I can attest to this. It has been "open" since iOS 3.0, with the caveat that all iPhone accessory devices have to include the Apple-provided authentication chip.
I would talk to a local (ideally publicly-funded) technology incubator or small business development center. These organizations have a vested interest in seeing you take your concept to the next level, assuming that the business plan is sound. We work with TechColumbus (our local incubator) quite frequently as sources for development work. They will be the best source for lining up additional funding, talent and anything else you need.
I run a contract technology development firm (KappaStone) based in Columbus, Ohio. We work with start-ups and small companies all the time and I'd be happy to sit down and talk about your concept. Although the bulk of our work is done on a cash basis, we are willing to discuss alternative agreements on a case-by-case basis.
If you have any interest, visit our site at http://www.kappastone.com or give us a call at 800-706-4534.
I wouldn't be as opposed to these regulations if it didn't basically require the use of third party background checks. If the information were freely and readily available from various agencies for performing your own automated checks, I would be all for it. However, I refuse to have the government impose upon me to pay company X some arbitrary fee $XX to perform checks on my customers.
That's not to say that I wouldn't be doing this as part of my own policy for larger customers for our own protection, but for the government to fine me if I don't do their work for them is ridiculous and wrong. It's worse than the IRS forcing you to use (and pay) a third party to E-File your taxes. Is it not cheaper for them to accept an electronic filing, after all?
I'm all for doing my part to help prevent terrorism or other criminal activity, but this attitude that a business (even a small business) should not only be held liable but also severely fined if it doesn't do law enforcement's work for them is outrageous.
And people wonder why businesses are moving out of the US.
There are actually already systems out there that do just this and I happen to be one of the people working on them;) And yes, it originated as a dispute over liability after somebody ran into me in my apartment parking lot. People better start watching out before they swing their car doors open into somebody else's car.
Even small companies like the one I work for during the day could suffer because of a regionalized internet. I'm uncertain of the exact figures, but I would wager that on the order of half of our customers are international. Our research instrumentation is shipped around the world and I speak with just as many international customers via phone and email as Americans. I also have friends who live outside of the country, and most of my wife-to-be's relatives live outside the US. If regionalization would eventually introduce any barriers/fees/annoyances beyond what already exist for having transactions of any kind with another country, then it is a terrible idea.
Out of curiosity, what would be a feasible price point for something like what you described?
I don't disagree that the pricing on much of the currently available home integration technologies is out of reach of most consumers. My ultimate goal with my company is to eventually move into the design side of integration equipment and make the technology more widely accessible, but that is some time off. My personal belief as to why it is so "overpriced" in comparison with PC's and more common consumer electronics is simply the niche market that is has been in for so long. Even for international companies like Crestron, their mass production numbers can't come anywhere close to what Dell does. By the time enough units have been shipped of a particular technology to bring the price down, that technology is vastly out of date. There is also limited competition on the manufacturing side. This combined with the commonly held view that home integration (or variations of it) is a luxury forces the technology to stay below that threshold where competition, mass production and wide availability pushes the price down. It will happen eventually, though, don't worry.
Now, that said, I have no intention of actually work with a company like yours. I mean no offense, but in my experience, installation companies like to choose absolutely ridiculously expensive equipment and spend far too much time trying to maximize their profits
Indeed, it is an image that is unfortunately associated with my company's industry all to often. Installers have come to recognize that the easiest way to make a quick buck is to go after the customers with deep pockets who want to show off. Someone who wants to show off doesn't want to have the same DVD player, projector or audio system as the average joe, even if it is professionally installed. As a result, most installers don't cater to projects under $5k, and shudder at the thought of using equipment from the likes of Sony.
