They made it sound like they didn't harvest e-mails.
No, they didn't. Assured you there were no real privacy concerns, yes. Claim they didn't do automated analysis of email contents for purposes of searching ads, no.
Seriously -- I was reading their statements at the time, and it was clear as day. They do automated analysis for targeting ads, but don't do any cross-correlation that would be a privacy breach in the sense that any other human being finds out something they shouldn't.
As in, your wife just texted you to get some bread on the way home and not only did she pay for the text, but you paid for the "privilege" of being able to recieve it?
Yes, exactly. Major US cell phone carries are scams.
(Some of the minor ones much more consumer-friendly in terms of pricing and contract terms -- if I weren't locked into a Cingular contract I'd be on Cricket right now -- but they have their own drawbacks).
(I suspect that his notoriety is kind of a nuisance for other people with that name, who probably have to deal with "stop clowning around, what's your real name" a lot.
It could be worse. One of my friends is named Clark Kent.
Different strokes, I guess. I explicitly look for to buy a phone without a camera -- meaning I can keep my phone with me (on silent, of course) in courthouses and other places where cameras aren't allowed. It's getting harder and harder to find a decent phone without a tiny little uselessly crappy camera grafted on; the Neo having no camera at all is thus from my perspective a very significant feature.
(I can appreciate having a camera around the office to record whiteboard contents; that's about the only thing I ever use them for -- and with the whiteboard content density I typically work at, cell phone cameras are typically too low resolution to do a good job without all the hassle of combining together multiple shots).
Except that he is wrong about what SCO purchased. What SCO purchased was the exclusive right to license and rent UNIX, as well as decide what OSes can and cannot be referred to as UNIX.
No, they didn't get that -- The Open Group held (and holds) the UNIX trademark, and they decide what is and isn't a UNIX. And you're quite wrong in stating that a copyright can't be purchased -- they can indeed be transferred, but that transfer needs to be explicit, and the APA didn't qualify. (IANAL)
That these laptops are not built or distributed as toys; they are designed, built, programmed and distributed as educational tools, optionally configured to render themselves useless should they repeatedly fail to show up at school. A top-of-the-line Dell given to a family in poverty may well be useless to them except for its cash value -- but the XO is an entirely different beast.
As for your claim that only an "exceptionally forward-thinking individual" would be concerned about their children's future if they're having a hard time day-to-day -- I reject that. For one, those areas able to afford $100 per child for an educational tool aren't those where a the populace at large is literally barefoot and starving. There are quite a lot of places (like Accra was 8 or so years ago) where there are jobs (my friend's mother owned a textile factory, her father was a banker, and their household employed a significant amount of hired help) but electricity is sporadic and quality of education is sporadic for those without money. Computers (and parts for them) were at that time difficult to come by -- meaning that individuals' opportunity to get into tech was limited to those who could afford it.
Don't think barefoot children living in huts and people who are literally running a high risk of dying of starvation. Think wood-frame houses and dead-end jobs. This is an environment where people can afford to think about their future -- but where the resources to do something about it are hard to come by. And this is an environment where the XO can do a tremendous amount of good.
I certainly know that if I suddenly found myself short on money, and forced to eke out a meager existence, I wouldn't give a computer a moment's thought
Would you give your childrens' education a moment's thought? Might you consider that you would want them to eventually have a better life than you yourself do? Or are you asserting that poverty inherently removes all ambition and interest in the long-term best interests of one's children?
Look -- I'm familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but to effectively claim that anyone who's economically worse off than you are is somehow incapable of thinking about their family's long-term best interests is astoundingly condescending.
It's like the iPhone, only for barefoot, illiterate, sick, starving people.
Because barefoot, illiterate, sick, starving people should never be given anything that might make them less illiterate (and thus, eventually, less barefoot, sick and starving).
The XO is a way for teachers to stay in touch with illiterate parents. The XO is textbooks that won't be burnt for heat. The XO is exposure to the same kind of ability to learn valuable skills that first-world children have been enjoying for decades. The XO is, in short, a chance at a better future.
