In the states, that problem is often cited because of the timezone differences; people voting three hours behind the east coast see the early results and yes probably change their behaviour.
On the other hand, that doesn't make the exit polls inaccurate; just influential. As long as the people coming out of the polling centers are a good random sample and answer the polls honestly, those results should be mathematically similar to the actual election results. It's actually a reasonably good check against behind the scenes election tampering (although it won't notice things like bribing voters).
In a worst-case scenario, if the actual vote count differs substantially from the exit poll count, whether or not it was influential, it indicates a discrepancy that I guarantee some american politician will have investigated. If there's no auditable trail to go back to, I worry what will come out of the resulting chaos.
I await the day when the independant exit polls that the media conducts deviate by a statistically noteable amount from some non-verifiable voting machine. What will happen? The media's polls, while "unscientific" tend to be decent approximations, and the sampling error should be calculable. How much would the "real" results have to be off to raise eyebrows or, worse, to raise fists?
It still boggles my mind that the new election machine companies are against paper trails -- why is printing out a receipt and putting it in a box _just in case_ such a big deal?
I actually have someone I work with fairly regularly who seems genuinely interested in helping. Of the handful of people I've used for headhunters, this one definitely stands out above the crowd. (er... if anyone is looking for a Data Warehousing job in the midwest, I can put you in contact...:-)
But I'm not sure it matters... you can pretty much get headhunters to do what you want by following a few simple rules:
First, remain independant -- don't agree to use only one Headhunter and, in fact, make it clear that whoever you use has no right to submit you for a job without your permission. You can maintain control this way, which leads us to:
Second, take what you want, leave the rest alone -- make it clear what you're looking for in a job and don't accept anything else (up to the point you can afford it). Headhunters make money by getting you to agree to work, so they'd rather be a bit annoyed with you and spend twice as long finding you a job than losing you as a client completely. As long as a headhunter is willing to call you up, you have the possibility that they'll be the one to find your perfect job, so you don't want to alienate anyone, but that's tough to do since they're on commission (all the ones I've seen).
Thirdly, demand open contracts -- this is the only one that's not completely trivial to negotiate. Many headhunting companies have policies that they will tell you the percentage off the top that they're skimming. Rates vary, of course -- I've seen 10% and 50%... still, if the money's right this may not be important to you. Most companies will agree to tell you, and in some cases, you can get a better deal going with someone's competitor. Lots of the jobs on web search engines are the same job posted through various employment agencies, so you may be able to get more money for the same job from someone else. Having this rate disclosure helps prevent that, and it also gives you a bit of a bargaining chip if you turn out to be really good in the position.
Just using those three rules, I think you can convince yourself that whoever is offering you jobs is at least somewhat likely to find something you'll accept. And for the most part, even if you can't stand your headhunter, that should barely affect your job once you're signed on and getting paid. While I like that my agent calls me up or takes me out for drinks now and again, it's not worth losing much salary over.
Face it. There is stolen code in Linux. How much and how severe the value of the theft is to be determined but that there was theft is almost certain.
I'm out of mod points or I'd have just modded this flamebait or something, but now I have to go write a reply. Sheesh.
The Linux version of the file that the "infringing" code comes from bears the phrase:
Copyright (C) 1992 - 1997, 2000-2002 Silicon Graphics, Inc. All rights reserved.
In addition to the GPL notice at the top. I don't have the time right now to jump into the archives and find out who published this code when... I'm sure a lot can be learned from the old cvs trees. If parts of it go back to 1992 and belonged to SGI, there's still a very strong likelyhood that the code was released to Linux "legally". SCO hasn't proven that there's stolen code in Linux at all. I do agree that there's MATCHING code (well, matching comments so far, but matching code can't be far behind). But the source of that code, and whether it was in Linux first, or something SCO owns, remains to be proven.
This is correct; I lived pretty close to the cathedral for a few years; gorgeous place. The Vader sculpture isn't just out of the way; it's very high on one of the outside walls on the side of the building. Even with small binoculars, it's difficult to find if you haven't seen it before. It's been there for years and, yes, was the result of a grade school competition. During the renovation, there were pamphlets that directed you how to find the sculpture. I don't know if they still pass them out (I've moved) but anyone that works there could probably point it out to you.