While I can't deny being guilty of trying to push the higher end equipment myself, I've made sure to set my company up to offer people a wide range of options and I don't set any minimum cut off. If someone already has all the equipment they want and just want their wiring redone, I'm more than happy to take on the project. That doesn't mean I don't prefer and bend over backwards more for customers who want the whole package, though. And, in some applications, there just aren't that many low-cost options for off-the-shelf automation equipment that works reliably; that's why I hope to extend my company into manufacturing eventually.
The main issue that the vast majority of people have with AOL's proposed system is that the fee is not a necessary component. A system using the same basic principles can be achieved without introducing an up-front or even a per-email charge. The appeal of email is and always has been the combination of 1) totally free and 2) nearly instantaneous. Kill one of those benefits and, like you said, it's simply making it more like snail-mail, which is going backwards. There are a lot of smaller companies out there who don't use big-name email providers and rely on email to communicate with their customers or subscribers. If they suddenly have to pay an up-front fee or per-email fee, it's an additional cost for whenever they send to AOL users. It may seriously cut into their margins. Why should innocent, smaller companies have to pay so they don't get lumped in with the spammers?
Instead, use the same system but without fees. If a company gets more than a complaint or two "per capita" then revoke their license to send or begin lumping them with spam. If it's a unified system, a few spam emails will make it through in the beginning but they will quickly be blocked for subsequent users. Same effect without the fees, which is all people really want.
Alternatively, keep the money-based system but change the "fees" into "certification deposits." Pay up front to send so many emails per year. If that year passes and you haven't received a significant number of complaints for spam, you get the deposit back. Otherwise, the fee will be split between the company and the users to pay for their wasted time. Just another idea that could still accomplish AOL's supposed mission, without legitimate senders getting screwed over.
There are STILL a number of HDTV devices being sold to this day which are supposedly HD enabled and ready, and yet they lack HDCP support. I purchased an $800 projector a year back (far after the early adopters) to install in my home theater. It has component and DVI inputs, which *should* have worked perfectly fine for all HD resolutions, but it lacks HDCP-- a completely useless extra step in the process which provides no benefit whatsoever to the end user.
I don't care that much about what copy protection is on the disc itself (although I would vastly prefer there to be none at all), but when organizations such as the MPAA feels that the general public can't be allowed to view higher resolution content over their existing, perfectly capable equipment STRICTLY because of copyright reasons, they can go fuck themselves. Make it a requirement for all *new* HD output devices (or the next gen devices), that's fine. But don't lock out the overwhelming number of users who were well intentioned and purchased new HD equipment (which was already standardized, BTW) with the expectation that it would *work*.
If it weren't for the fact that HDCP is an afterthought, completely overlooked in the original HD video standards, then it wouldn't be such a big deal. It's the fact that it's being pushed all of a sudden, at the last minute, *after* everyone has spent their money upgrading, and without any regard whatsoever to anyone who might be royally screwed over as a result.
For good measure, we could have a cartoon of Jesus using thumbscrews or having sex or something too
Exactly! While I myself, as a Christian, would find such a cartoon offensive and blasphemous, I'm not about to go on a riot or resort to violence as a means of having it removed or as retaliation. You have a right to freedom of expression and freedom of press, and I have a right to not look at said cartoons. If it were a particularly offensive cartoon published in the newspaper, the most I might do is write a letter to the editor expressing my opinion of the cartoon and requesting they not produce such cartoons in the future. It's their choice if they continue to do so. I just might not buy that paper in the future. It's as simple as that.
The fact that a series of harmless cartoons released by one independent newspaper, which I assume to be owned by a private corporation, was enough to set off such a widespread violent reaction in Muslim countries just goes to show why the world as a whole has such a negative view of the Muslim religion and Islam as a whole. Perhaps if they would've simply left well enough alone or gone about their protests in a peaceful, diplomatic way, the cartoons would've stopped long ago. At the very least, they might have gained some respect and reputation as a peaceful religion. Instead, they've reinforced the very image which sparked the protest in the first place.
No disagreement there. But RIM should have performed due diligence in researching applicable patents before launching the BlackBerry.
