OK, you are the second poster that didn't quite seem to follow the thread. Maybe I wan't clear.
What you said is correct. However, the parent suggested (somewhat tongue in cheek) that the problem could be solved if spammers were to pay for actual bandwidth use. So, following the parent, I was exploring whether there would be any effect if home broadband were not to be a flat rate. Supporters of the money grubbing telecoms might think that this would inspire the zombie owners to clean up their computers. However, I doubt this is the case. If the spam load is distributed over enough zombies, the zombie users wouldn't see any increased charges. Therefore, we are all best off with the current flat rate broadband charges.
The spammers don't pay for their bandwidth, the zombie owners do. Of course, if they noticed their internet bill go up, they might do something about it. However, with a large enough network of zombies, the individual computers could be used sparingly enough that the owners would never notics.
That's what happens when you loose your connection because some dumass contractor didn't locate all the existing underground cables before digging and took out your T1 line.
It seems that they must first accelerate charged particles and then turn them into neutrons without significantly modifying their momentum. Does anybody know the details?
The problem with prior art is that a patent troll can doctor it up in BS and try to patent it anyhow. It will probably slip past the patent office. It's true that it won't hold up in court, but for a small business looking at a multi-million dollar fight to defeat a troll's portfolio of prior art, it effectively eliminates competition.
I don't think that this means that radiation is good for the environment. It just means that humans are worse for the environment. In a strange way, this makes for a good environmental arguement for nuclear power. If the plant works, we have a souce of power free of greenhouse gasses. If a large region is contaminated, people leave, and you have a wildlife preserve.
I don't see what this private funding hype is all about. As far as I can tell, I don't see a significant difference in their business model from other contractors.
Perhaps we should respect the past 45 years of government funded rocket research and the government contractors in the established launch business. I know that the space shuttle has turned into a boondoggle, but the real rocket business is in satellite launches, and the space shuttle hasn't handled routine satellite launches since the 80s. In the US, rockets have traditionally been made by private companies under government contract like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Rocketdyne (now part of Pratt & Whitney). I can understand why we should be excited at the prospect of re-usable rockets at 1/10th the price, but I don't understand why we should be so excited that a bunch of dot-comers have raised some VC money and entered the game. I don't see anything wrong with the fact that the current generation of rockets have been developed under government contracts. Let's face it, government funding is responsible for a lot of cutting edge research, and if you wanted to be in the rocket business the government is going to be a big source of funding that's too big to pass up.
For that matter, you can be certain that the DoD would love to launch spy satellites for 1/10 the price, and it's in the DoD's interest to invest in technology make it happen. If these guys at SpaceX are serious about getting the job done, they would be crazy not to take money from the government. So, I had a look at their web page. If you go to the customer list, under the company tab, their customers base pretty much matches the customer base of Boeing or Lockheed-Martin. The first non-test launches are US DOD--DARPA and OSD/NRL. There's another unnamed US government launch early in the schedule, and there's also mention of a $100 million USAF contract through 2010. So yes, their start-up money was private. What's the big deal about that? I don't see how they're any more private than any other contractor.
If the federal research contracts are there for development of antibiotics for particular bacteria, and if big pharma doesn't like the terms, you can be certain that new companies will quickly form that will be happy to have the work.
You are absolutely correct. Overuse of antibiotics has contributed to the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Usage patterns need to change. However, if we were to correct these problems overnight, we would still be confronted with the drug resistant antibiotics that are already here. Therefore, government funding for new antibiotics is absolutely necessary. I can also understand that the prospect of subsidizing big Pharma is also painful, especially when we know that they will turn around and overprice their drugs, claiming that they need to recoup the costs of development, even if that development money comes from the government. Maybe the answer is to put some strings on the IP rights of the government subsidized research. If Big Pharma doesn't like it, I'm sure that ther will be no shortage of small companies willing to step up to the plate, especially if the money can be sustained for a long enough time to support clinical trials.
What exactly does Mac anti-virus software do? There are still no real self-propagating malicious worms on the platform. Yes, AV software can check for a couple of Trojans and the usual collection of Office macro viruses, but I can avoid that stuff without AV software. Even if something really serious breaks out, the software won't do a damn bit of good until the anti-virus companies update their definitions. When there is a serious threat and the software actually blocks the threat, I will fork over the cash and get some AV software. (Well, actually, given the utter lack of quality of Symantec software on the Mac platform, I am much more likely to get ClamAV and save a few bucks.) Until then, I will forgo the cost and performance hit associated with an AV package.
Most consumers of broadband already have a sliding pay scale that depends on the size of their pipe. For example, 1.5 to 6.0 Mbps DSL costs more per month than 384 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps.
Nobody checks for prior art anyhow. Just make sure that it goes to 12 and you'll be OK! The last time I checked 12 is higher than 11. I'm sure that the patent examiners would see this as an innovation.
