Preserving species that are not fit for their environment seems the wrong approach to me. The chance of ever totally eradicating this fungus is nil, and if the most numerous amphibian population around is a re-seeded susceptible population you get to re-play the whole scenario in another 25 or 100 years.
Even trying to bread a frog with some resistance is at best an artificial solution, and one that historically has never worked on any grand scale.
Nature is not so fragile that the loss of said frogs will not be offset the the advance of some niche dweller to fill the gap.
We can't even manage our own affairs. It seems unwise and premature to step in and take over from mother nature.
>I'm still on XP... you are saying that not only is this not fixed in Vista, but it's > not fixed in 7 either? Yuck. I'm with you... I do a lot of VPN stuff and the > responsiveness of the shell during network operations is my biggest beef with XP.
My perception is different.
My Vista machine is very slow browsing the local network (to say nothing about a VPN). The Win 7 machine running in a Vmware Virtual machine hosted on this very same Vista platform accesses the network WAY FASTER. (At least twice as fast).
So: Same EXACT hardware, Win7 easily outperforms Vista. Even when running on top of vista. Go Figure.
If a VPN is involved it usually (but not always) implies a slow remote link. Explorer's file browsing traffic is indeed way to heavy for that environment.
> P.S. What you use as a player is irrelevant. WinAmp is not a video player; it's a > wrapper around Windows Media Player. You could use VLC, at which point this would not > matter to you. But if you use winamp you're using the same mechanisms to play video as > WiMP
I think it is highly relevant that the GP uses a third party wrapper to overcome the utter lameness of Microsoft's own player.
I don't understand how you can dismiss this.
Windows media has always had the problem of being a quirky constraining poorly designed interface. The fact that the underlying video and codecs actually work (mostly) is significant, and speaks to the fact that Microsoft has a bunch of air-heads on the Windows Media design team.
Oh stop with this Broken Window crap and read what I wrote.
You can not claim WORLD COST SAVINGS by simply adding up the cost savings to the newspaper industry.
Have you factored in the cost of the plants to build the Kindle? The training, the tech support, distribution, the marketing and the fact that everyone has to have an internet connection to read a frikin paper?
I realize its much easier to monkey-see-monkey-say some nonsense out of a some fallacy web page than do any real economic analysis, but you could at least PRETEND to make an effort.
I never claimed we should not adopt new technology, I merely said the alleged savings are utter hogwash.
So after stating that they are not comparable, you proceed to compare them??
You make far too much of mere temporal technical issues. Display technology, battery run time, and form factors change all the time. The netbook does so much more than a kindle.
It should be obvious to you that I read this story on a computer. I am well aware of the march of progress.
However, I STILL expect the claims to "saving the world" be balanced by the costs to that same WORLD. Apparently, your accounting methods are less rigorous.
My main point is that its not clear that this technology offers anything more than you can already get in a Netbook, other than the lock-in and DRM.
Your point about ad revenue is well made, even if you predicted the wrong result.
Ads will infest the Kindle. But since its off-line, they will be bigger, more intrusive, and fully embedded. Your 10 paragraph news story will come with 10 megabytes of ads.
> What we've got here is a technology that could be saving the world $80 billion a year,' Wilcox says."
Really? What happened to the 80 billion worth of printers, loggers, paper mills, transport, and fish-wrappers? Did they all go on Welfare so we can ship their jobs overseas to the Kindle manufacturing countries?
News print is a renewable resource. Is the Plastic in Kindle?
You can look around the ads (or read them as you see fit) in newsprint.
Will you be able to do that on the Kindle when corporate sponsors for media grab control of the device and make you stare at an advertisement for 6 seconds prior to viewing the content of a story?
Kindle might be great for books, but remember, its principal reason for being is to enforce DRM, to keep the book you bought on ONE device, to prevent sharing, or even transfer.
Netbooks is where mass media is going. And once you have a netbook, who needs a Kindle.
> Bundling is not illegal. It is illegal to bundle with a dominant product in one market to prevent competition in another market.
MS bundles for ease of use, not to prevent competition.
How can you look at the existence of 4 of 6 third party browsers, all of which arose AFTER msie, and stand there with a straight face and claim bundling prevents competition?
For every anecdote you site I have 5 others who never use MSIE at all anymore.
Those who barely use their computer (singular form noted in your reply) are not likely to be buying a new one any time soon, and may live the rest of their natural lives being the victims of malware viruses and trojans.
The average new computer user (like your kids) have already figured it out, are already using Firefox.
Cutting over to a new browser is not a problem. Neither was the cut-over to Digital TV. Yet some handwringers managed to drag us down to the lowest common denominator yet again with yet another plaintive wail:
Next, if MS, Dell or any other large OEM is going to be including FireFox, Opera, Safari and others on a computer they are going to require some pretty stringent requirements on release planning and QA.