The attribution line on the Forbes article reads: "Scott Woolley, 05.12.03"... that's in the future. (Well, Woolley may be in the present, but I'm talking about the date).
Alright, my favorite movie for one-liners (and I take a LOT of heat for this) is "What's Up, Doc". Anyone even recognize that movie? The lines are all classics:
"First there was this trouble between me and Hugh."... "You and me? ".. "No, me and Hugh."...
Well, now that I think about it, maybe it's all in the delivery; but it's still REALLY funny. Don't blame me if you can't get beyond the lead actress...;-)
I'm not at the forefront of the changes in the Amish community or anything, but doesn't the phrase "genetically engineered tobacco grown by Amish farmers" seem a bit odd?
This has been my favorite game for years. I played it in college, when it came out, and it was the first (only, I supose) game I ever invested so much time in (over 48 consecutive hours) and actually LOST. I admire a game that lets you lose like that. I even had savegames from hours before the end and I couldn't salvage the game... I'd made some tactical errors early on. It took me another 20 hours to start over and win the game the second time. I don't think I've seen a game since that you can actually mess up that badly that early on.
Star Control 1 was a basic, but cool space fighting game, which had asteroids-style action and some over-complicated strategy/planning phases. Star Control 3 was also a good game, carrying on the StarCon2 tradition of a vast universe with diverse, interesting, and well scripted characters. I prefer StarCon2 to 3, however. The third in the series focused too much on animation and too little on gameplay.
Anyway, it's a fantastic series, and I'm glad to hear that the best of the bunch still hasn't been forgotten.
I'd avoid the first generation anyway... sounds like trouble. Here's a quote from the FAQ:
Can I beam addresses that haven't been set up as business cards?
It is best not to do so. If multiple addresses are beamed at once, they can corrupt the watch's programming. When beaming, select the handheld's Beam Business Card function (instead of Beam Address).
Corrupt the watch's programming? By beaming addresses? That ain't right.
How would you expect it to work?
on
Helpful Handicap
·
· Score: 2
I guess I can see the argument that more weight means you have to do more work to jump far, but my intuition was confused by this article. I'd have thought that weights in the hands would obviously give a benefit.
Basically you get to throw the objects out in front of you and then have them pull you along, without really sacrificing anything.
Don't most people jump by swinging their arms forward first (even if their hands are empty)? I'd think the same principle was at work.
Anyway, it seems weird that this wasn't obvious, although I believe the math may be hard to model.
I wouldn't be surprised if the dinosaurs died off as a result of a multiple-impact object, instead of a single crater. Something similar to what Shoemaker-Levy 9 did to Jupiter. Are there any known examples of related impact sites on earth? I imagine that'd be hard to prove, but it would be a neat piece of trivia.
Sam and Max still has my vote for the best game of that genre ever... Any game where the solution to one of the "problems" is to pick up your partner, dunk him in water and use him to short out an electrical panel works for me. It took me an hour to get through trying all the little gadgets in the inventory before coming up with that one.
Evidence of something that still wasn't concrete proof could lead to a belief that wasn't knowledge.
I imagine I believe a lot of things that noone has proven to me. Most of the time I trust experts who have studied much more than I have; as in the case of evolution or astronomy. I've never duplicated any experiment for myself to convince me that the world orbits the sun, but I believe that it does. What little direct evidence I have (sunrise and sunset) support the idea, and I've read works and talked to people who claim to have studied the idea much more thoroughly than I, and they all agree.
That's a lot of good evidence, but is it proof? At what point does the cumulated evidence of something become proof? And,... and this is important... is that the same point that belief becomes knowledge?
For a "Smart Person", I'd imagine it is. Once something can be actually proven to a person with a scientific mind, I'd say they "know" the thing. Until then, all they can do is believe it, or not. But I see no reason for a "Smart Person" to have to choose one way or another if there is not enough evidence to support a proven conclusion.
For things like the paranormal, there is little evidence either way. Plenty of people report paranormal experiences, but ghosts seem to be camera shy. Are those people 'evidence'? If not, can I dismiss ideas like ESP simply because there is no evidence that it exists? And if so, then what do I (as a scientist) learn from such impractical evidence?
Certainly religion falls into the same paradox. Religious cite all sorts of things as evidence of afterlives and supreme beings, but it doesn't cross the line to actual, scientific proof.