While I agree that, given the current system, one needs to research existing patents in order to avoid infringing upon someone else's portfolio, to lay the blame on RIM for essentially "not doing enough research" is completely unreasonable. Anyone who is involved with the introduction of a new device and who has tried to do patent searches before knows that the process is non-trivial. Because of the vague nature of many patents, you may do keyword searches for this process or that process, or a particular function, and never run across that handful of patents which cover your new device. It's a very, very tedious process and an imperfect science. Without going through every single patent on the books by hand and interpreting each and every one of them to the broadest extent possible, it's impossible to guarantee that someone won't try to make some claim against you (legitimate or otherwise) in the future.
Which brings up the point that if you're in the field of innovating and designing new devices, you shouldn't need to go and ensure that someone else hasn't had the idea before. If it is something which was truthfully invented completely independently of someone else's implementation of the same or similar concept, then why should you not be allowed to pursue marketing it without the burden of paying royalties to someone else for your own work? The vast majority of patents which are granted these days are public knowledge, completely common sense, or predisposed (inventions which were simply bound to happen eventually) anyway.
There should be some demonstration that the patented idea itself has real liquid value-- that there was significant monetary or time investment in research or development to arrive at the patented concept and that it wasn't just dumb luck or the drunken rumblings of a friend on a Friday night. This accomplishes the same end goal as the prototype requirement on the one hand, but makes allowances for particularly expensive or complex concepts which will take time to implement and/or market. On the other hand, it would remove trivial or common sense concepts from the patent pool, which would help reduce the number of frivilous (or questionable) lawsuits over such trivialities of using a wireless device for email correspondance (duh!)
At the same time, I think there needs to be a more well defined burden of proof in patent infringement cases. If there was no obvious malicious intent against the patent holder then there's no case. If trivial patents are eliminated, then there would only be lawsuits over very complex and detailed systems or methods. If you're sued for infringing upon someone's specific design, without having your own logs and notebooks to show an independent thought process (ie, you didn't just steal it) then the case is pretty well settled. If you legitimately came up with the concept independently and have the documentation to back it up, then you should be allowed to continue to develop and/or market the concept without hinderance. The NTP vs. RIM case would have been thrown out a long time ago.
Finally (and perhaps somewhat unrelated,) the transferring of patent rights should be banned. The patent system should exist to only protect the original inventor and only if they intend to develop the idea themselves. If people wish to license their IP, then that's fine, but there should be no outright sale of patents. Patent holding companies are an abomination and need to be wiped off the face of the planet. They serve no purpose other than to stifle innovation and damage the real innovators in this world.
I have an OSU email account which I use as one of my primarily personal accounts since it is one of the few that isn't flooded by spam and I never use it to register for sites; anybody who knows that address will be able to get ahold of me now and still be able to 20 years from now.
Unfortunately, OSU SMTP servers don't allow sending outside of the university's domain, so I have to resort to using my authenticated sbcglobal server for all outgoing messages from that address. As a result, SPF would effectively prevent me from using my OSU address (the only permanent account I have) for any practical emailing.
That, and if there's something that you don't like about the firmware/menu interface, since you have the source available to you, make your own mods and voila! Your own instant, customized Neuros.
I have one myself (I'm actually listening to Sneaker Pimps with it as I write) and I'll readily admit that there are things about it that I don't like-- some things that I can change through firmware, and others that I can't, like the slightly bulky casing. Overall, though, it's so much more flexible, has FM transmitting built-in, can function as a multi-purpose portable HD since it doesn't care what else you throw on there, and it was significantly cheaper for the same capacity. While iPods are "neat" and smooth, the Neuros is functionally so much better; try one out and you'll see what I mean.
I won't speak for the parent, but I do, however, find the concept of the larger countries effectively paying smaller countries under treaty/contract to be very objectionable; seems like an unbalanced money making scheme to me.
