Yeah, the only way you really solve crises like this is to get in there, and get in there as early as you can - if there had been National Guard relief units moving in on Monday night or Tuesday, a lot of things could have went better. But of course, now that things have not gone well, I agree that focusing on either security or aid exclusively just makes things worse.
Moreover, I think this whole mess has very painful pointed out the lack of understanding some (emphasis on some) Americans have for different cultures and different socioeconomic situations. Your city floods, you have no car, no money, no food, and there are stores all around you - stores that for all practical purposes won't reopen commercially for weeks - and you're supposed to sit there nicely and wait for the nice aid people to get to you eventually? Or do you deserve no aid at all simply because when the order to evacuate was given, you stayed because you couldn't afford transport out of the area?
It never ceases to amaze me how people underestimate the basic needs of a people in crisis - they don't need to know why the levees failed, or who cut the funding, and they certainly don't need someone telling them about all the warnings and orders to evacuate given in the days before the storm hit. They need food, shelter, a shower, clean clothing, etc. I hate to say it, but it sounds way too familiar - the only saving grace is that we haven't started blaming the lack of aid getting into the area on Louisiana insurgents.
Hmm, interesting...not sure if that's what Lucas intended (I had always chalked it up to the usual slips in sci-fi by over-techno-babbled writers), but that would work.
I agree, but at least bringing back Leo might be a sign that TPTB at G4TV are going to shift back more toward old TechTV programming - the half and half only lasted a little while before virtually all TechTV shows (and people, minus Morgan Webb and Adam Sessler) were gone.
G4 feels too 12 year old fanboy - even if Call for Help seems too n00bish, at least its something better than what is there now.
But, if you read previous posts, and thought a little, it wasn't that the battery had only a limited amount of rechargability, it was that it was not consumer replaceable, and Apple promised a certain battery life that didn't happen for most.
So, wait, does this mean we don't have to put up with ridiculously speculative stories about things that "might" happen in someone's mind but have absolutely no business being called "news" now that the rumor mill has exploded?
What's that you say? Oh, this is Slashdot?
Ah, never mind then. Nothing for you to see here, please move along.
"To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017."
I believe the reason for the extra three years is so that the data from 2012-2017 can be collected and processed, thus giving an "average" temperature for 2015...at least, that's what TFA seems to say.
I know, I know, no need to read TFA when you can make a snappy remark for free +1 Funny points but look like an idiot cause you didn't read the article you are trying to poke fun at.
...and it is my birthday, so quite frankly I think it has plenty of historical significance. Now all I need is a temporal theorist to explain why that is true (you know, the whole spiel about how even seemingly minor events on a universal scale can have huge consequences if they turned out differently).
As an extension, would this count against fasting meat during Lent? I agree, ideologically this could be very interesting, especially if it forces us to look at why certain dietary restrictions have religious bases - is it because the food is unheathly (as most pig products tend to be, depending of course on how they are prepared), or is it an obedience thing, meaning its more important for the commitment aspects?
Doesn't the fact that iPods were shipping over six months before the patent was filed by the MS employee mean the application doesn't mean much? Every time one of these patent fights comes up I get just more and more confused.
Ah, understood. Was hoping that's what you meant, but wasn't sure. Sometimes the marketing hype can confuse even the most astute of us (I've read I don't know how many articles on tech news sites claiming that iTMS songs are incompatible with Windows, when what they meant was Windows Media).
Well, Apple doesn't limit to a single device - each file can work on up to 5 computers and as many iPods as you can manage to sync with those computers, plus CD burning - but you are right. From a technical standpoint, Real is better on those points - but it hasn't developed a winning portable player, the one thing that has really pulled iTMS into dominance. Sometimes you can do better than the other guy on a couple points, but he may still have the "better" all-around package (that, of course, is subjective, but you get the point).
"So then you must agree that it's good for Microsoft to use closed file formats for Office and that Lexmark should be able to sue competitors for refilling their ink cartridges. Also, cracking the DVD encrpytion scheme to make a Linux DVD player must be wrong too."