You mean like the QA and Release planning we've had with the last 12 years from Microsoft?
> some experts question whether a universal > vaccine of this kind is even possible, since > the human body has been unable to come up with > an antibody solution
First, the researchers don't claim a universal anti-virus, simply a broad spectrum one.
Those nay-saying, have no lab data, those doing the research do. Its effective in animal studies and human studies will soon begin.
The human body does not search for the best antibody, or the most universal one. It simply throws stuff out there and sees what sticks (figuratively and literally).
This approach goes after an area on the virus that is hard to reach because of its structure.
Quoting TFA:
" The flu virus uses the lollipop-shaped hemagglutinin spike to invade nose and lung cells. There are 16 known types of spikes, H1 through H16.
The spikeâ(TM)s tip mutates constantly, which is why flu shots have to be reformulated each year. But the team found a way to expose the spikeâ(TM)s neck, which apparently does not mutate, and picked antibodies that clamped onto it. "
Why not add the service to the existing box? Thats what we ended up doing.
The thing of it is, if you have enough processing power to add Virtualization, you have way more than you need to add the service to the existing box.
I fully understand the big installation guys with a rack full of servers consolidating many into one who have responded here. They are making up for excesses of the past (too much hardware) using the path of least resistance. Instead of learning how to add a service to an existing box they simply clone an existing box into a Virtual Machine, freeing up hardware, some of which is probably obsolete and due for replacement. Its a cost effective approach.
There are also security reasons to do such a thing.
But that's the opposite argument presented by the GP who was talking about the cheap price of hardware as justification to virtualize. That's just wrong on so many levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a good idea?
Preserving species that are not fit for their environment seems the wrong approach to me. The chance of ever totally eradicating this fungus is nil, and if the most numerous amphibian population around is a re-seeded susceptible population you get to re-play the whole scenario in another 25 or 100 years.
Even trying to bread a frog with some resistance is at best an artificial solution, and one that historically has never worked on any grand scale.
Nature is not so fragile that the loss of said frogs will not be offset the the advance of some niche dweller to fill the gap.
We can't even manage our own affairs. It seems unwise and premature to step in and take over from mother nature.
>I'm still on XP... you are saying that not only is this not fixed in Vista, but it's
> not fixed in 7 either? Yuck. I'm with you... I do a lot of VPN stuff and the
> responsiveness of the shell during network operations is my biggest beef with XP.
My perception is different.
My Vista machine is very slow browsing the local network (to say nothing about a VPN).
The Win 7 machine running in a Vmware Virtual machine hosted on this very same Vista platform accesses the network WAY FASTER. (At least twice as fast).
So: Same EXACT hardware, Win7 easily outperforms Vista. Even when running on top of vista. Go Figure.
If a VPN is involved it usually (but not always) implies a slow remote link. Explorer's file browsing traffic is indeed way to heavy for that environment.
> P.S. What you use as a player is irrelevant. WinAmp is not a video player; it's a
> wrapper around Windows Media Player. You could use VLC, at which point this would not
> matter to you. But if you use winamp you're using the same mechanisms to play video as
> WiMP
I think it is highly relevant that the GP uses a third party wrapper to overcome the utter lameness of Microsoft's own player.
I don't understand how you can dismiss this.
Windows media has always had the problem of being a quirky constraining poorly designed interface. The fact that the underlying video and codecs actually work (mostly) is significant, and speaks to the fact that Microsoft has a bunch of air-heads on the Windows Media design team.
> People will progress from being lumberjacks to professionals trained in advanced technology.
Clearly you've never met a lumberjack!
Oh stop with this Broken Window crap and read what I wrote.
You can not claim WORLD COST SAVINGS by simply adding up the cost savings to the newspaper industry.
Have you factored in the cost of the plants to build the Kindle? The training, the tech support, distribution, the marketing and the fact that everyone has to have an internet connection to read a frikin paper?
I realize its much easier to monkey-see-monkey-say some nonsense out of a some fallacy web page than do any real economic analysis, but you could at least PRETEND to make an effort.
I never claimed we should not adopt new technology, I merely said the alleged savings are utter hogwash.
So after stating that they are not comparable, you proceed to compare them??
You make far too much of mere temporal technical issues. Display technology, battery run time, and form factors change all the time. The netbook does so much more than a kindle.
> This is just the broken window fallacy,
It should be obvious to you that I read this story on a computer. I am well aware of the march of progress.
However, I STILL expect the claims to "saving the world" be balanced by the costs to that same WORLD. Apparently, your accounting methods are less rigorous.
My main point is that its not clear that this technology offers anything more than you can already get in a Netbook, other than the lock-in and DRM.
You are not obligated to do anything, of course.
But you can not claim ONLY the saving without also acknowledging the costs.
This is especially so when your claim to saving was "saving the WORLD 80 billion). Are those displaced not also in the WORLD?
> Kindle currently uses a paid-subscription model instead of ads.
