There are counterfeit pirates (CP's), and then there are those who are the lone individual pirates (IP's). IP's are not lost sales because THEY'RE NOT CUSTOMERS or are they even potential customers. If they could and wanted to buy the stuff, they would of paid for it. And from a business science perspective, you CANNOT count them as lost revenue. Lost revenue can only be truly counted if CP sell you items at and keep all the profits, either passing it off as the real McCoy or a cut-throat street-corner price. I really wish these idiots stop including IP losses when the issue are the counterfeiters.
Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt. That should be good for a $12.5 million lawsuit. BTW - I'm in Canada, and lawsuit trolls are treated, well, fairly for the defendant - usually I'm entitled for damages - sometimes equal to what people are sued for. And frivolous copyright lawsuits are well, treated with as much respect by the justice system as they would treat a rapist... wait a minute...
Daniel Henninger is wrong. How he's drawing this conclusion is a little far-fetched. No one is going to stop believing in science as this has no implication to regular scientists who believe in causation science versus the correlation science of climatologists. I cannot say the same for climatologists however. Their methodologies, data, and science, at least how they're going about it, is not following proper research methodologies.
As an amateur scientist of the sky (Astronomer), science at its core is transparent, open, and full of debate and honest and thoughtful challenges with peers. Climatology is anything but open, no debate with its peers, and hateful accusations of mistrust and full of secrets. If I have a theory about a pulsar and why it varies a particular way, I'll throw it out there to my peers to break apart and destroy my theory - that's how we're suppose to do it. You announce a study result (about a possible causation) and HOPE someone proves you wrong. We then get more 'Ah Ha!' moments when someone else studies the theory and then using their own experiences and knowledge, may be able to modify my theory about that same pulsar because perhaps they were doing similar research and then collaborate to come up with a new theory that we all then try to destroy and disprove. That is how science works!
Climatologists may be right, but their science methodologies are not 'best practice' leaving a lot of us to wonder how they're coming up with their results - which they keep to themselves.
there are no comments? I was once a programmer for EDS - I was responsible for the UNIX API that back-ended our helpdesk system. It was mostly written in C. The single biggest issue I had were the contractors who we brought in who either didn't comment on their function libraries they wrote, or their comments didn't follow proper function header commenting that you get if you went to school.
The bottom line, if you don't have established code-commenting procedures and processes on how you code and a quality assurance process to ensure that code is written properly and documented, you get back what kind of 'box' you put around your programmers. Those procedures are not suppose to limit how you put smarts into programming, but establish common programming language 'parameters' all programmers use on your team. Beware of the contractor however, they tend to follow their own rules, and try to ensure their own self-worth by documenting poorly.
Recorded shows increase viewership? Like pirated movies increase movie ticket sales? Like pirated music increases digital music sales?
Question is, will the media giants really wake up and stop all this lawsuit nonsense. Will RIAA, MPAA and other copyright trolls really give up the ghost and embrace the digital age and realise the potential of the internet?
that you would go 'crazy' without the neruological stimulus from your 5 main senses. People who loose one or two of their senses in accidents have had their personalities greatly altered. The biggest impact is sight, second is touch. In essense, starving your brain that is hardwired for sensory input could drive it mad within days and weeks. Not to mention, how would your intuition, sense of reason and rational work in an artifical environment? How could you day-dream?
So, who's going to recycle the thousands of tons of outdated and broken solar panels? Currently, there is 0% recycling of these devices - they're pretty much garbage dump fodder right now. Not to mention the tonnes of emmissions used to make these solar panels vs other conventional methods - I think per KW produced to make a panel, isn't it still better for the environment to burn coal?
It really ticks me off that there's all these incentives for alternative energy sources when the manufacturing of these devices and then the landfill waste they create when they're done is never really brought into the equations. Is it a push just for business to buy more junk?
I've been involved with and working in IT for over almost 30 years (since my first Vic-20). This raises a lot of points on companies and the shiny - the answer is not as black-and-white. The answer is: it depends. My experience has shown there are three typical views of IT and how 'shiny' it is to the company. To find out, ask the question - Does your company treat IT in how much value they add to their organization?
1. They view IT as a cost-centre. Run, don't walk away from companies that view their IT centres as something to be outsourced.
2. They view IT as a necessary evil and spend only as much as necessary to keep their employees from throwing their monitors out the window. These kinds of companies understand IT is a necessary, but they don't like spending money on it. They tend to upgrade software that are SEVERAL versions behind, and your typical office PC is 4-7 years old. No shiny here - IT is dull and so is working here in that role.
