I know enough that the turbines aren't going to suck a bird in, and I would have assumed that the birds would have the sense to avoid a quickly-moving massive hunk of metal.:)
This requires large areas of land in which to grow the raw materials, which means the killing of plants and animals in cultivating those lands and an accompanied long-term diminished area for wildlife to thrive in. This will, in turn, impact biodiversity.
Not to mention the pollution involved in any modern agriculture.
Energy production is basically a game of choosing an evil. There is no truly "clean" energy source - in stead you have to decide which particular brand of "dirty" you can live with.
There is currently a de facto shortage. Whether this shortage results from the expected inefficiencies inherent in the system or from erroneuos allocation of class A nets isn't really of much interest.
... I can see this announcement being followed by "Of course, this can only happen once the govt grants us the #100M needed to convert our archives into digital formats and commit to increasing annual grants by #10M to cover operating expenses" at which time the whole thing will probably go the way of the dodo.
"And why doesn't the real pound sign survive being posted to slashdot?" he mumbled, being too lazy to look up its proper HTML encoding...
I don't see a lot of people ditching their 32" widescreens in favour of 200x200 realmedia streams:-)
By the time broadcasters move from using radiowaves to using IP to reach end users, I expect license laws will have been updated to reflect this new reality.
I imagine that the fact that BBC is commercially successful is rather a liability to them at those times when they have to defend the license fees. I can see them wanting to cut off lots of commercial revenue in order to stand out as true public servants and therefore worthy of govt financing.
Of course, we can use them in any other, but the order that makes most sense is: (1)gzip, (2)pgp, (3)tar.
Not if you care about security. And if you didn't you probably wouldn't be pgping them anyway. If you pgp as the last step, then an intruder will need to break the encryption before he'll know even how many files there are.
Copyright gives a number of rights to the copyright holder. One of them is the exclusive right to distribute a copyrighted work. If you choose to distribute a work to which you do not hold either the copyright or a license to distribute, then you are in violation of copyright. Making the work available to the general public on your file server can reasonably be described as distribution.
Well until mankind phases out money, what incentive is there to make music if any joe-blow can pirate it and not pay a dime?
Copyright isn't the only way to promote the production of art. At least one other method - sponsorship - has been engaged in with some success in history, and one other method - grants - is continuously being employed in large parts of the world today. The former will tend to end up producing works that are desired by the sponsor and the latter will tend to be used to finance works that don't have broad consumer appeal.
Art forms that lend themselves to performance can make their profits from performance alone. Recorded copies can then be public domain. This applies very well to music.
Art forms that produce items that are still difficult to copy (painting, sculpting) won't be much affected by loss of copyright.
So, basically, doubleclick has to tell you "We would like to store a cookie on your system so that we can track and catalogue your activities online. Ok?"
If cookies are used just as session ids, the problem is miniscule if present at all. When it's used for broad personality profiling, however, they worry me. If you let doubleclick store a cookie on your computer, they will be able to track the sites you visit (those that have doubleclick ads), when, what links you follow on the sites, etc. This is highly undesirable.
Nixing touch screens isn't going to do anything to decrease the hygiene risk. (How do you handle menus at restaurants?)
You are generally in one of two situations. Either, you're the type of person that doesn't care (which you don't seem to be), in which case you're going to get sick often anyway (or else develop the immune system to cope). Or, you're the type of person that has realized how resistant your skin is to infection and that you really shouldn't be licking it without cleaning it first, in which case you're still safe.
If the people who prepare your food are in the first category above, the only thing that will help is to have them transit to the second category. Their last toilet visit is going to completely drown out any residual germs they're getting from the touch screen.
That's like saying that it's safe to have unprotected sex with prostitutes who get an aids test and a physical every week.
Are you sure it's not more like saying it's safe to swim in a sea of lava that gets a small rain shower every few hours?
Or perhaps it's more like saying it's safe to stand two meters in front of a speeding, out of control freight train that has its brakes checked once a week?
I'll leave it to others to come up with even more totally whacked out analogies. Three should be a good start.
Do you touch door handles at all? Use ATMs? Talk to people up close?
Well, nothing works in general (except for the general category of things that work).