Granted, the US will be the worst off in any balanced scheme, but if the purpose of the treaty is really to reduce global pollution then it should set the same standards across the board and not allow the third world countries to sell their unused credits.
So while I do agree that the reasons which Bush gave for not accepting the treaty are BS, I also believe there are other good reasons not to accept it without some big changes.
I find it appaling that what I thought to be a generally intelligent readership here on/. could be so damn ignorant and emotional over a bunch of hype. There is something that most of you here seem to be forgetting; useful atmospheric data has been collected now for only a very short period of time, in the grand scheme of things. 50 years is hardly an adequate window of time on which to construct any kind of accurate model, or even to make assumptions. Hell, we STILL can't predict the weather beyond a week with any kind of certainty, so how can we honestly expect to understand the climate on a global scale, over the course of tens or hundreds of years?
Those who think we're in a warm spell during an ice age and so it ought to be getting colder again, how do you know? Maybe this warm spell is just getting started. While we can't deny that it's a strange correlation between industrialization and these effects, we also can't deny that there were tons of catastrophic climate changes long before man had any influence. It's not unlikely that this same thing happened a couple hundred years ago, but we can't say one way or the other, as we weren't recording data at the time.
Now, don't take my point the wrong way. I'm not saying that industrialization has no effect on the environment; in fact, there is no doubt in my mind that man has influenced the climate to some extent. The more efficient we are, the better. All that I'm saying is that we need to sit down and think about what we are observing, in an intelligent manner, and stop running around and screaming that this is the end of the world. The fact is, if there really is a problem and we continue drawing random conclusions and pouring money into bogus solutions, it may be too late by the time we really figure out what's going on. Maybe there's some other kind of natural global change on the way which will have catastrophic long-term effects; if we just assume these changes to be a result of pollution, then we're doomed.
Let the researchers do their jobs and work towards a more conrete answer. In the mean time, relax and carry about your business; if you're that concerned, change fields and start doing your own research. Either way, stop bitching and predicting the end of the world as we know it.
NASA also announced today that Michael Ryschkewitsch, director of the Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, would lead the Genesis Mishap Investigation Board (MIB) in an effort to determine the exact cause of the disaster
Whoever knew there'd be real Men In Black-- and they'd work for JPL?
That may be the case, but the last time I checked, it was still run by mostly the same people (unless the About page is just severely out of date). So, excuse me for having some doubts, hehe. It's nice to see that, although the content has gone downhill on the site, some things have stayed the same-- proofreading still isn't a common practice =)
All joking aside, though, I take it that you at least somewhat remember who this is. I've got a few ideas for the site if the guys have any interest in hearing them; I'm itching to build another big site. Email me.
I tried to convince them to keep the abbreviation but change the name a couple of times during my year or so there, since Glide wrapper appeal (and inherently the focus of the site) had already shifted, but alas.
I was a former writer for GlideUnderground as well, and I would tend to disagree with you. Being on the inside at one time and seeing how things were done, yes, I can look down on them =P
From what I gathered in the two links and also my knowledge of TCP/IP, it would not necessarily require a flawed implementation of the stack in order to be vulnerable to attacks of these sort. In fact, it is the routers and/or software which doesn't implement the stack according to spec which are less likely to be affected.
In the mean time, there are a few workarounds which can be put in place, such as IPSec, and options which can be changed to reduce the liklihood of an attack, such as the window size. The smaller it is, the harder it is to guess a sequence number in the range quickly.
To say that there have been no major quality improvements in color television isn't entirely correct. The televisions themselves have implemented better and better filtering algorithms and can better lock onto signals than they used to. Color realism has gotten better with newer TV's to project more fleshy tones and more accurate color temperatures.
Then there have been improvements in the means of broadcasting signals. Cable TV was introduced, and not too long after was followed by satellite reception (with their appropriate receivers), both of which improved the strength of the signal and integrity of the image. In more recent years, digital cable and satellite hit it big, and allow for near-perfect signal quality and picture integrity.