3. They view IT as a way to save money. Innovative and highly adaptable companies that change with their operating environment usually view IT as a way to improve on efficiencies, and use it to reduce costs and improve services internally and externally. These are good companies that view IT as shiny and always something to invest in. These companies also tend to be around a long time, or they always seem to make money even when times are bad. It takes money to invest in IT - badly managed companies don't have money to spend on it. These companies, from an IT and a learning perspective, are preferred. More often than nought, they also tend to dabble in Open Source - never a bad thing.
So, when doing an interview at a company, ask the following questions:
1. How old 'typically' are the computers in your office?
2. What version of Microsoft and Office are you using?
3. Does your organization view IT as a cost center or as value-added infrastructure?
Measure these against points 1-3 for their shiny score.:)
Hmm... after doing the report, I'm worth -$42 (that's a negative) and they're demanding my presence be eliminated from the net. It also had 'End of Line' when I finished. What does 'End of Line' mean?:)
Now, throw in a TrackIR-like system, and we can 100% totally immerse ourselves inside a virtual reality PC. No more monitors that have limited field of views etc. Also, imagine the military and civilian aspects - how a terminator can overlay regional information like that of the new iPhone app - but now it's in your eyes.
But they're gonna have to figure out a) how to power it and b) how to transmit the data to these devices. That is true tech challenge.
That article, written Gal Luft, BTW, works for the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, which by the way, worked/advised the Bush administration. Of course he would be advocate that biofuel and food prices are a myth - the members of this group are also pro-biofuel consortium - which may I ask, are you?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, ANY food source used as a bio-fuel is a terrible idea. Using food sources for bio-fuels has resulted in people STARVING to death in developing nations. Why can't these intelligent scientists see this? Even if it's only for spoils of watermelon crops, the fine line between selling the entire source for fuel vs food will become invisible - just as it happened for corn and wheat.
It took a global economic meltdown to correct food prices to help reset this stupidity. But it seems these morons (lets call a spade a spade) forgot this fact. All it takes is for watermelons to get expensive, and in poorer countries, you'll have the farmers selling their entire crops to bio-fuel companies.
Canada's privacy laws disallows this, especially not notifying the user. As soon as it leaks out to the CRTC and the Privacy Commish, they may disallow this device for sale in Canada later this month.
But my god, what was Palm thinking? Disappointing.
Does it mean if someone doesn't emit light is dead or 'un-dead' like Zombies or Vampires? Can I get a dead-dar that goes off if someone isn't emitting light?
Maybe we should find a way to create solar panels that are powered from human body light to fight global warming?:)
Interesting - but if the drug does prevent cell damage, how can it harm internal organs? Unless the digestive fluids and other non-protected fluids that assist in our digestive processes in our body are negatively impacted by the radiation exposure. Do you think it would still be better than nothing and perhaps only a short-term solution?
This does bring me to the thought of BS:Galactica and how they would 'regularly' inject this same kind of solution into their bodies to protect against radiation.
Chemo is a SOB. But what is not clear is if it helps against sustained radiation exposure. If a 'bomb' did go off, and you were far enough from the gamma radiation effects, the long term radiation that is left over continually emits, how will this med work against that? Furthermore, if you take the med, does it mean you can live in an area where radiation continually emits or that you can survive brief exposures? Apart from the DNA breaking side-effects of radiation, what would this mean for those who are exposed to an area that is contaminated by radiation?
What I find interesting is the spin on privacy. Here in Canada, our privacy law is one of the reasons why file sharing has been hard to crack down on. The ability to remain anonymous and retain your privacy rights blocks most ISP's from packet-sniffing on behalf of 'special interest groups' - it also requires a court order: the judge will ask 'what proof do you have' and then ask these groups to explain how the gathered that proof without violation of Privacy laws. Even the current 'throttling' may be violating my privacy of internet usage as it would prove my ISP is scanning and reading my traffic information - which is a violation of my privacy rights of internet usage.
As a canuck, sure, the CRTC hands-off approach makes sense, but it still doesn't help address internet throttling by ISP which I think is shoddy. If I pay for a service, and wish to use a technology to download a game patch like Torrent, my ISP WILL throttle my internet connection.
However, no regulation still means NO regulation which isn't a bad thing. And I do have the ability to switch service providers as a consumer and inquire about throttling before I move.
1. Spend a little time creating a new and improved version of your book.
2. Use blogging and give copies to book reviewers to create some hype about it. You want to creat e some interest - especially if you give a few copies away to those who are well known in the field.