In both cases, evidence is set forth. The Smart Person can consider it real evidence or discount it as zero evidence. Even then, in both cases nothing has been proven, so the Smart Person should still be free to believe either way with a free scientific conscious.
Therein lies the difference.
One last thing, tho, about zero evidence belief. Judging from the brief comments that the guy makes in the article, he comes down strongly on the side of not believing in the paranormal. I imagine he does it because he believes there is zero evidence of the paranormal (he discounts any recounts by others), and such a belief would need at least some evidence to be believed at all. I believe that is unneccessarily strict. Just because there is no evidence in something, doesn't mean it can't be believed, even by someone intelligent. I'd guess that it would happen rarely in practice, and would more likely stem from other areas (childhood fantasies). But as long as there is no proof, the scientific method has not been violated because the person believes (and does not know) the belief in question. If the author (is it Mr. Hines, or Mr. Shermer?) wants to use science as a basis for his conclusions, he can't abandon it in the null case.
Even if some extra-terrestrials can pick up our wireless communications, their ability to decipher it from noise may be limited because of new technologies, notwithstanding the power of our transmissions.
Consider the 2.4GHz range and frequency hopping. There's no way anyone picking up the earth's aggregate transmissions in that band would be able to decipher them, (frequency hopping is designed that way)... TV and AM/FM broadcast signals are relatively simple to decipher, having carrier signals that are quite regular.
I also understand that radio waves are fairly common in the universe, although not being at all the astronomer, I have no idea why. If our airwaves get too muddled, I imagine we won't look much different to a radio telescope than some other radio-prolific celestia.
Another question is, has this already happened somewhere else? I think I remember hearing that SETI's work, particularly their distributed computer search software would probably miss wide spread-spectrum FH radio technology and consider it white noise. Any word on that?
This is exactly what I said when the first conversations were starting about electonic voting machines.
People may have trouble with paper ballots for a variety of reasons, but at least you can always go back and look at exactly what the person using the ballot did or didn't do. So they didn't punch the hole all the way through, or they punched two holes, or drew too thin a line... there's a lot more auditable data on a piece of paper than on a computer, especially if the computer's "trust" is drawn into question.
"Can telecommunications giants realistically keep up with the public's need for ever- growing bandwidth without going bankrupt?"
I love that question from an economics standpoint. How can over-demand for a product cause a company to go bankrupt? You don't think we're over regulating the telecom industry or anything, huh?
Found it... RAMBUS snuck around the JEDEC committees working on SDRAM and failed to mention some vital patents it held. I still don't know how it turned out, tho, but RAMBUS got hit with some heavy lawsuits as a result.
"JPEG" stands for "Joint Photographic Experts Group"... they were the people that created the standard so many moons ago. There were some known patent issues at the time... check out section 18 of the JPEG FAQ... but they didn't relate to the way JPEGs are generally used today.
Some standards groups knowingly consider patented technology for otherwise open standards, but wasn't there a standards group a few months ago (I forgot which one, and I can't find a link) where some company pushed patented technology without telling the standards committe? If I recall correctly, the perpetrators got smacked a bit for that one... and that's probably what will happen in this case. (someone find that story for me).
PETA Staffers Kill Deer With Car, Sue NJ Department of Game and Fish for Damages -- According to a news release from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PETA), the organization plans to take action against the New Jersey game management agency for damages caused to the car driven by two anti-hunting campaigners when it hit a deer on a New Jersey highway. Rather than slow down, or be thankful they weren't hurt seriously, as thousands of drivers in all states do every year, they faxed Bob McDowell, director of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Division of Fish and Wildlife, and John Bradway, chairman of the Fish and Game Council, a notice of intent to sue them as a result of the collision late last November.
PETA maintains that this accident--as well as thousands more that take place every year-- was caused by the state's mismanagement of the deer population, which includes purposely increasing herd sizes in order to provide more live targets for hunters and so jeopardizes the well-being of people who use the roads. In 1999 alone, there were more than 14,000 deer-vehicle collisions reported in New Jersey.
PETA argues that by placing the interests of hunters, who amount to barely more than 1 percent of New Jersey's population, above the safety of the more than 8 million New Jersey residents and countless out-of-state travelers who use the roads, wildlife agencies are violating the state's constitutional mandate to provide protection and security to its people. PETA also opposes the fear, the disruption of herd members' relationships, and the bloodshed suffered by the deer on grounds of cruelty to animals.