If the govt determines that the best way of helping the citizens is to create jobs, then this is what they should do. If they in stead choose to invest the money into long term profit, they are doing the citizens a disservice. Of course, if they have any brains, they will make sure to create jobs that either last or (if they only need a short-term stop gap) create something of value (typically some sort of useful infrastructure).
The crux of your argument seems to be that projects launched with no regard for reality will tend to fail. I agree. There isn't a one-to-one correlation between this group and the group of projects "intended to create jobs", however.
I doubt the biohazard imposed by the touch screens is significantly higher than what you are already experiencing from handling your cash. Our pushing open the door into the restaurant in the first place. If it is shown to be something worthy of attention at all, they will just institute more frequent cleaning of that surface, using more aggressive sterilizers. I think it's a non-problem.
The majority don't have it in them to take any form of decisive action.
Chances are they will once unemployment breaks the critical threshold.
People will accept being sheep only so long as they are reasonably happy.
1. People who can't learn to wash their hands before they eat need to get SARS. Evolution demands it.
2. That is probably the sort of people that makes up the majority of the population, and it is that majority which eventually decides whether or not we'll be living in a robotic future.
This is unlikely to happen in society that is both democratic and capitalist. Democracy will work to counteract it because it is a system that takes into account how people feel. Capitalism will work to counteract it because it needs consumers with money to spend in order to function.
Government certainly can create new jobs just by pouring money at the problem. However, they have to not be braindead about it and realize they have to create a business that will be able to compete favourably in the marketplace once the creating bit is over. As an example, they might realize that if there was a large wind mill park down by the coast, whoever owned and ran that park could consistently profit from it into the foreseeable future by exporting the power. Then they could decide to pour the $100 mill into it required to get the infrastructure up and set up a company to run it all. It might be that private investors don't do this because there are better investment opportunities elsewhere, and so if the govt wants those jobs in that area they have to do it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, for cooling down monsters of course.
If only I could get my hands on the %&#@! git who overclocked them in the first place!
Boys will be boys - they're just playing dare.
Bah. Let 'em at it. Eventually, evolution will take care of the problem for us.
This requires large areas of land in which to grow the raw materials, which means the killing of plants and animals in cultivating those lands and an accompanied long-term diminished area for wildlife to thrive in. This will, in turn, impact biodiversity.
Not to mention the pollution involved in any modern agriculture.
Energy production is basically a game of choosing an evil. There is no truly "clean" energy source - in stead you have to decide which particular brand of "dirty" you can live with.
The question isn't really whether or not the number is high enough. The question is whether or not people will actually start using v6.
There is currently a de facto shortage. Whether this shortage results from the expected inefficiencies inherent in the system or from erroneuos allocation of class A nets isn't really of much interest.
I absolutely, positively, need for each single cell in my body to have its own IP address. How else could I ping them to see if they're all right?
... I can see this announcement being followed by "Of course, this can only happen once the govt grants us the #100M needed to convert our archives into digital formats and commit to increasing annual grants by #10M to cover operating expenses" at which time the whole thing will probably go the way of the dodo.
...
"And why doesn't the real pound sign survive being posted to slashdot?" he mumbled, being too lazy to look up its proper HTML encoding
I don't see a lot of people ditching their 32" widescreens in favour of 200x200 realmedia streams :-)
By the time broadcasters move from using radiowaves to using IP to reach end users, I expect license laws will have been updated to reflect this new reality.
I imagine that the fact that BBC is commercially successful is rather a liability to them at those times when they have to defend the license fees. I can see them wanting to cut off lots of commercial revenue in order to stand out as true public servants and therefore worthy of govt financing.
Of course, we can use them in any other, but the order that makes most sense is: (1)gzip, (2)pgp, (3)tar.
Not if you care about security. And if you didn't you probably wouldn't be pgping them anyway. If you pgp as the last step, then an intruder will need to break the encryption before he'll know even how many files there are.
Copyright gives a number of rights to the copyright holder. One of them is the exclusive right to distribute a copyrighted work. If you choose to distribute a work to which you do not hold either the copyright or a license to distribute, then you are in violation of copyright. Making the work available to the general public on your file server can reasonably be described as distribution.
Well until mankind phases out money, what incentive is there to make music if any joe-blow can pirate it and not pay a dime?