3. Release your new book on your own personal website, in conjunction with the printed version - but sell it at a reasonable price for a PDF version online. Also, offer your previous version at a micropayment level - maybe 50 cents or for free.
Here is the tricky and uncomfortable caviet: the more popular your book becomes, the more money you make for each revision and update. But you got to get it popular first. If you also decide to create a fan base of your books, the more likely they are to buy your next improved version or an entirely new book.
Suing people who have pirated your book for free will not only kill your reputation as a reasonable person, but it puts you into the same 'scumbag-money-hungry' league as our infamous Potter author did with the guy and his popular fan-based website. Extremely unethical and definitely not the right thing to do. You might as well apply for a job "like fries with that?".
After reading this review (and laughing/blowing milk straight out my nose - don't ask), I think this is the perfect non-spoiler-non-biased-perfectly-opinionated review I have seen on Slashdot in years. I'm happy to see that JJ is able to nail Trek perfectly, and Taco is right - the characters make the film, and it is all about Kirk and Spock.
As a golden Trekie (getting up there in age), I am hopeful this 'REBOOT' of Trek will see more of it in the cinemas, and maybe even on TV.
As a former fed IT staffer and military specialist, our policies were always to be proactive. Resting is never a good place to be when an attack hits. Obama (and the rest of our NATO nations) need to have their own cyber-warfare military units to respond to any potential threat. With our economies being tied closer and closer each year to the internet, its now along the same lines of our need for energy and needs to be guarded as such.
Besides, I would rather these units proactively dismantle bot-nets, spynets, and spam-nets to protect our infrastructure than to constantly force the private companies to deal with the criminal and 'not-so-criminal-china-warfare' tactics going on today.
A lot of 'qualified' and 'educated' scientists said that it was impossible to break the speed of sound 60 years ago. Yet here we are with spaceships and research vessels travelling thousands of miles per hour in space. We '_CAN_' go faster than the speed of light - we just need to figure out a way to bend space to make it so.
Slashdot Mirror
There are counterfeit pirates (CP's), and then there are those who are the lone individual pirates (IP's). IP's are not lost sales because THEY'RE NOT CUSTOMERS or are they even potential customers. If they could and wanted to buy the stuff, they would of paid for it. And from a business science perspective, you CANNOT count them as lost revenue. Lost revenue can only be truly counted if CP sell you items at and keep all the profits, either passing it off as the real McCoy or a cut-throat street-corner price. I really wish these idiots stop including IP losses when the issue are the counterfeiters.
Now they can develop a candy for kids in the wintertime so they can stop sticking their tongues to metal posts!
Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt. That should be good for a $12.5 million lawsuit. BTW - I'm in Canada, and lawsuit trolls are treated, well, fairly for the defendant - usually I'm entitled for damages - sometimes equal to what people are sued for. And frivolous copyright lawsuits are well, treated with as much respect by the justice system as they would treat a rapist... wait a minute...
Daniel Henninger is wrong. How he's drawing this conclusion is a little far-fetched. No one is going to stop believing in science as this has no implication to regular scientists who believe in causation science versus the correlation science of climatologists. I cannot say the same for climatologists however. Their methodologies, data, and science, at least how they're going about it, is not following proper research methodologies.
As an amateur scientist of the sky (Astronomer), science at its core is transparent, open, and full of debate and honest and thoughtful challenges with peers. Climatology is anything but open, no debate with its peers, and hateful accusations of mistrust and full of secrets. If I have a theory about a pulsar and why it varies a particular way, I'll throw it out there to my peers to break apart and destroy my theory - that's how we're suppose to do it. You announce a study result (about a possible causation) and HOPE someone proves you wrong. We then get more 'Ah Ha!' moments when someone else studies the theory and then using their own experiences and knowledge, may be able to modify my theory about that same pulsar because perhaps they were doing similar research and then collaborate to come up with a new theory that we all then try to destroy and disprove. That is how science works!
Climatologists may be right, but their science methodologies are not 'best practice' leaving a lot of us to wonder how they're coming up with their results - which they keep to themselves.
How unscientific indeed.
there are no comments? I was once a programmer for EDS - I was responsible for the UNIX API that back-ended our helpdesk system. It was mostly written in C. The single biggest issue I had were the contractors who we brought in who either didn't comment on their function libraries they wrote, or their comments didn't follow proper function header commenting that you get if you went to school.