Plan to Protect Deer Backfires -- In a related story received by email, a PETA plan to protect Ohio deer from hunters brought different results than were intended.
An Ohio safety law requires hunters to display at least 400 square inches of hunter's blaze orange on their person when in the woods. Capitalizing on the fact that hunters do not usually shoot orange because of its identification with hunter's garb, PETA bulk purchased blaze orange vests and affixed them to live-trapped deer in Youngstown suburbs.
According to PETA spokesperson Katie Reese, a total of 405 vests were successfully put into circulation on deer by mid-December, and the anti-hunting group was still catching and vesting more deer.
Youngtown entrepreneur Guy Lockey, of Guy's Outdoors then offered rewards for returned vests. Hunters who successfully bagged a vested deer could register for a drawing for random and biggest animal awards. Some 308 of the vests were recorded as bagged, based on returns by most of the hunters registering for Mr. Lockey's drawing.
"It's so easy, you can see them coming a mile away" said one first year hunter after checking in his first spike buck. "
I was looking at these cars 6+ months ago when I was in the market. I had actually ordered a Prius, but cancelled when the 3 month wait turned into a 6 month wait. I hear the wait time is much lower now, tho.
At the time, only the Insight was really competing with the Prius; the Civic hadn't come out yet. I was living in San Francisco too, and there were plenty of Electric vehicles from Saturn, Honda, and whatnot. The Prius was by far my favourite choice.
The Prius had 4 doors... the insight is TINY, as are most full-electric vehicles. Far more importantly, tho, was the cool touch-screen system that came with the car. Geek paradise, that. The GPS enabled versions are the same exact electronics that are on the Toyota RAV-4, but without the $3000 add-on price. The dealer I talked to said they didn't think Prius owners would pay the premium for the bundle, so it's apparently greatly discounted and rolled into the car's price. I'm sure you're paying for it, of course, but it's a nice deal.
The other great thing about the Prius is the grassroots community around it. Prius Mods, a Yahoo! Groups discussion group has been around for a while to discuss cool upgrades and features for the Prius. There are a variety of other good discussion groups out there that you can peruse through a well-placed Google search.
The only problem with these cars (and it seems to apply to any hybrid or non-gas car these days) is the driving experience... pickup, accelleration, noise (the engines are quiet, but the cars are very light and don't insulate road noise very well; it's a tradeoff), top speed, driving distance (well, the hybrids are GREAT for this; EVs aren't)... etc. But from the research I did six months ago, the Prius was king.
Slashdot Mirror
In the states, that problem is often cited because of the timezone differences; people voting three hours behind the east coast see the early results and yes probably change their behaviour.
On the other hand, that doesn't make the exit polls inaccurate; just influential. As long as the people coming out of the polling centers are a good random sample and answer the polls honestly, those results should be mathematically similar to the actual election results. It's actually a reasonably good check against behind the scenes election tampering (although it won't notice things like bribing voters).
In a worst-case scenario, if the actual vote count differs substantially from the exit poll count, whether or not it was influential, it indicates a discrepancy that I guarantee some american politician will have investigated. If there's no auditable trail to go back to, I worry what will come out of the resulting chaos.
I await the day when the independant exit polls that the media conducts deviate by a statistically noteable amount from some non-verifiable voting machine. What will happen? The media's polls, while "unscientific" tend to be decent approximations, and the sampling error should be calculable. How much would the "real" results have to be off to raise eyebrows or, worse, to raise fists?
It still boggles my mind that the new election machine companies are against paper trails -- why is printing out a receipt and putting it in a box _just in case_ such a big deal?
I actually have someone I work with fairly regularly who seems genuinely interested in helping. Of the handful of people I've used for headhunters, this one definitely stands out above the crowd. (er... if anyone is looking for a Data Warehousing job in the midwest, I can put you in contact... :-)
But I'm not sure it matters... you can pretty much get headhunters to do what you want by following a few simple rules:
First, remain independant -- don't agree to use only one Headhunter and, in fact, make it clear that whoever you use has no right to submit you for a job without your permission. You can maintain control this way, which leads us to:
Second, take what you want, leave the rest alone -- make it clear what you're looking for in a job and don't accept anything else (up to the point you can afford it). Headhunters make money by getting you to agree to work, so they'd rather be a bit annoyed with you and spend twice as long finding you a job than losing you as a client completely. As long as a headhunter is willing to call you up, you have the possibility that they'll be the one to find your perfect job, so you don't want to alienate anyone, but that's tough to do since they're on commission (all the ones I've seen).
