The public has SO MUCH blind faith in science its disturbing. Everyone figures "well these guys are scientists, so they must know what they're talking about" - It's not that that the public is stupid (debatable...) but rather they are just so uninformed about how everything works that they really can't critique the claims.
And all too often the laymen are the policy makers and social/political reactionaries. That's when the problems start.
=Smidge=
Under Socialism, R is also 0, but M might not be. You pay for it alright, just not directly.
So under Socialism there is *no* incentive to use them other than political adgendas.
=Smidge=
The problem is, which version of windows has the standardised interface? Where do you want to go to find the same item on half a dozen windows machines today?
With *very* few exceptions, all windows programs have:
- A "File" menu, inside which is "Open", "Save", "Save As", "Print" and "Exit". In programs that support multiple files in one session, there's also a "Close". If a program is missing any of these options it's probably because the program can't do it at all (ie: image viewing programs might not have a "Save" option...)
- An "Edit" menu, which typically has "Copy", "Cut" and "Paste" and "Delete" at the least. Also the place you'll find "Undo" and maybe "Redo".
- Standardized shortcuts. CTRL-X/C/V for Cut/Copy/Paste respectively. CTRL-P for print. CTRL-[SHIFT]-TAB for switching between documents in multi-file programs. Also, ALT keystrokes for accessing menu options without the mouse.
- Minimize, Restore and Close icons in the upper right corner. The developer has to put in extra effort to change that, too.
- Additional window management commands by clicking on the program's icon in the upper left of the window, or right-clicking on the program in the taskbar.
- Standard control element sets: Checkboxes, drop down lists, "Open" and "Save As" dialogs, Radio buttons, tab interfaces, and so forth.
All versions of Windows since 95 have:
- A Taskbar with "Start" button, system tray, and clock.
- ALT-[SHIFT}-TAB for switching between applications in the taskbar.
- WINDOWS-? Shortcuts. (M)inimize all windows, (E)xplorer file manager, (R)un program, and so forth.
- A control panel for accessing the deeper system settings.
- A "Desktop" with familiar icons such as "My Computer" and "Recycle Bin".
- A "Start" button that contains folders for "Programs", Recently accessed document history, control panel, search, and shutdown/logoff.
That's just off the top of my head, too. I bet you'll have a tough time finding 5 native Windows applications that break any one of these design standards, and for each one you do find I'll dig up twenty that don't.
With many programs it is possible to choose settings which prevent the program from running at all
Then the programmer was either lazy or a sh*thead for letting those settings get saved! Another benefit of having an in-program editor is that you can check to make sure the settings don't break the program before committing to them. I won't argue that settings in readable files is a good thing, ini files are better for the user than the registry.
It's a case of different forms of memory - visual memory which some people are good at, or being able to remember a method or sequence of events. Being able to group things into sets should work - but it doesn't because menu options either cannot or are not sorted into logical groups
If your menus are not grouped logically then you haven't put enough thought about it. The typical menu setups in Windows apps are very logical: "File" contains all things that go with file operations. "Edit" contains all document editing functions. "View" contains all document viewing and program appearance settings, etc. If an app breaks the pattern (and some definitely do), then either the developer has a really good reason to be different or has not considered the user interface carefully enough. With all the cash MS dumps into usability studies, you'd think the way they have everything laid out would be pretty optimal for Jow Q User.
Syntax can be looked up
Which takes time, and for some people learning syntax for some programs would be like learning a whole other language. I'm amazed our office's secretary can find her way to work every day, let alone be able to understand a conf file filled with technical poo.
Your next paragraph deserves an insightful moderation. You are absolutely correct that just beneath the surface computers start to get m
A big part of what keeps many users from switching is fear of being in a totally new environment that don't understand. This provides a midpoint between the two worlds: get a taste of Linux, and if you start to panic just hit the good old "Windows" key on the keyboard and you're back to familiar territory. (Or CTRL-ESC, but chances are if you're running Windows you have a keyboard with a "Windows" key...)
.conf file that you have to edit by hand.
Of course, the second biggest part of the hurdle is customizing the system without having to learn all the nuts and bolts of operating system function. This is *almost* solved, but compared to the rather intuitive and standardized interface that Windows has nothing in the OSS community has been able to match it.
For example, tweaking options for a program should be done via an "options" menu of some kind there is a logical, visual organization to the settings with checkboxes and drop down lists, not a 30+ page
God help you if it's case sensitive or syntactically anal, too; you may never get it right unless you've done it several times before. Your average home user doesn't have the patience to deal with that kind of thing, and until this hurdle is taken down they'll stick with Windows for sure.
=Smidge=
That's funny, I earn about 30K and I pay sh*tloads of taxes. My boss earns over 150K and pays less tax than I do because he writes off everything to the company. I don't doubt that this is common.
Not only that, but the website you link to (which is highly suspect of being politically bias...) doesn't seem to tell you how it got those numbers.
Suspicious at best and dubious at worst!
=Smidge=
Just looking at the picture, the cuts seem to be about 1/20th the width of the piece, with 9 cuts in each direction plus a little extra for the lobes... that works out to about one whole row of piece worth of material removed (figure somewhat uniform density and thickness) (9 + 9 = 18 + a little extra = 20, line is 1/20th width of piece and full width)
So 10 piece gone and 100 remaining, which comes out to about 10% loss.
=Smidge=
That's government funding, I was suggesting private funding (since I was talking about wealth on the citizen level). Even corporate sponsorship can be difficult depending on the project...
=Smidge=
I'm not an american and I'm impressed by what your country is able to achieve. But then again, I wouldn't expect much less of an abundantly rich western country with 285 million citizens.
80% of the population shares less than 20% of the country's wealth (Stats from 1998, I'm sure it's gotten worse since).
I'm not quite sure about "abundantly rich"... at least on the citizen level. That top 20% didn't get that rich by spending money on space probes, either. It's amazingly hard to get funding for something that has no monetary return on the investment.
Which makes it that much more impressive, IMHO.
=Smidge=
To the best of my knowledge, there are three sets of magnets involved in real-life Maglevs: Levitation, Guidance, and Propulsion. All three need realtime computer control to keep the train floating within inches of the track and to keep it moving smoothly. In all of the real working systems I've read about, electromagnets on both the track and train are used to accomplish this.
I believe there are some systems however that use inductive principles to provide most of the lifting force - using wheels until the train is up to speed and the car can levitate properly. This cuts down on the amount of on-board power required, but a good deal is still required for the other systems.
I've never heard of a real train using permanent magnets. Only desktop models. I can easily see how cost, since cost per gauss - no rhyme intended - is much less for electromagnets than permanent ones when you get into really powerful fields. Safety is also an issue, since a service tech will probably have to take a wrench to the thing sooner or later, and that can cause a few lost fingers...
So all told the train will definitely require on-board power generation. I honestly can't tell you if it would be more or less than a regular train, but it would probably be over 200kw easily. (For reference, a normal commuter train powerplant is around the megawatt rage and up)
=Smidge=