The bottom line, if you don't have established code-commenting procedures and processes on how you code and a quality assurance process to ensure that code is written properly and documented, you get back what kind of 'box' you put around your programmers. Those procedures are not suppose to limit how you put smarts into programming, but establish common programming language 'parameters' all programmers use on your team. Beware of the contractor however, they tend to follow their own rules, and try to ensure their own self-worth by documenting poorly.
Recorded shows increase viewership? Like pirated movies increase movie ticket sales? Like pirated music increases digital music sales?
Question is, will the media giants really wake up and stop all this lawsuit nonsense. Will RIAA, MPAA and other copyright trolls really give up the ghost and embrace the digital age and realise the potential of the internet?
that you would go 'crazy' without the neruological stimulus from your 5 main senses. People who loose one or two of their senses in accidents have had their personalities greatly altered. The biggest impact is sight, second is touch. In essense, starving your brain that is hardwired for sensory input could drive it mad within days and weeks. Not to mention, how would your intuition, sense of reason and rational work in an artifical environment? How could you day-dream?
So, who's going to recycle the thousands of tons of outdated and broken solar panels? Currently, there is 0% recycling of these devices - they're pretty much garbage dump fodder right now. Not to mention the tonnes of emmissions used to make these solar panels vs other conventional methods - I think per KW produced to make a panel, isn't it still better for the environment to burn coal?
It really ticks me off that there's all these incentives for alternative energy sources when the manufacturing of these devices and then the landfill waste they create when they're done is never really brought into the equations. Is it a push just for business to buy more junk?
I've been involved with and working in IT for over almost 30 years (since my first Vic-20). This raises a lot of points on companies and the shiny - the answer is not as black-and-white. The answer is: it depends. My experience has shown there are three typical views of IT and how 'shiny' it is to the company. To find out, ask the question - Does your company treat IT in how much value they add to their organization?
:)
1. They view IT as a cost-centre. Run, don't walk away from companies that view their IT centres as something to be outsourced.
2. They view IT as a necessary evil and spend only as much as necessary to keep their employees from throwing their monitors out the window. These kinds of companies understand IT is a necessary, but they don't like spending money on it. They tend to upgrade software that are SEVERAL versions behind, and your typical office PC is 4-7 years old. No shiny here - IT is dull and so is working here in that role.
3. They view IT as a way to save money. Innovative and highly adaptable companies that change with their operating environment usually view IT as a way to improve on efficiencies, and use it to reduce costs and improve services internally and externally. These are good companies that view IT as shiny and always something to invest in. These companies also tend to be around a long time, or they always seem to make money even when times are bad. It takes money to invest in IT - badly managed companies don't have money to spend on it. These companies, from an IT and a learning perspective, are preferred. More often than nought, they also tend to dabble in Open Source - never a bad thing.
So, when doing an interview at a company, ask the following questions:
1. How old 'typically' are the computers in your office?
2. What version of Microsoft and Office are you using?
3. Does your organization view IT as a cost center or as value-added infrastructure?
Measure these against points 1-3 for their shiny score.
Hmm... after doing the report, I'm worth -$42 (that's a negative) and they're demanding my presence be eliminated from the net. It also had 'End of Line' when I finished. What does 'End of Line' mean? :)
Now, throw in a TrackIR-like system, and we can 100% totally immerse ourselves inside a virtual reality PC. No more monitors that have limited field of views etc. Also, imagine the military and civilian aspects - how a terminator can overlay regional information like that of the new iPhone app - but now it's in your eyes.
But they're gonna have to figure out a) how to power it and b) how to transmit the data to these devices. That is true tech challenge.
My goodness, my reply wasn't flamebait - it was stating facts. (There is someone trying to hide facts from the public.) I'll go further.
This institution is also indirectly connected to - some of its members are also part of the same group. It's related to the same past administration.
That article, written Gal Luft, BTW, works for the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, which by the way, worked/advised the Bush administration. Of course he would be advocate that biofuel and food prices are a myth - the members of this group are also pro-biofuel consortium - which may I ask, are you?
Thank goodness for Muckety.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, ANY food source used as a bio-fuel is a terrible idea. Using food sources for bio-fuels has resulted in people STARVING to death in developing nations. Why can't these intelligent scientists see this? Even if it's only for spoils of watermelon crops, the fine line between selling the entire source for fuel vs food will become invisible - just as it happened for corn and wheat.
It took a global economic meltdown to correct food prices to help reset this stupidity. But it seems these morons (lets call a spade a spade) forgot this fact. All it takes is for watermelons to get expensive, and in poorer countries, you'll have the farmers selling their entire crops to bio-fuel companies.