Copyright isn't the only way to promote the production of art. At least one other method - sponsorship - has been engaged in with some success in history, and one other method - grants - is continuously being employed in large parts of the world today. The former will tend to end up producing works that are desired by the sponsor and the latter will tend to be used to finance works that don't have broad consumer appeal.
Art forms that lend themselves to performance can make their profits from performance alone. Recorded copies can then be public domain. This applies very well to music.
Art forms that produce items that are still difficult to copy (painting, sculpting) won't be much affected by loss of copyright.
I don't believe I said any different. The solution is to wash your hands. The solution is not to nix touch screens.
So, basically, doubleclick has to tell you "We would like to store a cookie on your system so that we can track and catalogue your activities online. Ok?"
If cookies are used just as session ids, the problem is miniscule if present at all. When it's used for broad personality profiling, however, they worry me. If you let doubleclick store a cookie on your computer, they will be able to track the sites you visit (those that have doubleclick ads), when, what links you follow on the sites, etc. This is highly undesirable.
Nixing touch screens isn't going to do anything to decrease the hygiene risk. (How do you handle menus at restaurants?)
You are generally in one of two situations. Either, you're the type of person that doesn't care (which you don't seem to be), in which case you're going to get sick often anyway (or else develop the immune system to cope). Or, you're the type of person that has realized how resistant your skin is to infection and that you really shouldn't be licking it without cleaning it first, in which case you're still safe.
If the people who prepare your food are in the first category above, the only thing that will help is to have them transit to the second category. Their last toilet visit is going to completely drown out any residual germs they're getting from the touch screen.
That's like saying that it's safe to have unprotected sex with prostitutes who get an aids test and a physical every week.
Are you sure it's not more like saying it's safe to swim in a sea of lava that gets a small rain shower every few hours?
Or perhaps it's more like saying it's safe to stand two meters in front of a speeding, out of control freight train that has its brakes checked once a week?
I'll leave it to others to come up with even more totally whacked out analogies. Three should be a good start.
Do you touch door handles at all? Use ATMs? Talk to people up close?
Well, nothing works in general (except for the general category of things that work).
If the govt determines that the best way of helping the citizens is to create jobs, then this is what they should do. If they in stead choose to invest the money into long term profit, they are doing the citizens a disservice. Of course, if they have any brains, they will make sure to create jobs that either last or (if they only need a short-term stop gap) create something of value (typically some sort of useful infrastructure).
The crux of your argument seems to be that projects launched with no regard for reality will tend to fail. I agree. There isn't a one-to-one correlation between this group and the group of projects "intended to create jobs", however.
I doubt the biohazard imposed by the touch screens is significantly higher than what you are already experiencing from handling your cash. Our pushing open the door into the restaurant in the first place. If it is shown to be something worthy of attention at all, they will just institute more frequent cleaning of that surface, using more aggressive sterilizers. I think it's a non-problem.
The majority don't have it in them to take any form of decisive action.
Chances are they will once unemployment breaks the critical threshold.
People will accept being sheep only so long as they are reasonably happy.
That makes no sense. What is the fundamental rule that says that anything that is done to create jobs has to not be prosperous?
1. People who can't learn to wash their hands before they eat need to get SARS. Evolution demands it.
2. That is probably the sort of people that makes up the majority of the population, and it is that majority which eventually decides whether or not we'll be living in a robotic future.
This is unlikely to happen in society that is both democratic and capitalist. Democracy will work to counteract it because it is a system that takes into account how people feel. Capitalism will work to counteract it because it needs consumers with money to spend in order to function.
Government certainly can create new jobs just by pouring money at the problem. However, they have to not be braindead about it and realize they have to create a business that will be able to compete favourably in the marketplace once the creating bit is over. As an example, they might realize that if there was a large wind mill park down by the coast, whoever owned and ran that park could consistently profit from it into the foreseeable future by exporting the power. Then they could decide to pour the $100 mill into it required to get the infrastructure up and set up a company to run it all. It might be that private investors don't do this because there are better investment opportunities elsewhere, and so if the govt wants those jobs in that area they have to do it themselves.
What job can a newborn baby perform?
:-)
It can bring its mother unparalelled joy. Better enjoyment than "Friends"
It can also entertain any number of nearby adult humans for a lengthy period of time.