Well, nowadays the geeky kids are the ones who have the power. It would be so easy to hack someone's system to put kiddie porn on it and get them charged with a felony, especially the mouth-breathing troglodites that bullies usually are.
Heck, they probably already have something on their computer that they could get in trouble for. Just hack in, find the evidence, and submit it anonymously to the police. Problem solved.
I think you story goes to show that schools can't control what kids say. Your friends were able to publish and distribute a zine and wear shirts with profanity on it.
So the schools shouldn't stop "cyber bullying," but try to make a system that discourages bullying in the first place. I read somewhere that people end up bullying when they've got nothing better to do. Give these kids something productive, and they'll be too busy to worry about who smells or who slept with whom.
You can get 100Mbit symmetrical connections in Japan or South Korea or Sweden for around $50/month. So with the proper architecture, $100 for 10Mbit would be possible in the US.
Cable and POTS are old technology that are nearing the limits of effectiveness. Fiber optic is the future, and can handle huge amounts of data. Comcast and Verizon were given monopoly control over their lines to encourage them to run the lines. We shouldn't make the same mistake with Fiber Optic lines. Enforce common carrier status and have the state pay Verizon or whoever to run the lines. I think Utah's UTOPIA system (where the state runs the lines and leases access to service providers) is the best solution.
Capitalism isn't supposed to be anything except profitable. It's not supposed to provide services well. It's not supposed to interoperate well. It's not even supposed to keep people alive. It is supposed to maximize profits by any means necessary.
It would be great if someone created a way of skinning applications so that Thunderbird and Firefox looked like Outlook and IE, or vice versa. That way, IT guys would be able to deploy things and the executives wouldn't be the wiser.
I haven't played with Google Calendar enough, but would it be a workable replacement for the Outlook calendar? i.e. Can you schedule meetings with a simple invite rather than telling everyone to put it on their calendar? Can other users see your unavailable periods when scheduling?
Can you schedule meetings and send invites? Yes.
Can other users see your unvailable periods? Yes.
And since it exports to the vCal standard, people can use Sunbird or iCal or Outlook to subscribe to calendars. And when you subscribe to these calendars, syncing them is trivial.
I live within a half mile of one of the most expensive schools in my state (Franklin & Marshall). Almost all of the kids drive brand new cars, many of them luxury cars. They're able to pay for high speed broadband and would spring for 10Mbps symmetrical connections even if they cost $100/month, just because Mommy and Daddy would pay for it. Because of the population density, a few last-mile (more like last-fifteen-feet) runs would make whoever did it tons of money.
But they don't. Why? Because the only two carriers in the city (Comcast and Verizon) are already making tons of money giving sub-par service, and there's no other competition to force them to innovate thanks to our wonderful state government. I can't even get Embarq because Verizon has the CO locked down, and Embarq isn't my "local carrier."
If the state government got rid of the monopolies on cable and phone lines, we'd see some movement.
I used to have T-Mobile, and I was as happy with the service as you are. However, their coverage in my area stinks.
Imagine if the cell network was opened up, and I could buy service from T-Mobile and an unlocked phone and not have to worry about going somewhere that has poor coverage?
I think that NASA should release the vehicle and rocket engine designs to commercial companies somehow. Maybe sell them to raise funds. We need a human presence in space, and a robotic program is a huge part of that. Had they had the ability, I'm sure that Spain would have sent an unmanned probe across the Atlantic rather than three ships.
Rather than competing for funds, NASA should change their mission statement to promoting the spread of humanity throughout the universe. If NOAA or the USGS wants to design and build a satellite to study the earth, let them. That part won't be in NASA's budget anymore.
As someone who spent the better part of a day trying to get Eclipse, Swing, Tomcat, and the JDK set up, I think he should have had the medal pinned to his scrotum.
The original capsule was remarkably resilient and well-protected. I'm glad to see they're reusing the design and not trying for something brand new. If Burt Rutan wants to have new systems, he can finance them himself.
The government pays pioneers to open up frontiers that are then exploited by commercial entities. It's been this way for thousands of years. Why should it change now?
I think that's a bit low. There are only about 30 viruses for Macs (most of which are holdovers from OS 8 days) and I've not encountered one bit of spyware or adware. I don't have experience with Linux, but I imagine it's similar
I think the reason Windows is such a target isn't just its market share, but also its vulnerability.
Yes, you're missing something. There would be a set amount of these pollutants that would be allowed into the environment, but a growing population. This would create scarcity that would lead us both to pursue less polluting ways of getting around, like an electric car that's recharged using renewable energy or biodiesel or ethanol cars that have lower emissions and are carbon neutral.