Well, I don't think it's "good" for MS to close Office formats, because I personally like choice, but if that's what they want to do, let them. As a very minor MS shareholder (less than 100 shares), I must say it is good for business, since their biggest Office customer base is in the business world, who will pony up for the licensing fees and such need to equip their workforce with Office with little care about whether OO.org or others are compatible (yes, there are some exceptions, but Office is still one of their biggest moneymakers - and the copies sold in BestBuy and such aren't what is keeping that going). Same thing with Lexmark (though even as a native Kentuckian I have to admit that I tend to favor HP printers anyhow).
The point I was making though was that we often look at a product or service or whatever that one company has developed, successfully marketed, and sold well and want in on it. We want to be able to use the money, time, and resources they've put into it to our advantage and launch our product to piggyback theirs - only without all the need for actually developing the market. Why does anyone care if Office uses closed standards? Because it's so widely used - people use it, know how it works, know its name, and are familiar with its formats. If you don't like Office, and you aren't the only one, then make something better, develop it, market it, and sell it. But don't tell MS they have to use open standards just so you can feed off their already developed market (albeit in this case there are arguments that this was not a fairly gained market - so it's not the greatest example, but hopefully you get the point).
I know it may sound a bit optimistic, even too idealistic, but until we get the whole money-less thing from Star Trek figured out, it's what we're going to have to live with. You shouldn't be able to copy someone else's work or product or format so that you can make a profit off of their market - that's the whole point behind copyright/patent/trademark laws.
Be original, make something better. Compatibility is great in a utopian society, but we live in one that is far from that. If companies can't rely on the revenue from the products they develop to sustain their R&D, we'll quickly run out of innovations.
So I know might risk the savage wrath of the Slashgods here, but I really can't find myself feeling sorry for Real. Reverse engineering is wrong if you're just trying to copy off the other guy - innovate and make something better than the other guy for a change.
Apple built a product (iTunes + iPod) that a lot of consumers love (marketshare speaks much louder than OGG support, open-ness, etc.), and Real wants a piece of that because very few are using their service. Why is it that we think just because it involves a computer or teh intarweb that it should all be fair game (or fair play, to pull a pun)?
If I create a product that is easier to use, looks good, and appeals to more consumers than everyone else's product, why should I have to share? I mean, if in the mean time I was running around telling the music companies that they could only use my service or could get some sort of incentive to not allow other services (i.e., the allegations behind much of the Wintel monopoly) that'd be one thing, but it appears that nothing of that sort happened.
Apple sets a great example IMHO of how a tech company should do things. No, they aren't always the fastest, most compatible, free software and open source (two things I happen to like) loving people, but when people (consumers) have a choice, they choose iPod in a very large landslide. Don't try to beat Apple by making them open FairPlay, or support more non-DRMed standards on the iPod, or whatever. Beat them by doing something better. Remember, iPod was a relatively late comer to the digital music scene, and yet it did things so much better than everyone else it quickly took a huge lead.
If only more companies would try to serve their markets by simply doing things better the other guys, not trying to copy or out-price or out-market them (though admittedly, Apple has fallen for this in the past), maybe we'd have more innovation and progress in technology these days instead of trying to figure which DRM scheme will make the most content providers happy and make the decision for the next gen DVD wars. I want to do with my music whatever I want like any of you, but I (and millions of others) don't mind being a little restricted if it means I get to use a great product. Consumers still drive this economy more than companies - if we don't like what they offer, don't buy it.
I believe 2 would be woo Apple into using the chips across their line - including the iPod perhaps, putting literally millions more Intel chips out there - and 3 would be laugh at Microsoft, or something along those lines.
Actually, if you read the write-up over at Tom's Hardware, you'll remember that Palladium was Microsoft's "Secure Coding" bit back in 2002 that was officially dropped in 2003. The Intel Trusted Platform is code-named "LaGrange". So yes, Palladium will not be in OS X for x86, though the hardware may make use of Intel's LaGrange technology. These guys just found a way around whatever protections are in the dev kit.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the only way you really solve crises like this is to get in there, and get in there as early as you can - if there had been National Guard relief units moving in on Monday night or Tuesday, a lot of things could have went better. But of course, now that things have not gone well, I agree that focusing on either security or aid exclusively just makes things worse.