Apart from this, I have to be honest with you: I'd rather have Microsoft work on this health information system, than some unknown little entity that just is in to grab the money and run.
Yes, but the other entities getting into this space aren't exactly little and unknown, either. One of those has a name that starts with a "G", and I personally suspect that MS decided to get into this field principally to avoid one of their major competitors pulling one over on them again.
To be sure. Even so, 2-4 milligrams from a broken bulb is pretty much a nonissue so long as the room is vented -- the vapors spread out and dilute themselves.
Finding docs describing coal-fired power plants as the single largest cause of environmental mercury is easy, but going too far beyond that requires more than the 3 minutes of googling I can afford for the subject.
Actually, the mercury in CF bulbs is going to be a significant problem.
Overblown. A CFL powered by a coal-burning power plant results in a significant net reduction in mercury put into the environment -- that from the bulb itself is far more than offset by the mercury not released by the plant.
How's that matter? We were talking about self-selection bias. If folks who can't hack the exams leave the fields before they take their professional engineer's certification or their bar exam, what you've got left are the people who think they are fit for the job, in either case.
I don't see how a person who can't think like a lawyer could think like an engineer -- or visa-versa. They're quite similar in a lot of respects (building things to be fit-to-task, reliable and resilient within a well-defined but expansive set of known best practices, rules and constraints), and I think those who refer to law as contractual engineering have the right of it. That said, law can (occasionally, but critically) require softer skills as well -- these being the reason I consider it more difficult: I'm a pretty damned good (pseudo-)engineer, and I find law to be a very interesting subject (and have occasionally considered it as a target for any eventual change of careers) -- but I'm quite certain that, while I could probably pass a bar exam with enough study and funds, I'm not quick enough on my feet or skilled enough at persuasive argument to be effective as a lawyer beyond the day-to-day work of drafting and reviewing contracts, performing analysis and giving advice, &c.
But yes, talking to someone who's done both would be useful.
You've got selection bias in both directions -- folks who decide they can't hack law school are likewise prone to changing subjects. Since it can't be cleanly accounted for and it occurs in both directions, one might as well factor it out -- the results still may have some meaning.
Since the grandparent sees fit to state that engineering is at least somewhat harder than law, I'm curious to find the basis on which such a statement can be defended.
Wacko libertarians don't agree with all of that, but some of it's a lot more reasonable than you make it sound.
Hate crime legislation is a bad idea: If the punishment for a crime isn't adequate to deter it (to the extent that additional punishment can effectively do so), then the maximum penalty should be increased globally, not just for "hate crimes". If those committing hate crimes have a higher level of recidivism, sentencing guidelines should take that into account -- but judges should have the freedom to take the facts of the case into account in sentencing; that's what they're paid for.
Ron Paul's position on taxation is somewhat more nuanced than you suggest, but his general gist is that the government should provide less services (hey, he's a Libertarian!), thus need less money... so why would you have it collect more money than it should need? He's agreed to support the FairTax (a national consumption tax) conditionally on the income tax being repealed, and that's a Damned Good Thing.
Disallowing same-sex partners from adopting sucks (though my understanding of Ron Paul's position is that he believes that sort of legislation should be done on a state level, so I'd be very surprised if he sponsored national legislation on the subject), but I'll take a "traditional family values" type who simply votes to keep the federal government out of the question (as opposed to voting to answer it the wrong way and preempt the states' ability to answer it otherwise) over someone who votes to increase federal powers (which is pretty nearly everyone else). (That's the same position he takes on abortion and lots of other sticky social subjects -- his personal position is contrary to mine, but his actual voting record is in favor of keeping the federal government out of the issue, rather than forcing his personal position on everyone).