The only thing that hasn't really changed up to this point has been the resolution, and this has partly been a result of how well the TV market took off after its introduction. It's hard to change a standard once it has been in place and is used by everyone. Optimally, it would be nice if there was a way to allow HDTV signals to continue to be received by regular definition TVs so that broadcasters wouldn't have to maintain separate equipment, but the technology is so much different that it would be impractical. This is why the introduction of HDTV has taken so long.
Let's not forgot that the XBox, XP Home, and Office are only three out of the hundreds of different products which Microsoft sells. There's also XP Pro, 2000 Pro/Server, SQL Server, VS.net, etc, etc, which all make more profit per sale than most of the consumer products combined. $600 mil is still a lot of money, yes, but it won't hurt Microsoft in the least. I bet their stock is going to go down, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I can attest to this. It has been "open" since iOS 3.0, with the caveat that all iPhone accessory devices have to include the Apple-provided authentication chip.
I would talk to a local (ideally publicly-funded) technology incubator or small business development center. These organizations have a vested interest in seeing you take your concept to the next level, assuming that the business plan is sound. We work with TechColumbus (our local incubator) quite frequently as sources for development work. They will be the best source for lining up additional funding, talent and anything else you need.
I run a contract technology development firm (KappaStone) based in Columbus, Ohio. We work with start-ups and small companies all the time and I'd be happy to sit down and talk about your concept. Although the bulk of our work is done on a cash basis, we are willing to discuss alternative agreements on a case-by-case basis.
If you have any interest, visit our site at http://www.kappastone.com or give us a call at 800-706-4534.
I wouldn't be as opposed to these regulations if it didn't basically require the use of third party background checks. If the information were freely and readily available from various agencies for performing your own automated checks, I would be all for it. However, I refuse to have the government impose upon me to pay company X some arbitrary fee $XX to perform checks on my customers.
That's not to say that I wouldn't be doing this as part of my own policy for larger customers for our own protection, but for the government to fine me if I don't do their work for them is ridiculous and wrong. It's worse than the IRS forcing you to use (and pay) a third party to E-File your taxes. Is it not cheaper for them to accept an electronic filing, after all?
I'm all for doing my part to help prevent terrorism or other criminal activity, but this attitude that a business (even a small business) should not only be held liable but also severely fined if it doesn't do law enforcement's work for them is outrageous.
And people wonder why businesses are moving out of the US.
There are actually already systems out there that do just this and I happen to be one of the people working on them ;) And yes, it originated as a dispute over liability after somebody ran into me in my apartment parking lot. People better start watching out before they swing their car doors open into somebody else's car.
Even small companies like the one I work for during the day could suffer because of a regionalized internet. I'm uncertain of the exact figures, but I would wager that on the order of half of our customers are international. Our research instrumentation is shipped around the world and I speak with just as many international customers via phone and email as Americans. I also have friends who live outside of the country, and most of my wife-to-be's relatives live outside the US. If regionalization would eventually introduce any barriers/fees/annoyances beyond what already exist for having transactions of any kind with another country, then it is a terrible idea.
Out of curiosity, what would be a feasible price point for something like what you described?
I don't disagree that the pricing on much of the currently available home integration technologies is out of reach of most consumers. My ultimate goal with my company is to eventually move into the design side of integration equipment and make the technology more widely accessible, but that is some time off. My personal belief as to why it is so "overpriced" in comparison with PC's and more common consumer electronics is simply the niche market that is has been in for so long. Even for international companies like Crestron, their mass production numbers can't come anywhere close to what Dell does. By the time enough units have been shipped of a particular technology to bring the price down, that technology is vastly out of date. There is also limited competition on the manufacturing side. This combined with the commonly held view that home integration (or variations of it) is a luxury forces the technology to stay below that threshold where competition, mass production and wide availability pushes the price down. It will happen eventually, though, don't worry.