Moreover, I think this whole mess has very painful pointed out the lack of understanding some (emphasis on some) Americans have for different cultures and different socioeconomic situations. Your city floods, you have no car, no money, no food, and there are stores all around you - stores that for all practical purposes won't reopen commercially for weeks - and you're supposed to sit there nicely and wait for the nice aid people to get to you eventually? Or do you deserve no aid at all simply because when the order to evacuate was given, you stayed because you couldn't afford transport out of the area?
It never ceases to amaze me how people underestimate the basic needs of a people in crisis - they don't need to know why the levees failed, or who cut the funding, and they certainly don't need someone telling them about all the warnings and orders to evacuate given in the days before the storm hit. They need food, shelter, a shower, clean clothing, etc. I hate to say it, but it sounds way too familiar - the only saving grace is that we haven't started blaming the lack of aid getting into the area on Louisiana insurgents.
I love The Onion, and it is America's Finest News Source, but, uh, ya'll do realize they, um, aren't really reporting the news?
Hmm, interesting...not sure if that's what Lucas intended (I had always chalked it up to the usual slips in sci-fi by over-techno-babbled writers), but that would work.
What do you mean that's it? This is the ship that did the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs!
Their server will be back shortly thereafter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf
Really? You'd think someone would've fixed the Wikipedia article if it wasn't.
So is this the Internet where we took a shottie to the Vulcans, or is it the one where Biff found a book about all the World Series back in 1950s?
I agree, but at least bringing back Leo might be a sign that TPTB at G4TV are going to shift back more toward old TechTV programming - the half and half only lasted a little while before virtually all TechTV shows (and people, minus Morgan Webb and Adam Sessler) were gone. G4 feels too 12 year old fanboy - even if Call for Help seems too n00bish, at least its something better than what is there now.
But, if you read previous posts, and thought a little, it wasn't that the battery had only a limited amount of rechargability, it was that it was not consumer replaceable, and Apple promised a certain battery life that didn't happen for most.
So, wait, does this mean we don't have to put up with ridiculously speculative stories about things that "might" happen in someone's mind but have absolutely no business being called "news" now that the rumor mill has exploded?
What's that you say? Oh, this is Slashdot?
Ah, never mind then. Nothing for you to see here, please move along.
Geez, someone mod parent Redundant... great-grandparent already mentioned the "bad editorial work".
"To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017."
I believe the reason for the extra three years is so that the data from 2012-2017 can be collected and processed, thus giving an "average" temperature for 2015...at least, that's what TFA seems to say.
I know, I know, no need to read TFA when you can make a snappy remark for free +1 Funny points but look like an idiot cause you didn't read the article you are trying to poke fun at.
...and it is my birthday, so quite frankly I think it has plenty of historical significance. Now all I need is a temporal theorist to explain why that is true (you know, the whole spiel about how even seemingly minor events on a universal scale can have huge consequences if they turned out differently).
As an extension, would this count against fasting meat during Lent? I agree, ideologically this could be very interesting, especially if it forces us to look at why certain dietary restrictions have religious bases - is it because the food is unheathly (as most pig products tend to be, depending of course on how they are prepared), or is it an obedience thing, meaning its more important for the commitment aspects?
Doesn't the fact that iPods were shipping over six months before the patent was filed by the MS employee mean the application doesn't mean much? Every time one of these patent fights comes up I get just more and more confused.
Ah, understood. Was hoping that's what you meant, but wasn't sure. Sometimes the marketing hype can confuse even the most astute of us (I've read I don't know how many articles on tech news sites claiming that iTMS songs are incompatible with Windows, when what they meant was Windows Media).
Well, Apple doesn't limit to a single device - each file can work on up to 5 computers and as many iPods as you can manage to sync with those computers, plus CD burning - but you are right. From a technical standpoint, Real is better on those points - but it hasn't developed a winning portable player, the one thing that has really pulled iTMS into dominance. Sometimes you can do better than the other guy on a couple points, but he may still have the "better" all-around package (that, of course, is subjective, but you get the point).
"So then you must agree that it's good for Microsoft to use closed file formats for Office and that Lexmark should be able to sue competitors for refilling their ink cartridges. Also, cracking the DVD encrpytion scheme to make a Linux DVD player must be wrong too."