Consider it said in advance. Some of us aren't so chickenshit afraid of dying (which is going to happen anyhow, sooner or later) as to give up everyone's rights. (I was also completely pissed about the US's overreaction to 9/11 back when it first was taking place. 3000 people? Who bloody well cares? Car accidents kill vastly more).
If the death of my immediate family were necessary to allow individuals the ability to do research, art and politics with biological materials (or copyrighted materials -- fair use is every bit as critical, and just another aspect of freedom to tinker), that is a price I'd gladly pay.
(My wife is with me in terms of being willing to die for her principals; likewise, my brother-in-law, the only other member of our immediate household. Indeed, my only close relative I know of with a different position is my mother, and... well, like I said: Chickenshit. I have no respect for those who claim to have strong principals but consider their lives more important, family or no).
Slashdot Mirror
Patents expire, you know.
If you're talking "future", we're eventually going to see much of this work in the public domain.
Seriously -- I was reading their statements at the time, and it was clear as day. They do automated analysis for targeting ads, but don't do any cross-correlation that would be a privacy breach in the sense that any other human being finds out something they shouldn't.
A joke in bad taste is a joke in bad taste, no matter who made it first.
[EOT]
(Some of the minor ones much more consumer-friendly in terms of pricing and contract terms -- if I weren't locked into a Cingular contract I'd be on Cricket right now -- but they have their own drawbacks).
See, unlike you, I wasn't joking.
And then there are the folks who embrace it.
My urologist is Dr. Richard Chopp. He also performs vasectomies.
Different strokes, I guess. I explicitly look for to buy a phone without a camera -- meaning I can keep my phone with me (on silent, of course) in courthouses and other places where cameras aren't allowed. It's getting harder and harder to find a decent phone without a tiny little uselessly crappy camera grafted on; the Neo having no camera at all is thus from my perspective a very significant feature.
(I can appreciate having a camera around the office to record whiteboard contents; that's about the only thing I ever use them for -- and with the whiteboard content density I typically work at, cell phone cameras are typically too low resolution to do a good job without all the hassle of combining together multiple shots).
(IANAL)
That these laptops are not built or distributed as toys; they are designed, built, programmed and distributed as educational tools, optionally configured to render themselves useless should they repeatedly fail to show up at school. A top-of-the-line Dell given to a family in poverty may well be useless to them except for its cash value -- but the XO is an entirely different beast.
As for your claim that only an "exceptionally forward-thinking individual" would be concerned about their children's future if they're having a hard time day-to-day -- I reject that. For one, those areas able to afford $100 per child for an educational tool aren't those where a the populace at large is literally barefoot and starving. There are quite a lot of places (like Accra was 8 or so years ago) where there are jobs (my friend's mother owned a textile factory, her father was a banker, and their household employed a significant amount of hired help) but electricity is sporadic and quality of education is sporadic for those without money. Computers (and parts for them) were at that time difficult to come by -- meaning that individuals' opportunity to get into tech was limited to those who could afford it.
Don't think barefoot children living in huts and people who are literally running a high risk of dying of starvation. Think wood-frame houses and dead-end jobs. This is an environment where people can afford to think about their future -- but where the resources to do something about it are hard to come by. And this is an environment where the XO can do a tremendous amount of good.
Look -- I'm familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but to effectively claim that anyone who's economically worse off than you are is somehow incapable of thinking about their family's long-term best interests is astoundingly condescending.
The XO is a way for teachers to stay in touch with illiterate parents. The XO is textbooks that won't be burnt for heat. The XO is exposure to the same kind of ability to learn valuable skills that first-world children have been enjoying for decades. The XO is, in short, a chance at a better future.
To be sure. Even so, 2-4 milligrams from a broken bulb is pretty much a nonissue so long as the room is vented -- the vapors spread out and dilute themselves.
You might find the snopes article on the subject useful.
Also available is a statement by the EPA on the subject quoted at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070518-cfls-bulbs_2.html
Finding docs describing coal-fired power plants as the single largest cause of environmental mercury is easy, but going too far beyond that requires more than the 3 minutes of googling I can afford for the subject.