While I can't deny being guilty of trying to push the higher end equipment myself, I've made sure to set my company up to offer people a wide range of options and I don't set any minimum cut off. If someone already has all the equipment they want and just want their wiring redone, I'm more than happy to take on the project. That doesn't mean I don't prefer and bend over backwards more for customers who want the whole package, though. And, in some applications, there just aren't that many low-cost options for off-the-shelf automation equipment that works reliably; that's why I hope to extend my company into manufacturing eventually.
The main issue that the vast majority of people have with AOL's proposed system is that the fee is not a necessary component. A system using the same basic principles can be achieved without introducing an up-front or even a per-email charge. The appeal of email is and always has been the combination of 1) totally free and 2) nearly instantaneous. Kill one of those benefits and, like you said, it's simply making it more like snail-mail, which is going backwards. There are a lot of smaller companies out there who don't use big-name email providers and rely on email to communicate with their customers or subscribers. If they suddenly have to pay an up-front fee or per-email fee, it's an additional cost for whenever they send to AOL users. It may seriously cut into their margins. Why should innocent, smaller companies have to pay so they don't get lumped in with the spammers?
Instead, use the same system but without fees. If a company gets more than a complaint or two "per capita" then revoke their license to send or begin lumping them with spam. If it's a unified system, a few spam emails will make it through in the beginning but they will quickly be blocked for subsequent users. Same effect without the fees, which is all people really want.
Alternatively, keep the money-based system but change the "fees" into "certification deposits." Pay up front to send so many emails per year. If that year passes and you haven't received a significant number of complaints for spam, you get the deposit back. Otherwise, the fee will be split between the company and the users to pay for their wasted time. Just another idea that could still accomplish AOL's supposed mission, without legitimate senders getting screwed over.
There are STILL a number of HDTV devices being sold to this day which are supposedly HD enabled and ready, and yet they lack HDCP support. I purchased an $800 projector a year back (far after the early adopters) to install in my home theater. It has component and DVI inputs, which *should* have worked perfectly fine for all HD resolutions, but it lacks HDCP-- a completely useless extra step in the process which provides no benefit whatsoever to the end user.
I don't care that much about what copy protection is on the disc itself (although I would vastly prefer there to be none at all), but when organizations such as the MPAA feels that the general public can't be allowed to view higher resolution content over their existing, perfectly capable equipment STRICTLY because of copyright reasons, they can go fuck themselves. Make it a requirement for all *new* HD output devices (or the next gen devices), that's fine. But don't lock out the overwhelming number of users who were well intentioned and purchased new HD equipment (which was already standardized, BTW) with the expectation that it would *work*.
If it weren't for the fact that HDCP is an afterthought, completely overlooked in the original HD video standards, then it wouldn't be such a big deal. It's the fact that it's being pushed all of a sudden, at the last minute, *after* everyone has spent their money upgrading, and without any regard whatsoever to anyone who might be royally screwed over as a result.
The fact that a series of harmless cartoons released by one independent newspaper, which I assume to be owned by a private corporation, was enough to set off such a widespread violent reaction in Muslim countries just goes to show why the world as a whole has such a negative view of the Muslim religion and Islam as a whole. Perhaps if they would've simply left well enough alone or gone about their protests in a peaceful, diplomatic way, the cartoons would've stopped long ago. At the very least, they might have gained some respect and reputation as a peaceful religion. Instead, they've reinforced the very image which sparked the protest in the first place.
Which brings up the point that if you're in the field of innovating and designing new devices, you shouldn't need to go and ensure that someone else hasn't had the idea before. If it is something which was truthfully invented completely independently of someone else's implementation of the same or similar concept, then why should you not be allowed to pursue marketing it without the burden of paying royalties to someone else for your own work? The vast majority of patents which are granted these days are public knowledge, completely common sense, or predisposed (inventions which were simply bound to happen eventually) anyway.