I'm not sure that you get the problem. I haven't looked through everything on the site you linked, but I did find the document from MS on EMF; it's in the form of a Microsoft help file. This makes me suspect that these documents focus on how to format an emf graphic for display on a Windows box and how to call the Windows emf rendering engine from your program on a Windows box. If so, I'm sure that there's plenty of documentation on how to do that. The problem is the reverse. As far as I know, the only effective emf rendering engine out there is the one embedded into the Windows OS. Getting reliable emf files to render on other OS's is not so easy. Take Office for Mac for example. MS supplies an emf rendering engine, but half the time the results are complete garbage.
I work for a company that provides research to the government. Many of our documents contain plots of data. In order to keep file sizes manageable, these are embedded as vector graphics. Yes, we could use Postscript with a low-res bitmapped preview and they would print nicely on a Postscript printer. However, our customers typically want WYSISYG performance and they don't necessarily want to be locked into Postscript printers. Furthermore, you can't put Postscript graphics into Powerpoint. (Well, you can, but all you see is the low-res bitmapped preview.) Therefore, if much of this work is to be viewed correctly, the government is locked into Windows. To make matters worse, this lock-in is being supported with your tax dollars. (Assuming that you're an American; if not, your government probably has the same problem anyhow.) What we need as part of an open document standard is an embedded vector graphics standard that will display on Windows boxes running Office and *nix boxes running alternative software. In order for that to happen, MS will need to provide WYSIWYG support for something besides EMF in its Office applications.
Even if it were really open, the other question is how to deal with embedded vector graphics? Right now, the only formats that MS supports are.emf &.wmf. These are MS proprietary formats and they only display reliably if you're working on a Windows machine. If you're stuck with documents with significant embedded emf graphics and you don't want to use Windows, you're currently S.O.L. Of course, the ultimate answer would be for MS to support.svg in its Office products, but it's not clear that they will ever want to give up this subtle little lock that ties Office to Windows.
They need a trained workforce that understands biology and chemistry. If the religious wack jobs can't handle it, let them boycott the latest antibiotics. After all, bacteria don't evolve, right?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, you are the second poster that didn't quite seem to follow the thread. Maybe I wan't clear.
What you said is correct. However, the parent suggested (somewhat tongue in cheek) that the problem could be solved if spammers were to pay for actual bandwidth use. So, following the parent, I was exploring whether there would be any effect if home broadband were not to be a flat rate. Supporters of the money grubbing telecoms might think that this would inspire the zombie owners to clean up their computers. However, I doubt this is the case. If the spam load is distributed over enough zombies, the zombie users wouldn't see any increased charges. Therefore, we are all best off with the current flat rate broadband charges.
The spammers don't pay for their bandwidth, the zombie owners do. Of course, if they noticed their internet bill go up, they might do something about it. However, with a large enough network of zombies, the individual computers could be used sparingly enough that the owners would never notics.
That's what happens when you loose your connection because some dumass contractor didn't locate all the existing underground cables before digging and took out your T1 line.
Wait, that's backhoe filtering....Never mind!
It seems that they must first accelerate charged particles and then turn them into neutrons without significantly modifying their momentum. Does anybody know the details?
Only if you mention the other senator from Pennsylvania. Have you Googled Santorum lately?
The problem with prior art is that a patent troll can doctor it up in BS and try to patent it anyhow. It will probably slip past the patent office. It's true that it won't hold up in court, but for a small business looking at a multi-million dollar fight to defeat a troll's portfolio of prior art, it effectively eliminates competition.
So, are you a troll if you call a troll a troll?
I don't think that this means that radiation is good for the environment. It just means that humans are worse for the environment. In a strange way, this makes for a good environmental arguement for nuclear power. If the plant works, we have a souce of power free of greenhouse gasses. If a large region is contaminated, people leave, and you have a wildlife preserve.
I don't see what this private funding hype is all about. As far as I can tell, I don't see a significant difference in their business model from other contractors. Perhaps we should respect the past 45 years of government funded rocket research and the government contractors in the established launch business. I know that the space shuttle has turned into a boondoggle, but the real rocket business is in satellite launches, and the space shuttle hasn't handled routine satellite launches since the 80s. In the US, rockets have traditionally been made by private companies under government contract like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Rocketdyne (now part of Pratt & Whitney). I can understand why we should be excited at the prospect of re-usable rockets at 1/10th the price, but I don't understand why we should be so excited that a bunch of dot-comers have raised some VC money and entered the game. I don't see anything wrong with the fact that the current generation of rockets have been developed under government contracts. Let's face it, government funding is responsible for a lot of cutting edge research, and if you wanted to be in the rocket business the government is going to be a big source of funding that's too big to pass up. For that matter, you can be certain that the DoD would love to launch spy satellites for 1/10 the price, and it's in the DoD's interest to invest in technology make it happen. If these guys at SpaceX are serious about getting the job done, they would be crazy not to take money from the government. So, I had a look at their web page. If you go to the customer list, under the company tab, their customers base pretty much matches the customer base of Boeing or Lockheed-Martin. The first non-test launches are US DOD--DARPA and OSD/NRL. There's another unnamed US government launch early in the schedule, and there's also mention of a $100 million USAF contract through 2010. So yes, their start-up money was private. What's the big deal about that? I don't see how they're any more private than any other contractor.