...or care about things that matter a lot, but for completely wrong reasons.
Open systems, open standards and open source are important -- but as a platform for innovation, not a pissing match.
I don't see how a person who can't think like a lawyer could think like an engineer -- or visa-versa. They're quite similar in a lot of respects (building things to be fit-to-task, reliable and resilient within a well-defined but expansive set of known best practices, rules and constraints), and I think those who refer to law as contractual engineering have the right of it. That said, law can (occasionally, but critically) require softer skills as well -- these being the reason I consider it more difficult: I'm a pretty damned good (pseudo-)engineer, and I find law to be a very interesting subject (and have occasionally considered it as a target for any eventual change of careers) -- but I'm quite certain that, while I could probably pass a bar exam with enough study and funds, I'm not quick enough on my feet or skilled enough at persuasive argument to be effective as a lawyer beyond the day-to-day work of drafting and reviewing contracts, performing analysis and giving advice, &c.
But yes, talking to someone who's done both would be useful.
You've got selection bias in both directions -- folks who decide they can't hack law school are likewise prone to changing subjects. Since it can't be cleanly accounted for and it occurs in both directions, one might as well factor it out -- the results still may have some meaning.
Since the grandparent sees fit to state that engineering is at least somewhat harder than law, I'm curious to find the basis on which such a statement can be defended.
Does that hold true based on pass/fail rates on the bar exam vs. professional engineering exams?
Wacko libertarians don't agree with all of that, but some of it's a lot more reasonable than you make it sound.
Hate crime legislation is a bad idea: If the punishment for a crime isn't adequate to deter it (to the extent that additional punishment can effectively do so), then the maximum penalty should be increased globally, not just for "hate crimes". If those committing hate crimes have a higher level of recidivism, sentencing guidelines should take that into account -- but judges should have the freedom to take the facts of the case into account in sentencing; that's what they're paid for.
Ron Paul's position on taxation is somewhat more nuanced than you suggest, but his general gist is that the government should provide less services (hey, he's a Libertarian!), thus need less money... so why would you have it collect more money than it should need? He's agreed to support the FairTax (a national consumption tax) conditionally on the income tax being repealed, and that's a Damned Good Thing.
Disallowing same-sex partners from adopting sucks (though my understanding of Ron Paul's position is that he believes that sort of legislation should be done on a state level, so I'd be very surprised if he sponsored national legislation on the subject), but I'll take a "traditional family values" type who simply votes to keep the federal government out of the question (as opposed to voting to answer it the wrong way and preempt the states' ability to answer it otherwise) over someone who votes to increase federal powers (which is pretty nearly everyone else). (That's the same position he takes on abortion and lots of other sticky social subjects -- his personal position is contrary to mine, but his actual voting record is in favor of keeping the federal government out of the issue, rather than forcing his personal position on everyone).
Consider it said in advance. Some of us aren't so chickenshit afraid of dying (which is going to happen anyhow, sooner or later) as to give up everyone's rights. (I was also completely pissed about the US's overreaction to 9/11 back when it first was taking place. 3000 people? Who bloody well cares? Car accidents kill vastly more).
If the death of my immediate family were necessary to allow individuals the ability to do research, art and politics with biological materials (or copyrighted materials -- fair use is every bit as critical, and just another aspect of freedom to tinker), that is a price I'd gladly pay.
(My wife is with me in terms of being willing to die for her principals; likewise, my brother-in-law, the only other member of our immediate household. Indeed, my only close relative I know of with a different position is my mother, and... well, like I said: Chickenshit. I have no respect for those who claim to have strong principals but consider their lives more important, family or no).
So can pollution credits. Doesn't change the grandparent's point.
That's unfair. Gibson's "design" was loose speculation, whereas hard math has been done both on the original Orion and on this potential improvement.
Certainly, neither of them has existed in practice -- but one was wild speculation, whereas the other had (and has) actual engineering.