I thought the count was too even a tempo to reflect people hitting a download. I hit refresh page and the number jumped back a few and continued counting.
Still Cool that the download number is essentially what is shown.
This is actually a really good idea. If a patent has future promise, it is worth it to the holder to pay a yearly (or regular) fee to hold the patent (this is how mining claims are managed). The Shit or get off the pot appraoch to a patent would help.
If a patent no longer provides income , or the income is less than the regular fee, it is no longer economically viable to hold on to the patent, then there is a chance for a final cash in, eithor sell to an interested party that might have a good alternative use, or use part of the money paind into the fees as a buyout to turn the patent over to the public domain.
The slashdot movie would be shown on a beowolf cluster of cinemas running linux in soviet Russia, and be full of old Koreans. As soon as it would open 10 million people would appear out of nowhere all holding tickets and crowd into the theater until their collective body heat melted the structure. Then the film would appear on several mirrors but nobody will actually watch it, but they will somehow be able to pick nits and overanalyze the story. the collective group of commentators will then declare that it sucked and was all Bill Gates' fault, but then George Lucas will remake it and it will worse....
Will google differentiate between my work box and home box. Will I get porn ads and what not showing up on the google screen while at work (potentially embarrising at best, could place my job in jepoardy based on my employers anti-porn/ anti things that don't belong in the workplace policy). The ads might be based on what I do in the privacy of my home, but this would be like a big electronic google cum stain showing up at work.
If you have the money to allow a problem to be prolonged by consultants, you will find that money will precipitate leeches, and they won't solve the problem.
This is like the ISP Road Department analogy from a story yesterday, The ISP is not so much checking the contents of passing cars on a highway for contraband. This is more like the Highway department kicking cars off the road because their owners have allowed them to degrade to horse drawn carts and all the horseshit on the road is causing problems with slow traffic and time and money to clean up the mess, I say this is a good move.
This "Code of Bandwidth" that is being proposed is akin to an environmental organization trying to strike a deal with Texaco/Exxon/Chevron/Mobil etc. so they would agree to discriminate within their customer base and only allow gas to be sold to drivers of low emission/low fuel use cars.
Mandatory Flex-time would be good, Better yet, change the standard Business work day in the US to 4-10's instead of the current 5-8's. Having 50 or so days of commuting removed from most of the working stiffs yearly schedules would more significantly reduce energy demands.
I know this is offtopic from the TSA article, but another example is the recent California ban on.50 cal rifles, in the name of preventing a terrorist from using one. Even though there is no instance of one of these rifles being used in a crime on US soil. It seems lately that all one needs to further an agenda is to replace "think of what terrorists could do" with the old "think of the children".
This is more like getting 30 shipping containers of crap from LA to London... You could fly each one individually (Very Expensive) You could pack them onto a ship and take it through the panama canal and on to London (Long Time/High Initial Cost), Or you could ship by truck or rail to New York, then load onto a ship when they all arrive, and head to London. (Easiest).
Exactly, There is no reason that broadband/wifi couldn't be made available by a public utility. The question is which is better, public or private. The answer is that it depends. In a large market with the prospect of solid competition two or three private ventures competing for your business will tend to be better for the user. In small markets where competition is not going to be a factor, public utilities are better for the user because the issue of meeting a profit margin is eliminated. Public utilities may tend to be more bureaucratic and therefore less efficient in operation, but they are essentially providing a product at their cost of operation. In the area of other service utilities, there have been cases of private ventures being far better than the bloated dinosaur public utility, there are also issues of private corporations screwing their customers because there is no alternative for them (all in the name of turning a profit).
The predictions for global warming are probably more than half right, the accepted cause is probably more than half wrong. It is arrogant to assume that Man and CO2 production are the whole story. Sure CO2 emissions are part of the picture. Cutting emissions might make a small difference. So does pissing in a rain storm.
I'm all for improving efficiency, reducing consumptive use, mining landfills.