Notice how you assumed I was talking about the people who died. Those who died, in my worldview, have ceased to be and are therefore no longer in pain. But what about their families? They're alive and in pain. What about the people who are in physical pain because of injuries suffered? What about the people who lost their homes and businesses and are now begging for food or living in refugee camps?
I understand that sometimes we do stupid shit and we get hurt because of it. And I understand that But how can an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being allow suffering that isn't controllable by the people who end up hurt by it?
I came up with that solution a long time ago. And it would be fairly easy to implement. Just figure out the environmental impact of a ton of CO2 and tack it on at the earliest point where you can definitively say "This oil or natural gas or coal is going to be burned." The added cost would cascade down the economy and raise the prices of things based on how much CO2 is released in their manufacture. An incandescent lightbulb might cost 1/10th of what a CF bulb would cost, but the cost of running the incandescent would be significantly higher.
An alternative solution, and one that is supported by environmentalist groups, is to sell carbon credits based on the amount of carbon that gets released every year. Companies can buy these credits on an open market as a license to release CO2, thereby allowing them to be efficiently allocated. The cost then gets passed on to the consumers who can make better informed buying decisions.
I think this system should be spread over all kinds of pollutants. Mercury and NOx and particulate matter should have trading caps. If I have a diesel car, I could trade you some CO2 credits for NOx and particulate credits that you're not using. Coal companies and companies that make fluorescent light bulbs would have to buy mercury credits to offset the emissions they're creating.
There are plenty of environmentalists, like me, who agree with you. However, implementing such a program in our current plutocratic systems is quite difficult. In the meantime, switching to CF bulbs or getting a programmable thermostat (which easily saves you ten times the cost of the unit in a year) or cleaning your furnace and ducts are good steps to get ready for this change.
I've been watching the lectures from Beyond Belief 2006 using Google Video and the audio and video quality are pretty good, and are very interesting and intellectually stimulating. If it hadn't been for Google Video, I probably wouldn't have seen this footage. Hosting video is extremely expensive and
In other words, there's more to internet video than naked women.
/me waits for the inevitable "You must be new here" reply.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, nowadays the geeky kids are the ones who have the power. It would be so easy to hack someone's system to put kiddie porn on it and get them charged with a felony, especially the mouth-breathing troglodites that bullies usually are.
Heck, they probably already have something on their computer that they could get in trouble for. Just hack in, find the evidence, and submit it anonymously to the police. Problem solved.
I think you story goes to show that schools can't control what kids say. Your friends were able to publish and distribute a zine and wear shirts with profanity on it.
So the schools shouldn't stop "cyber bullying," but try to make a system that discourages bullying in the first place. I read somewhere that people end up bullying when they've got nothing better to do. Give these kids something productive, and they'll be too busy to worry about who smells or who slept with whom.
You can get 100Mbit symmetrical connections in Japan or South Korea or Sweden for around $50/month. So with the proper architecture, $100 for 10Mbit would be possible in the US.
Cable and POTS are old technology that are nearing the limits of effectiveness. Fiber optic is the future, and can handle huge amounts of data. Comcast and Verizon were given monopoly control over their lines to encourage them to run the lines. We shouldn't make the same mistake with Fiber Optic lines. Enforce common carrier status and have the state pay Verizon or whoever to run the lines. I think Utah's UTOPIA system (where the state runs the lines and leases access to service providers) is the best solution.
I'd imagine that if you omitted earth.sol (or mars.sol), it would be smart enough to say "Ooh, you mean the amazon.com ON EARTH."
Capitalism isn't supposed to be anything except profitable. It's not supposed to provide services well. It's not supposed to interoperate well. It's not even supposed to keep people alive. It is supposed to maximize profits by any means necessary.
It would be great if someone created a way of skinning applications so that Thunderbird and Firefox looked like Outlook and IE, or vice versa. That way, IT guys would be able to deploy things and the executives wouldn't be the wiser.
Can you schedule meetings and send invites? Yes.
Can other users see your unvailable periods? Yes.
And since it exports to the vCal standard, people can use Sunbird or iCal or Outlook to subscribe to calendars. And when you subscribe to these calendars, syncing them is trivial.
I live within a half mile of one of the most expensive schools in my state (Franklin & Marshall). Almost all of the kids drive brand new cars, many of them luxury cars. They're able to pay for high speed broadband and would spring for 10Mbps symmetrical connections even if they cost $100/month, just because Mommy and Daddy would pay for it. Because of the population density, a few last-mile (more like last-fifteen-feet) runs would make whoever did it tons of money.