Thirdly, demand open contracts -- this is the only one that's not completely trivial to negotiate. Many headhunting companies have policies that they will tell you the percentage off the top that they're skimming. Rates vary, of course -- I've seen 10% and 50%... still, if the money's right this may not be important to you. Most companies will agree to tell you, and in some cases, you can get a better deal going with someone's competitor. Lots of the jobs on web search engines are the same job posted through various employment agencies, so you may be able to get more money for the same job from someone else. Having this rate disclosure helps prevent that, and it also gives you a bit of a bargaining chip if you turn out to be really good in the position.
Just using those three rules, I think you can convince yourself that whoever is offering you jobs is at least somewhat likely to find something you'll accept. And for the most part, even if you can't stand your headhunter, that should barely affect your job once you're signed on and getting paid. While I like that my agent calls me up or takes me out for drinks now and again, it's not worth losing much salary over.
The Linux version of the file that the "infringing" code comes from bears the phrase:
In addition to the GPL notice at the top. I don't have the time right now to jump into the archives and find out who published this code when... I'm sure a lot can be learned from the old cvs trees. If parts of it go back to 1992 and belonged to SGI, there's still a very strong likelyhood that the code was released to Linux "legally". SCO hasn't proven that there's stolen code in Linux at all. I do agree that there's MATCHING code (well, matching comments so far, but matching code can't be far behind). But the source of that code, and whether it was in Linux first, or something SCO owns, remains to be proven.And don't forget the original Apple computer that the Woz built largely of wood. It's a very good basement display indeed!
This is correct; I lived pretty close to the cathedral for a few years; gorgeous place. The Vader sculpture isn't just out of the way; it's very high on one of the outside walls on the side of the building. Even with small binoculars, it's difficult to find if you haven't seen it before. It's been there for years and, yes, was the result of a grade school competition. During the renovation, there were pamphlets that directed you how to find the sculpture. I don't know if they still pass them out (I've moved) but anyone that works there could probably point it out to you.
The attribution line on the Forbes article reads: "Scott Woolley, 05.12.03"... that's in the future. (Well, Woolley may be in the present, but I'm talking about the date).
Spooky.
"When romance fades, something else takes it's place." .. "Senility?" .. "Trust!"
Okay, well, that was three lines. Still...
"First there was this trouble between me and Hugh." ... "You and me? " .. "No, me and Hugh." ...
Well, now that I think about it, maybe it's all in the delivery; but it's still REALLY funny. Don't blame me if you can't get beyond the lead actress... ;-)
I'm not at the forefront of the changes in the Amish community or anything, but doesn't the phrase "genetically engineered tobacco grown by Amish farmers" seem a bit odd?
Star Control 1 was a basic, but cool space fighting game, which had asteroids-style action and some over-complicated strategy/planning phases. Star Control 3 was also a good game, carrying on the StarCon2 tradition of a vast universe with diverse, interesting, and well scripted characters. I prefer StarCon2 to 3, however. The third in the series focused too much on animation and too little on gameplay.
Anyway, it's a fantastic series, and I'm glad to hear that the best of the bunch still hasn't been forgotten.
Corrupt the watch's programming? By beaming addresses? That ain't right.
I guess I can see the argument that more weight means you have to do more work to jump far, but my intuition was confused by this article. I'd have thought that weights in the hands would obviously give a benefit.
Basically you get to throw the objects out in front of you and then have them pull you along, without really sacrificing anything.
Don't most people jump by swinging their arms forward first (even if their hands are empty)? I'd think the same principle was at work.
Anyway, it seems weird that this wasn't obvious, although I believe the math may be hard to model.
I wouldn't be surprised if the dinosaurs died off as a result of a multiple-impact object, instead of a single crater. Something similar to what
Shoemaker-Levy 9 did to Jupiter. Are there any known examples of related impact sites on earth? I imagine that'd be hard to prove, but it would be a neat piece of trivia.