Well, I don't think it's "good" for MS to close Office formats, because I personally like choice, but if that's what they want to do, let them. As a very minor MS shareholder (less than 100 shares), I must say it is good for business, since their biggest Office customer base is in the business world, who will pony up for the licensing fees and such need to equip their workforce with Office with little care about whether OO.org or others are compatible (yes, there are some exceptions, but Office is still one of their biggest moneymakers - and the copies sold in BestBuy and such aren't what is keeping that going). Same thing with Lexmark (though even as a native Kentuckian I have to admit that I tend to favor HP printers anyhow).
The point I was making though was that we often look at a product or service or whatever that one company has developed, successfully marketed, and sold well and want in on it. We want to be able to use the money, time, and resources they've put into it to our advantage and launch our product to piggyback theirs - only without all the need for actually developing the market. Why does anyone care if Office uses closed standards? Because it's so widely used - people use it, know how it works, know its name, and are familiar with its formats. If you don't like Office, and you aren't the only one, then make something better, develop it, market it, and sell it. But don't tell MS they have to use open standards just so you can feed off their already developed market (albeit in this case there are arguments that this was not a fairly gained market - so it's not the greatest example, but hopefully you get the point).
I know it may sound a bit optimistic, even too idealistic, but until we get the whole money-less thing from Star Trek figured out, it's what we're going to have to live with. You shouldn't be able to copy someone else's work or product or format so that you can make a profit off of their market - that's the whole point behind copyright/patent/trademark laws.
Be original, make something better. Compatibility is great in a utopian society, but we live in one that is far from that. If companies can't rely on the revenue from the products they develop to sustain their R&D, we'll quickly run out of innovations.
So I know might risk the savage wrath of the Slashgods here, but I really can't find myself feeling sorry for Real. Reverse engineering is wrong if you're just trying to copy off the other guy - innovate and make something better than the other guy for a change.
Apple built a product (iTunes + iPod) that a lot of consumers love (marketshare speaks much louder than OGG support, open-ness, etc.), and Real wants a piece of that because very few are using their service. Why is it that we think just because it involves a computer or teh intarweb that it should all be fair game (or fair play, to pull a pun)?
If I create a product that is easier to use, looks good, and appeals to more consumers than everyone else's product, why should I have to share? I mean, if in the mean time I was running around telling the music companies that they could only use my service or could get some sort of incentive to not allow other services (i.e., the allegations behind much of the Wintel monopoly) that'd be one thing, but it appears that nothing of that sort happened.
Apple sets a great example IMHO of how a tech company should do things. No, they aren't always the fastest, most compatible, free software and open source (two things I happen to like) loving people, but when people (consumers) have a choice, they choose iPod in a very large landslide. Don't try to beat Apple by making them open FairPlay, or support more non-DRMed standards on the iPod, or whatever. Beat them by doing something better. Remember, iPod was a relatively late comer to the digital music scene, and yet it did things so much better than everyone else it quickly took a huge lead.
If only more companies would try to serve their markets by simply doing things better the other guys, not trying to copy or out-price or out-market them (though admittedly, Apple has fallen for this in the past), maybe we'd have more innovation and progress in technology these days instead of trying to figure which DRM scheme will make the most content providers happy and make the decision for the next gen DVD wars. I want to do with my music whatever I want like any of you, but I (and millions of others) don't mind being a little restricted if it means I get to use a great product. Consumers still drive this economy more than companies - if we don't like what they offer, don't buy it.
Oooo a show-off. Mr. I-paid-attention-in-accounting-class. ;)
I believe 2 would be woo Apple into using the chips across their line - including the iPod perhaps, putting literally millions more Intel chips out there - and 3 would be laugh at Microsoft, or something along those lines.
Nope, you can use any mouse, so long as it is dressed in a yellow jumpsuit wearing a red cape.
"Here I come to save the day!"
Actually, if you read the write-up over at Tom's Hardware, you'll remember that Palladium was Microsoft's "Secure Coding" bit back in 2002 that was officially dropped in 2003. The Intel Trusted Platform is code-named "LaGrange". So yes, Palladium will not be in OS X for x86, though the hardware may make use of Intel's LaGrange technology. These guys just found a way around whatever protections are in the dev kit.
Nah, he's tried Mac OS X, but didn't like it, and frankly, Windows XP SP2 is better. (or something along those lines)