Planting a lot of trees, engineering algae farms for the purpose of carbon sequestration, or as a source of bio fuels would reduce the net CO2 gain to the atmosphere. Restoring rain forests would do more long term good than targeting the wealthiest nations and demanding CO2 emissions reductions or else...
We have a bridge, it's a good bridge, been around for a long time. Used pretty hard, getting a bit rickety in places, its been tagged, perhaps a lot. A better bridge analogy is a sign that says the bridge is collapsing. With numerous people saying the bridge is collapsing because its been vandalized. Sure its been tagged but have the vandals compromised it structurally. Broken windows and spray paint often go hand in hand with condemned structures, but the question is, did the vandalism cause the structural compromise or was it something else. The popular environmental/political stance is to correlate the vandalism with structural compromise and say "see the spray paint, there is much more now than when the bridge was new, we should make the vandals fix the bridge."
The skeptics aren't buying the argument. They aren't saying the bridge doesn't look bad, They aren't saying the bridge isn't collapsing.
What the skeptics are saying is, Sure the bridge looks shitty, but it could be all the rust in the superstructure that is the cause of its weakness, it could be the heavy traffic load the bridge has to bear, it could be that the bridge was built on a flood plain in a seismic hazard zone.
The truth is, the bridge is not collapsing, parts of it will be rendered unusable to current civilizations, parts will remain perfectly sound. Some people will have to move to better portions of the bridge.
Using a GPS transponder is like putting a plain clothes cop in/on your car, this would be considered trespassing if not invited or allowed by court order.
The guy that died and froze in the glacier happened to be about 5200 years old, the plants that appeared under the retreating glacier happened to be about 5200 years old, tree rings from (you guessed it) 5200 years ago show a dramatic decrease in growth. This is all evidence that cooling of the climate occurred rapidly around 5200 years ago. The article suggests that this cooling is coincidental with a decrease in solar activity, as also seen in the later mini-ice age (the dark ages). The point in the article is that seemingly small changes in inputs to the climate system can have significant impact. Additionally the fact that a number of items that were covered in ice 5200 years ago are finally being exposed by retreating ice suggests that we are in the midst of climate change to pre 5200 year ago conditions.
The question here is what is causing the climate change; increased anthropogenic CO2, decrease in forested area, increased volcanic activity and related CO2 output, change in solar output, diminished phyto-plankton populations, dirty snow causing a reduced polar albedo.
The potential causes for impact in climate change are numerous, not all have been thoroughly explored, it is likely that a combination of several of these factors is to blame. Among environmental scientists there is not a true consensus regarding "popular" opinions as to the cause. It is unwise to jump to popular conclusions in a time of climate flux and attempt to "fix" the problem by tweaking an input that might actually be providing stability that we need.
Science is philosophy, science as it is generally bandied about is the result of a series of logical arguments that are based on tested "proven" facts. The scientific method; Hypothesis, test of the hypothesis, analysis of results (prove/disprove), is the tool for generating premises in broader philosophical (scientific) arguments. All of the sciences exist as an arm of philosophy, cousins to the studies of religion, existence, morality and ethics. In this sense the inclusion of creationism in a biology class is a sort of philosophical inbreeding from two different branches of thought. Just as religion does not belong in affairs of the state, it also does not belong in the arguments of science.
No "computer keys" but Victorinox makes a knife with tools specifically sized for computer components,(sockets, phillips, torx) far more useful to a geek than the leatherman,
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the count was too even a tempo to reflect people hitting a download. I hit refresh page and the number jumped back a few and continued counting.
Still Cool that the download number is essentially what is shown.
As Much as I don't like the idea of a new tax,
This is actually a really good idea. If a patent has future promise, it is worth it to the holder to pay a yearly (or regular) fee to hold the patent (this is how mining claims are managed). The Shit or get off the pot appraoch to a patent would help.
If a patent no longer provides income , or the income is less than the regular fee, it is no longer economically viable to hold on to the patent, then there is a chance for a final cash in, eithor sell to an interested party that might have a good alternative use, or use part of the money paind into the fees as a buyout to turn the patent over to the public domain.