Sam and Max still has my vote for the best game of that genre ever... Any game where the solution to one of the "problems" is to pick up your partner, dunk him in water and use him to short out an electrical panel works for me. It took me an hour to get through trying all the little gadgets in the inventory before coming up with that one.
Can't wait for the sequel.
Shouldn't that be (Q/P)A? The A is the only thing that stuck around in her name; it's the Q and P that were interchanged.
I mean, really.
Evidence of something that still wasn't concrete proof could lead to a belief that wasn't knowledge.
... and this is important ... is that the same point that belief becomes knowledge?
I imagine I believe a lot of things that noone has proven to me. Most of the time I trust experts who have studied much more than I have; as in the case of evolution or astronomy. I've never duplicated any experiment for myself to convince me that the world orbits the sun, but I believe that it does. What little direct evidence I have (sunrise and sunset) support the idea, and I've read works and talked to people who claim to have studied the idea much more thoroughly than I, and they all agree.
That's a lot of good evidence, but is it proof? At what point does the cumulated evidence of something become proof? And,
For a "Smart Person", I'd imagine it is. Once something can be actually proven to a person with a scientific mind, I'd say they "know" the thing. Until then, all they can do is believe it, or not. But I see no reason for a "Smart Person" to have to choose one way or another if there is not enough evidence to support a proven conclusion.
For things like the paranormal, there is little evidence either way. Plenty of people report paranormal experiences, but ghosts seem to be camera shy. Are those people 'evidence'? If not, can I dismiss ideas like ESP simply because there is no evidence that it exists? And if so, then what do I (as a scientist) learn from such impractical evidence?
Certainly religion falls into the same paradox. Religious cite all sorts of things as evidence of afterlives and supreme beings, but it doesn't cross the line to actual, scientific proof.
In both cases, evidence is set forth. The Smart Person can consider it real evidence or discount it as zero evidence. Even then, in both cases nothing has been proven, so the Smart Person should still be free to believe either way with a free scientific conscious.
Therein lies the difference.
One last thing, tho, about zero evidence belief. Judging from the brief comments that the guy makes in the article, he comes down strongly on the side of not believing in the paranormal. I imagine he does it because he believes there is zero evidence of the paranormal (he discounts any recounts by others), and such a belief would need at least some evidence to be believed at all. I believe that is unneccessarily strict. Just because there is no evidence in something, doesn't mean it can't be believed, even by someone intelligent. I'd guess that it would happen rarely in practice, and would more likely stem from other areas (childhood fantasies). But as long as there is no proof, the scientific method has not been violated because the person believes (and does not know) the belief in question. If the author (is it Mr. Hines, or Mr. Shermer?) wants to use science as a basis for his conclusions, he can't abandon it in the null case.
The Panasonic Toughbook web-pages are here. No mention of salt-water environments that I can find, tho.
Even if some extra-terrestrials can pick up our wireless communications, their ability to decipher it from noise may be limited because of new technologies, notwithstanding the power of our transmissions.
Consider the 2.4GHz range and frequency hopping. There's no way anyone picking up the earth's aggregate transmissions in that band would be able to decipher them, (frequency hopping is designed that way)... TV and AM/FM broadcast signals are relatively simple to decipher, having carrier signals that are quite regular.
I also understand that radio waves are fairly common in the universe, although not being at all the astronomer, I have no idea why. If our airwaves get too muddled, I imagine we won't look much different to a radio telescope than some other radio-prolific celestia.
Another question is, has this already happened somewhere else? I think I remember hearing that SETI's work, particularly their distributed computer search software would probably miss wide spread-spectrum FH radio technology and consider it white noise. Any word on that?
This is exactly what I said when the first conversations were starting about electonic voting machines.
People may have trouble with paper ballots for a variety of reasons, but at least you can always go back and look at exactly what the person using the ballot did or didn't do. So they didn't punch the hole all the way through, or they punched two holes, or drew too thin a line... there's a lot more auditable data on a piece of paper than on a computer, especially if the computer's "trust" is drawn into question.
"Can telecommunications giants realistically keep up with the public's need for ever- growing bandwidth without going bankrupt?"
I love that question from an economics standpoint. How can over-demand for a product cause a company to go bankrupt? You don't think we're over regulating the telecom industry or anything, huh?