But they don't. Why? Because the only two carriers in the city (Comcast and Verizon) are already making tons of money giving sub-par service, and there's no other competition to force them to innovate thanks to our wonderful state government. I can't even get Embarq because Verizon has the CO locked down, and Embarq isn't my "local carrier."
If the state government got rid of the monopolies on cable and phone lines, we'd see some movement.
I used to have T-Mobile, and I was as happy with the service as you are. However, their coverage in my area stinks.
Imagine if the cell network was opened up, and I could buy service from T-Mobile and an unlocked phone and not have to worry about going somewhere that has poor coverage?
Kinda defeats the point of a laptop, doesn't it?
You know why? Because the people you want to protect the content from are the same people you want to sell the content to.
Make it easily available through normal means and piracy will go down.
I think that NASA should release the vehicle and rocket engine designs to commercial companies somehow. Maybe sell them to raise funds. We need a human presence in space, and a robotic program is a huge part of that. Had they had the ability, I'm sure that Spain would have sent an unmanned probe across the Atlantic rather than three ships.
Rather than competing for funds, NASA should change their mission statement to promoting the spread of humanity throughout the universe. If NOAA or the USGS wants to design and build a satellite to study the earth, let them. That part won't be in NASA's budget anymore.
As someone who spent the better part of a day trying to get Eclipse, Swing, Tomcat, and the JDK set up, I think he should have had the medal pinned to his scrotum.
The original capsule was remarkably resilient and well-protected. I'm glad to see they're reusing the design and not trying for something brand new. If Burt Rutan wants to have new systems, he can finance them himself.
The government pays pioneers to open up frontiers that are then exploited by commercial entities. It's been this way for thousands of years. Why should it change now?
The Shuttle was designed, in part, to support a massive space station. Without the space station, Ol' Bricks 'n' Wings doesn't really matter.
Not just whack-a-mole, but whack-a-mole in microgravity.
I think that's a bit low. There are only about 30 viruses for Macs (most of which are holdovers from OS 8 days) and I've not encountered one bit of spyware or adware. I don't have experience with Linux, but I imagine it's similar
I think the reason Windows is such a target isn't just its market share, but also its vulnerability.
Got the video. None of it made much sense and and what did make sense I could have debunked my junior year of high school.
Shame, really. I was hoping I could get a satisfactory answer to my question. I just got more mental gymnastics.
Yes, you're missing something. There would be a set amount of these pollutants that would be allowed into the environment, but a growing population. This would create scarcity that would lead us both to pursue less polluting ways of getting around, like an electric car that's recharged using renewable energy or biodiesel or ethanol cars that have lower emissions and are carbon neutral.
Notice how you assumed I was talking about the people who died. Those who died, in my worldview, have ceased to be and are therefore no longer in pain. But what about their families? They're alive and in pain. What about the people who are in physical pain because of injuries suffered? What about the people who lost their homes and businesses and are now begging for food or living in refugee camps?
I understand that sometimes we do stupid shit and we get hurt because of it. And I understand that But how can an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being allow suffering that isn't controllable by the people who end up hurt by it?
Just a reminder folks: The plural of anecdote is not data.
I came up with that solution a long time ago. And it would be fairly easy to implement. Just figure out the environmental impact of a ton of CO2 and tack it on at the earliest point where you can definitively say "This oil or natural gas or coal is going to be burned." The added cost would cascade down the economy and raise the prices of things based on how much CO2 is released in their manufacture. An incandescent lightbulb might cost 1/10th of what a CF bulb would cost, but the cost of running the incandescent would be significantly higher.
An alternative solution, and one that is supported by environmentalist groups, is to sell carbon credits based on the amount of carbon that gets released every year. Companies can buy these credits on an open market as a license to release CO2, thereby allowing them to be efficiently allocated. The cost then gets passed on to the consumers who can make better informed buying decisions.
I think this system should be spread over all kinds of pollutants. Mercury and NOx and particulate matter should have trading caps. If I have a diesel car, I could trade you some CO2 credits for NOx and particulate credits that you're not using. Coal companies and companies that make fluorescent light bulbs would have to buy mercury credits to offset the emissions they're creating.
There are plenty of environmentalists, like me, who agree with you. However, implementing such a program in our current plutocratic systems is quite difficult. In the meantime, switching to CF bulbs or getting a programmable thermostat (which easily saves you ten times the cost of the unit in a year) or cleaning your furnace and ducts are good steps to get ready for this change.
I've been watching the lectures from Beyond Belief 2006 using Google Video and the audio and video quality are pretty good, and are very interesting and intellectually stimulating. If it hadn't been for Google Video, I probably wouldn't have seen this footage. Hosting video is extremely expensive and
In other words, there's more to internet video than naked women.
/me waits for the inevitable "You must be new here" reply.