There should be some demonstration that the patented idea itself has real liquid value-- that there was significant monetary or time investment in research or development to arrive at the patented concept and that it wasn't just dumb luck or the drunken rumblings of a friend on a Friday night. This accomplishes the same end goal as the prototype requirement on the one hand, but makes allowances for particularly expensive or complex concepts which will take time to implement and/or market. On the other hand, it would remove trivial or common sense concepts from the patent pool, which would help reduce the number of frivilous (or questionable) lawsuits over such trivialities of using a wireless device for email correspondance (duh!)
At the same time, I think there needs to be a more well defined burden of proof in patent infringement cases. If there was no obvious malicious intent against the patent holder then there's no case. If trivial patents are eliminated, then there would only be lawsuits over very complex and detailed systems or methods. If you're sued for infringing upon someone's specific design, without having your own logs and notebooks to show an independent thought process (ie, you didn't just steal it) then the case is pretty well settled. If you legitimately came up with the concept independently and have the documentation to back it up, then you should be allowed to continue to develop and/or market the concept without hinderance. The NTP vs. RIM case would have been thrown out a long time ago.
Finally (and perhaps somewhat unrelated,) the transferring of patent rights should be banned. The patent system should exist to only protect the original inventor and only if they intend to develop the idea themselves. If people wish to license their IP, then that's fine, but there should be no outright sale of patents. Patent holding companies are an abomination and need to be wiped off the face of the planet. They serve no purpose other than to stifle innovation and damage the real innovators in this world.
I have an OSU email account which I use as one of my primarily personal accounts since it is one of the few that isn't flooded by spam and I never use it to register for sites; anybody who knows that address will be able to get ahold of me now and still be able to 20 years from now.
Unfortunately, OSU SMTP servers don't allow sending outside of the university's domain, so I have to resort to using my authenticated sbcglobal server for all outgoing messages from that address. As a result, SPF would effectively prevent me from using my OSU address (the only permanent account I have) for any practical emailing.
This is why the standard isn't useful.
That, and if there's something that you don't like about the firmware/menu interface, since you have the source available to you, make your own mods and voila! Your own instant, customized Neuros.
I have one myself (I'm actually listening to Sneaker Pimps with it as I write) and I'll readily admit that there are things about it that I don't like-- some things that I can change through firmware, and others that I can't, like the slightly bulky casing. Overall, though, it's so much more flexible, has FM transmitting built-in, can function as a multi-purpose portable HD since it doesn't care what else you throw on there, and it was significantly cheaper for the same capacity. While iPods are "neat" and smooth, the Neuros is functionally so much better; try one out and you'll see what I mean.
I won't speak for the parent, but I do, however, find the concept of the larger countries effectively paying smaller countries under treaty/contract to be very objectionable; seems like an unbalanced money making scheme to me.
Granted, the US will be the worst off in any balanced scheme, but if the purpose of the treaty is really to reduce global pollution then it should set the same standards across the board and not allow the third world countries to sell their unused credits.
So while I do agree that the reasons which Bush gave for not accepting the treaty are BS, I also believe there are other good reasons not to accept it without some big changes.
Maybe they're trying to dissolve any connection with the Astro van.
I find it appaling that what I thought to be a generally intelligent readership here on /. could be so damn ignorant and emotional over a bunch of hype. There is something that most of you here seem to be forgetting; useful atmospheric data has been collected now for only a very short period of time, in the grand scheme of things. 50 years is hardly an adequate window of time on which to construct any kind of accurate model, or even to make assumptions. Hell, we STILL can't predict the weather beyond a week with any kind of certainty, so how can we honestly expect to understand the climate on a global scale, over the course of tens or hundreds of years?