Found it... RAMBUS snuck around the JEDEC committees working on SDRAM and failed to mention some vital patents it held. I still don't know how it turned out, tho, but RAMBUS got hit with some heavy lawsuits as a result.
Some standards groups knowingly consider patented technology for otherwise open standards, but wasn't there a standards group a few months ago (I forgot which one, and I can't find a link) where some company pushed patented technology without telling the standards committe? If I recall correctly, the perpetrators got smacked a bit for that one... and that's probably what will happen in this case. (someone find that story for me).
That's hilharious... this is OffTopic, but I thought it was worth seeing. From http://www.nmagriculture.org/shear_wisdom2.htm
PETA Staffers Kill Deer With Car, Sue NJ Department of Game and Fish for Damages -- According to a news release from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PETA), the organization plans to take action against the New Jersey game management agency for damages caused to the car driven by two anti-hunting campaigners when it hit a deer on a New Jersey highway. Rather than slow down, or be thankful they weren't hurt seriously, as thousands of drivers in all states do every year, they faxed Bob McDowell, director of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Division of Fish and Wildlife, and John Bradway, chairman of the Fish and Game Council, a notice of intent to sue them as a result of the collision late last November.
PETA maintains that this accident--as well as thousands more that take place every year-- was caused by the state's mismanagement of the deer population, which includes purposely increasing herd sizes in order to provide more live targets for hunters and so jeopardizes the well-being of people who use the roads. In 1999 alone, there were more than 14,000 deer-vehicle collisions reported in New Jersey.
PETA argues that by placing the interests of hunters, who amount to barely more than 1 percent of New Jersey's population, above the safety of the more than 8 million New Jersey residents and countless out-of-state travelers who use the roads, wildlife agencies are violating the state's constitutional mandate to provide protection and security to its people. PETA also opposes the fear, the disruption of herd members' relationships, and the bloodshed suffered by the deer on grounds of cruelty to animals.
Plan to Protect Deer Backfires -- In a related story received by email, a PETA plan to protect Ohio deer from hunters brought different results than were intended.
An Ohio safety law requires hunters to display at least 400 square inches of hunter's blaze orange on their person when in the woods. Capitalizing on the fact that hunters do not usually shoot orange because of its identification with hunter's garb, PETA bulk purchased blaze orange vests and affixed them to live-trapped deer in Youngstown suburbs.
According to PETA spokesperson Katie Reese, a total of 405 vests were successfully put into circulation on deer by mid-December, and the anti-hunting group was still catching and vesting more deer.
Youngtown entrepreneur Guy Lockey, of Guy's Outdoors then offered rewards for returned vests. Hunters who successfully bagged a vested deer could register for a drawing for random and biggest animal awards. Some 308 of the vests were recorded as bagged, based on returns by most of the hunters registering for Mr. Lockey's drawing.
"It's so easy, you can see them coming a mile away" said one first year hunter after checking in his first spike buck. "
I was looking at these cars 6+ months ago when I was in the market. I had actually ordered a Prius, but cancelled when the 3 month wait turned into a 6 month wait. I hear the wait time is much lower now, tho.
At the time, only the Insight was really competing with the Prius; the Civic hadn't come out yet. I was living in San Francisco too, and there were plenty of Electric vehicles from Saturn, Honda, and whatnot. The Prius was by far my favourite choice.
The Prius had 4 doors... the insight is TINY, as are most full-electric vehicles. Far more importantly, tho, was the cool touch-screen system that came with the car. Geek paradise, that. The GPS enabled versions are the same exact electronics that are on the Toyota RAV-4, but without the $3000 add-on price. The dealer I talked to said they didn't think Prius owners would pay the premium for the bundle, so it's apparently greatly discounted and rolled into the car's price. I'm sure you're paying for it, of course, but it's a nice deal.
The other great thing about the Prius is the grassroots community around it. Prius Mods, a Yahoo! Groups discussion group has been around for a while to discuss cool upgrades and features for the Prius. There are a variety of other good discussion groups out there that you can peruse through a well-placed Google search.
The only problem with these cars (and it seems to apply to any hybrid or non-gas car these days) is the driving experience... pickup, accelleration, noise (the engines are quiet, but the cars are very light and don't insulate road noise very well; it's a tradeoff), top speed, driving distance (well, the hybrids are GREAT for this; EVs aren't)... etc. But from the research I did six months ago, the Prius was king.