No No No,
The slashdot movie would be shown on a beowolf cluster of cinemas running linux in soviet Russia, and be full of old Koreans.
As soon as it would open 10 million people would appear out of nowhere all holding tickets and crowd into the theater until their collective body heat melted the structure. Then the film would appear on several mirrors but nobody will actually watch it, but they will somehow be able to pick nits and overanalyze the story. the collective group of commentators will then declare that it sucked and was all Bill Gates' fault, but then George Lucas will remake it and it will worse....
I use Google at home, I use google at work.
Will google differentiate between my work box and home box. Will I get porn ads and what not showing up on the google screen while at work (potentially embarrising at best, could place my job in jepoardy based on my employers anti-porn/ anti things that don't belong in the workplace policy). The ads might be based on what I do in the privacy of my home, but this would be like a big electronic google cum stain showing up at work.
I probally should have posted this anonymously...
Hey I used an IBM modem to bust a nut last night...
If you have the money to allow a problem to be prolonged by consultants, you will find that money will precipitate leeches, and they won't solve the problem.
So both are correct.
Disconnecting from the net is the only way to do this,
I get your point though, regular cleaning and maintenance and the use of Firefox, spyware removal tools, and AVG Antivirus all definitely help.
This is not a liability issue,
This is like the ISP Road Department analogy from a story yesterday, The ISP is not so much checking the contents of passing cars on a highway for contraband.
This is more like the Highway department kicking cars off the road because their owners have allowed them to degrade to horse drawn carts and all the horseshit on the road is causing problems with slow traffic and time and money to clean up the mess, I say this is a good move.
I Agree,
This "Code of Bandwidth" that is being proposed is akin to an environmental organization trying to strike a deal with Texaco/Exxon/Chevron/Mobil etc.
so they would agree to discriminate within their customer base and only allow gas to be sold to drivers of low emission/low fuel use cars.
Mandatory Flex-time would be good,
Better yet, change the standard Business work day in the US to 4-10's instead of the current 5-8's.
Having 50 or so days of commuting removed from most of the working stiffs yearly schedules would more significantly reduce energy demands.
I hhave this friend, He um, could really, you know, would like to know more about these "nerd-hags". Where would I, um, He go to meet one.
I know this is offtopic from the TSA article, but another example is the recent California ban on .50 cal rifles, in the name of preventing a terrorist from using one. Even though there is no instance of one of these rifles being used in a crime on US soil. It seems lately that all one needs to further an agenda is to replace "think of what terrorists could do" with the old "think of the children".
This is more like getting 30 shipping containers of crap from LA to London...
You could fly each one individually (Very Expensive)
You could pack them onto a ship and take it through the panama canal and on to London (Long Time/High Initial Cost),
Or you could ship by truck or rail to New York, then load onto a ship when they all arrive, and head to London. (Easiest).
Moon as a platform for Mars, as in its easier to launch vehicles from the moon to go to mars, than from the earth to go to mars.
Launch several missions to the moon,
Establish a moon base,
Construct vehicles and assemble accumulated equipment to haul to mars.
A large push that might get part of your crap into orbit would take all of your crap from the moon to mars. It might even get there faster.
Exactly, There is no reason that broadband/wifi couldn't be made available by a public utility. The question is which is better, public or private. The answer is that it depends. In a large market with the prospect of solid competition two or three private ventures competing for your business will tend to be better for the user. In small markets where competition is not going to be a factor, public utilities are better for the user because the issue of meeting a profit margin is eliminated. Public utilities may tend to be more bureaucratic and therefore less efficient in operation, but they are essentially providing a product at their cost of operation. In the area of other service utilities, there have been cases of private ventures being far better than the bloated dinosaur public utility, there are also issues of private corporations screwing their customers because there is no alternative for them (all in the name of turning a profit).
The predictions for global warming are probably more than half right, the accepted cause is probably more than half wrong. It is arrogant to assume that Man and CO2 production are the whole story. Sure CO2 emissions are part of the picture. Cutting emissions might make a small difference. So does pissing in a rain storm.