Those who think we're in a warm spell during an ice age and so it ought to be getting colder again, how do you know? Maybe this warm spell is just getting started. While we can't deny that it's a strange correlation between industrialization and these effects, we also can't deny that there were tons of catastrophic climate changes long before man had any influence. It's not unlikely that this same thing happened a couple hundred years ago, but we can't say one way or the other, as we weren't recording data at the time.
Now, don't take my point the wrong way. I'm not saying that industrialization has no effect on the environment; in fact, there is no doubt in my mind that man has influenced the climate to some extent. The more efficient we are, the better. All that I'm saying is that we need to sit down and think about what we are observing, in an intelligent manner, and stop running around and screaming that this is the end of the world. The fact is, if there really is a problem and we continue drawing random conclusions and pouring money into bogus solutions, it may be too late by the time we really figure out what's going on. Maybe there's some other kind of natural global change on the way which will have catastrophic long-term effects; if we just assume these changes to be a result of pollution, then we're doomed.
Let the researchers do their jobs and work towards a more conrete answer. In the mean time, relax and carry about your business; if you're that concerned, change fields and start doing your own research. Either way, stop bitching and predicting the end of the world as we know it.
NASA also announced today that Michael Ryschkewitsch, director of the Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, would lead the Genesis Mishap Investigation Board (MIB) in an effort to determine the exact cause of the disaster
Whoever knew there'd be real Men In Black-- and they'd work for JPL?
That may be the case, but the last time I checked, it was still run by mostly the same people (unless the About page is just severely out of date). So, excuse me for having some doubts, hehe. It's nice to see that, although the content has gone downhill on the site, some things have stayed the same-- proofreading still isn't a common practice =)
All joking aside, though, I take it that you at least somewhat remember who this is. I've got a few ideas for the site if the guys have any interest in hearing them; I'm itching to build another big site. Email me.
I tried to convince them to keep the abbreviation but change the name a couple of times during my year or so there, since Glide wrapper appeal (and inherently the focus of the site) had already shifted, but alas.
I was a former writer for GlideUnderground as well, and I would tend to disagree with you. Being on the inside at one time and seeing how things were done, yes, I can look down on them =P
Adding more horsepower to the engine of your car tends not to be for the purpose of making you a safer driver either, though.
From what I gathered in the two links and also my knowledge of TCP/IP, it would not necessarily require a flawed implementation of the stack in order to be vulnerable to attacks of these sort. In fact, it is the routers and/or software which doesn't implement the stack according to spec which are less likely to be affected.
In the mean time, there are a few workarounds which can be put in place, such as IPSec, and options which can be changed to reduce the liklihood of an attack, such as the window size. The smaller it is, the harder it is to guess a sequence number in the range quickly.
To say that there have been no major quality improvements in color television isn't entirely correct. The televisions themselves have implemented better and better filtering algorithms and can better lock onto signals than they used to. Color realism has gotten better with newer TV's to project more fleshy tones and more accurate color temperatures.
Then there have been improvements in the means of broadcasting signals. Cable TV was introduced, and not too long after was followed by satellite reception (with their appropriate receivers), both of which improved the strength of the signal and integrity of the image. In more recent years, digital cable and satellite hit it big, and allow for near-perfect signal quality and picture integrity.
The only thing that hasn't really changed up to this point has been the resolution, and this has partly been a result of how well the TV market took off after its introduction. It's hard to change a standard once it has been in place and is used by everyone. Optimally, it would be nice if there was a way to allow HDTV signals to continue to be received by regular definition TVs so that broadcasters wouldn't have to maintain separate equipment, but the technology is so much different that it would be impractical. This is why the introduction of HDTV has taken so long.
Let's not forgot that the XBox, XP Home, and Office are only three out of the hundreds of different products which Microsoft sells. There's also XP Pro, 2000 Pro/Server, SQL Server, VS.net, etc, etc, which all make more profit per sale than most of the consumer products combined. $600 mil is still a lot of money, yes, but it won't hurt Microsoft in the least. I bet their stock is going to go down, though.