Oh Yeah, that will last. Riiiiight!
Your point about ad revenue is well made, even if you predicted the wrong result.
Ads will infest the Kindle. But since its off-line, they will be bigger, more intrusive, and fully embedded. Your 10 paragraph news story will come with 10 megabytes of ads.
The revenue stream lives on. Fear not.
> What we've got here is a technology that could be saving the world $80 billion a year,' Wilcox says."
Really?
What happened to the 80 billion worth of printers, loggers, paper mills, transport, and fish-wrappers? Did they all go on Welfare so we can ship their jobs overseas to the Kindle manufacturing countries?
News print is a renewable resource. Is the Plastic in Kindle?
You can look around the ads (or read them as you see fit) in newsprint.
Will you be able to do that on the Kindle when corporate sponsors for media grab control of the device and make you stare at an advertisement for 6 seconds prior to viewing the content of a story?
Kindle might be great for books, but remember, its principal reason for being is to enforce DRM, to keep the book you bought on ONE device, to prevent sharing, or even transfer.
Netbooks is where mass media is going. And once you have a netbook, who needs a Kindle.
What the hell is your point?
Have you even read what you are replying to?
What's your point?
Do you not see these available for Windows?
Yes, yes, ubuntu and suse allow use of other browsers. So what.
Microsoft does too. You can even set Firefox or Opera as your default browser.
So exactly what was your point?
> Bundling is not illegal. It is illegal to bundle with a dominant product in one market to prevent competition in another market.
MS bundles for ease of use, not to prevent competition.
How can you look at the existence of 4 of 6 third party browsers, all of which arose AFTER msie, and stand there with a straight face and claim bundling prevents competition?
Ubuntu installs with a default browser.
Apple osX installs with a default browser.
See the similarities?
Apple has a monopoly on OSX, which ships with an embeded default browser, Safari.
Should not this ruling apply to them as well?
Don't want that is. Duh!
Your point being?
Delete the ones you want, (or un-install).
You did say "Savvy users" didn't you?
For every anecdote you site I have 5 others who never use MSIE at all anymore.
Those who barely use their computer (singular form noted in your reply) are not likely to be buying a new one any time soon, and may live the rest of their natural lives being the victims of malware viruses and trojans.
The average new computer user (like your kids) have already figured it out, are already using Firefox.
Cutting over to a new browser is not a problem. Neither was the cut-over to Digital TV. Yet some handwringers managed to drag us down to the lowest common denominator yet again with yet another plaintive wail:
Won't somebody please think of the grandparents!.
What part of Windows doesn't allow users to choose a competing web browser?
Exactly.
Boot you machine, see 3 or 4 icons on the desktop:
Install Internet Explorer
Install FireFox
Install Opera
Install Safari.
Problem solved.
The real question is will they force Apple to do the same, or does the Little dictator of Cupertino get another free pass?
What about Ubuntu? Does it have to offer a choice as well?
Next, if MS, Dell or any other large OEM is going to be including FireFox, Opera, Safari and others on a computer they are going to require some pretty stringent requirements on release planning and QA.
You mean like the QA and Release planning we've had with the last 12 years from Microsoft?
Or perhaps its just recognition of the obvious:
Only a small minority of existing users do not ALREADY run more than one browser. (Apparently all 6 of them are on this thread).
Nobody said you had to use more than one.
> some experts question whether a universal
> vaccine of this kind is even possible, since
> the human body has been unable to come up with
> an antibody solution
First, the researchers don't claim a universal anti-virus, simply a broad spectrum one.
Those nay-saying, have no lab data, those doing the research do. Its effective in animal studies and human studies will soon begin.
The human body does not search for the best antibody, or the most universal one. It simply throws stuff out there and sees what sticks (figuratively and literally).
This approach goes after an area on the virus that is hard to reach because of its structure.
Quoting TFA:
" The flu virus uses the lollipop-shaped hemagglutinin spike to invade nose and lung cells. There are 16 known types of spikes, H1 through H16.
The spikeâ(TM)s tip mutates constantly, which is why flu shots have to be reformulated each year. But the team found a way to expose the spikeâ(TM)s neck, which apparently does not mutate, and picked antibodies that clamped onto it. "
Why not add the service to the existing box? Thats what we ended up doing.
The thing of it is, if you have enough processing power to add Virtualization, you have way more than you need to add the service to the existing box.
I fully understand the big installation guys with a rack full of servers consolidating many into one who have responded here. They are making up for excesses of the past (too much hardware) using the path of least resistance. Instead of learning how to add a service to an existing box they simply clone an existing box into a Virtual Machine, freeing up hardware, some of which is probably obsolete and due for replacement. Its a cost effective approach.
There are also security reasons to do such a thing.
But that's the opposite argument presented by the GP who was talking about the cheap price of hardware as justification to virtualize. That's just wrong on so many levels.