I'm all for improving efficiency, reducing consumptive use, mining landfills.
Planting a lot of trees, engineering algae farms for the purpose of carbon sequestration, or as a source of bio fuels would reduce the net CO2 gain to the atmosphere. Restoring rain forests would do more long term good than targeting the wealthiest nations and demanding CO2 emissions reductions or else...
Lets explore the bridge analogy:
We have a bridge, it's a good bridge, been around for a long time. Used pretty hard, getting a bit rickety in places, its been tagged, perhaps a lot. A better bridge analogy is a sign that says the bridge is collapsing. With numerous people saying the bridge is collapsing because its been vandalized. Sure its been tagged but have the vandals compromised it structurally. Broken windows and spray paint often go hand in hand with condemned structures, but the question is, did the vandalism cause the structural compromise or was it something else. The popular environmental/political stance is to correlate the vandalism with structural compromise and say "see the spray paint, there is much more now than when the bridge was new, we should make the vandals fix the bridge."
The skeptics aren't buying the argument.
They aren't saying the bridge doesn't look bad, They aren't saying the bridge isn't collapsing.
What the skeptics are saying is, Sure the bridge looks shitty, but it could be all the rust in the superstructure that is the cause of its weakness, it could be the heavy traffic load the bridge has to bear, it could be that the bridge was built on a flood plain in a seismic hazard zone.
The truth is, the bridge is not collapsing, parts of it will be rendered unusable to current civilizations, parts will remain perfectly sound. Some people will have to move to better portions of the bridge.
Don't Forget to ask what it's for...
Using a GPS transponder is like putting a plain clothes cop in/on your car, this would be considered trespassing if not invited or allowed by court order.
The guy that died and froze in the glacier happened to be about 5200 years old, the plants that appeared under the retreating glacier happened to be about 5200 years old, tree rings from (you guessed it) 5200 years ago show a dramatic decrease in growth. This is all evidence that cooling of the climate occurred rapidly around 5200 years ago. The article suggests that this cooling is coincidental with a decrease in solar activity, as also seen in the later mini-ice age (the dark ages). The point in the article is that seemingly small changes in inputs to the climate system can have significant impact. Additionally the fact that a number of items that were covered in ice 5200 years ago are finally being exposed by retreating ice suggests that we are in the midst of climate change to pre 5200 year ago conditions.
The question here is what is causing the climate change; increased anthropogenic CO2, decrease in forested area, increased volcanic activity and related CO2 output, change in solar output, diminished phyto-plankton populations, dirty snow causing a reduced polar albedo.
The potential causes for impact in climate change are numerous, not all have been thoroughly explored, it is likely that a combination of several of these factors is to blame. Among environmental scientists there is not a true consensus regarding "popular" opinions as to the cause. It is unwise to jump to popular conclusions in a time of climate flux and attempt to "fix" the problem by tweaking an input that might actually be providing stability that we need.
Science is philosophy, science as it is generally bandied about is the result of a series of logical arguments that are based on tested "proven" facts. The scientific method; Hypothesis, test of the hypothesis, analysis of results (prove/disprove), is the tool for generating premises in broader philosophical (scientific) arguments. All of the sciences exist as an arm of philosophy, cousins to the studies of religion, existence, morality and ethics. In this sense the inclusion of creationism in a biology class is a sort of philosophical inbreeding from two different branches of thought. Just as religion does not belong in affairs of the state, it also does not belong in the arguments of science.
I think this was just a clever trick to get the police to expidite his commute...
"Ha, it fixed itself, thanks for the escort, I better get to that meeting now."
No "computer keys" but Victorinox makes a knife with tools specifically sized for computer components,(sockets, phillips, torx) far more useful to a geek than the leatherman,
http://www.urbanjunkie.co.uk/product.php/61/0
You Forgot Liberia and Burma the other two countries not on the metric system.
Would it appear as a swarm of locust?