Canada's privacy laws disallows this, especially not notifying the user. As soon as it leaks out to the CRTC and the Privacy Commish, they may disallow this device for sale in Canada later this month.
But my god, what was Palm thinking? Disappointing.
RFOL! I just blew coffee out my nose. That was priceless!
Does it mean if someone doesn't emit light is dead or 'un-dead' like Zombies or Vampires? Can I get a dead-dar that goes off if someone isn't emitting light?
:)
Maybe we should find a way to create solar panels that are powered from human body light to fight global warming?
Interesting - but if the drug does prevent cell damage, how can it harm internal organs? Unless the digestive fluids and other non-protected fluids that assist in our digestive processes in our body are negatively impacted by the radiation exposure. Do you think it would still be better than nothing and perhaps only a short-term solution?
This does bring me to the thought of BS:Galactica and how they would 'regularly' inject this same kind of solution into their bodies to protect against radiation.
Chemo is a SOB. But what is not clear is if it helps against sustained radiation exposure. If a 'bomb' did go off, and you were far enough from the gamma radiation effects, the long term radiation that is left over continually emits, how will this med work against that? Furthermore, if you take the med, does it mean you can live in an area where radiation continually emits or that you can survive brief exposures? Apart from the DNA breaking side-effects of radiation, what would this mean for those who are exposed to an area that is contaminated by radiation?
What I find interesting is the spin on privacy. Here in Canada, our privacy law is one of the reasons why file sharing has been hard to crack down on. The ability to remain anonymous and retain your privacy rights blocks most ISP's from packet-sniffing on behalf of 'special interest groups' - it also requires a court order: the judge will ask 'what proof do you have' and then ask these groups to explain how the gathered that proof without violation of Privacy laws. Even the current 'throttling' may be violating my privacy of internet usage as it would prove my ISP is scanning and reading my traffic information - which is a violation of my privacy rights of internet usage.
As a canuck, sure, the CRTC hands-off approach makes sense, but it still doesn't help address internet throttling by ISP which I think is shoddy. If I pay for a service, and wish to use a technology to download a game patch like Torrent, my ISP WILL throttle my internet connection.
However, no regulation still means NO regulation which isn't a bad thing. And I do have the ability to switch service providers as a consumer and inquire about throttling before I move.
1. Spend a little time creating a new and improved version of your book.
2. Use blogging and give copies to book reviewers to create some hype about it. You want to creat e some interest - especially if you give a few copies away to those who are well known in the field.
3. Release your new book on your own personal website, in conjunction with the printed version - but sell it at a reasonable price for a PDF version online. Also, offer your previous version at a micropayment level - maybe 50 cents or for free.
Here is the tricky and uncomfortable caviet: the more popular your book becomes, the more money you make for each revision and update. But you got to get it popular first. If you also decide to create a fan base of your books, the more likely they are to buy your next improved version or an entirely new book.
Suing people who have pirated your book for free will not only kill your reputation as a reasonable person, but it puts you into the same 'scumbag-money-hungry' league as our infamous Potter author did with the guy and his popular fan-based website. Extremely unethical and definitely not the right thing to do. You might as well apply for a job "like fries with that?".
After reading this review (and laughing/blowing milk straight out my nose - don't ask), I think this is the perfect non-spoiler-non-biased-perfectly-opinionated review I have seen on Slashdot in years. I'm happy to see that JJ is able to nail Trek perfectly, and Taco is right - the characters make the film, and it is all about Kirk and Spock.
As a golden Trekie (getting up there in age), I am hopeful this 'REBOOT' of Trek will see more of it in the cinemas, and maybe even on TV.
Thanks JJ for making it real again!
As a former fed IT staffer and military specialist, our policies were always to be proactive. Resting is never a good place to be when an attack hits. Obama (and the rest of our NATO nations) need to have their own cyber-warfare military units to respond to any potential threat. With our economies being tied closer and closer each year to the internet, its now along the same lines of our need for energy and needs to be guarded as such.
Besides, I would rather these units proactively dismantle bot-nets, spynets, and spam-nets to protect our infrastructure than to constantly force the private companies to deal with the criminal and 'not-so-criminal-china-warfare' tactics going on today.
A lot of 'qualified' and 'educated' scientists said that it was impossible to break the speed of sound 60 years ago. Yet here we are with spaceships and research vessels travelling thousands of miles per hour in space. We '_CAN_' go faster than the speed of light - we just need to figure out a way to bend space to make it so.