Interesting? What the hell's wrong with the moderators? Don't you know a mediocre joke when you see one?
In that case, it's a damn shame it wasn't hacked. It seems that he would have welcomed an escallation of permissions.
If their patents are ruled invaled, they won't be of much use for future 'business.'
The low frequency AC is optimized for AC motors.
If the federal research contracts are there for development of antibiotics for particular bacteria, and if big pharma doesn't like the terms, you can be certain that new companies will quickly form that will be happy to have the work.
You are absolutely correct. Overuse of antibiotics has contributed to the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Usage patterns need to change. However, if we were to correct these problems overnight, we would still be confronted with the drug resistant antibiotics that are already here. Therefore, government funding for new antibiotics is absolutely necessary. I can also understand that the prospect of subsidizing big Pharma is also painful, especially when we know that they will turn around and overprice their drugs, claiming that they need to recoup the costs of development, even if that development money comes from the government. Maybe the answer is to put some strings on the IP rights of the government subsidized research. If Big Pharma doesn't like it, I'm sure that ther will be no shortage of small companies willing to step up to the plate, especially if the money can be sustained for a long enough time to support clinical trials.
What exactly does Mac anti-virus software do? There are still no real self-propagating malicious worms on the platform. Yes, AV software can check for a couple of Trojans and the usual collection of Office macro viruses, but I can avoid that stuff without AV software. Even if something really serious breaks out, the software won't do a damn bit of good until the anti-virus companies update their definitions. When there is a serious threat and the software actually blocks the threat, I will fork over the cash and get some AV software. (Well, actually, given the utter lack of quality of Symantec software on the Mac platform, I am much more likely to get ClamAV and save a few bucks.) Until then, I will forgo the cost and performance hit associated with an AV package.
Most consumers of broadband already have a sliding pay scale that depends on the size of their pipe. For example, 1.5 to 6.0 Mbps DSL costs more per month than 384 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps.
One box to rule them all
One box to bind them
In Redmond, where the shadows lie
Lawfully as defined by Ashcroft and Gonzales.
Bush will just do what he wants to whether it's legal or not.
Nobody checks for prior art anyhow. Just make sure that it goes to 12 and you'll be OK! The last time I checked 12 is higher than 11. I'm sure that the patent examiners would see this as an innovation.
I'm not sure that you get the problem. I haven't looked through everything on the site you linked, but I did find the document from MS on EMF; it's in the form of a Microsoft help file. This makes me suspect that these documents focus on how to format an emf graphic for display on a Windows box and how to call the Windows emf rendering engine from your program on a Windows box. If so, I'm sure that there's plenty of documentation on how to do that. The problem is the reverse. As far as I know, the only effective emf rendering engine out there is the one embedded into the Windows OS. Getting reliable emf files to render on other OS's is not so easy. Take Office for Mac for example. MS supplies an emf rendering engine, but half the time the results are complete garbage.
I work for a company that provides research to the government. Many of our documents contain plots of data. In order to keep file sizes manageable, these are embedded as vector graphics. Yes, we could use Postscript with a low-res bitmapped preview and they would print nicely on a Postscript printer. However, our customers typically want WYSISYG performance and they don't necessarily want to be locked into Postscript printers. Furthermore, you can't put Postscript graphics into Powerpoint. (Well, you can, but all you see is the low-res bitmapped preview.) Therefore, if much of this work is to be viewed correctly, the government is locked into Windows. To make matters worse, this lock-in is being supported with your tax dollars. (Assuming that you're an American; if not, your government probably has the same problem anyhow.) What we need as part of an open document standard is an embedded vector graphics standard that will display on Windows boxes running Office and *nix boxes running alternative software. In order for that to happen, MS will need to provide WYSIWYG support for something besides EMF in its Office applications.
Even if it were really open, the other question is how to deal with embedded vector graphics? Right now, the only formats that MS supports are .emf & .wmf. These are MS proprietary formats and they only display reliably if you're working on a Windows machine. If you're stuck with documents with significant embedded emf graphics and you don't want to use Windows, you're currently S.O.L. Of course, the ultimate answer would be for MS to support .svg in its Office products, but it's not clear that they will ever want to give up this subtle little lock that ties Office to Windows.
They need a trained workforce that understands biology and chemistry. If the religious wack jobs can't handle it, let them boycott the latest antibiotics. After all, bacteria don't evolve, right?
There should be a Catch-22 for the IgNoble Prize. If you're obvioulsy trying to win it, it shouldn't count.