This, and the left side search refinement panel Google have introduced, are both directly lifted from Bing.
That left side search refinement panel is an eyesore. It's an eyesore at high monitor resolutions and downright painful at smaller ones. Try running a Google search now at 800x600 or 1024x768.
Google made it big in part because of their minimalist interface. They need to provide an opt-out for this new "feature". They've never before forced something like this on their userbase -- new features like iGoogle were always rolled out on an opt-in basis.
I've never heard the suburbs of Binghamton NY referred to as a "dense urban area" before.
What does this have to do with the content providers? I thought it had to do with the ISPs? Time Warner Cable is not a content provider. It's a delivery system for content. Ditto for Verizon. Ditto for AT&T. Probably ditto for Comcast, though it's murkier with them since they bought NBC.
what are you going to do if the other company says "NO [boingboing.net]"?
Go to another company? There isn't a monopoly on IP transit providers. You can also peer directly with the content distribution networks. They want to get their content to your customers and would have no reason to say no.
Comparing the United States to Canada is rather absurd in this context.
It worked in the 90s, for the most part. We just have to kick the Democrats out of Congress and make sure we don't go and do something stupid like also kick them out of the White House and return the Republicans to one party control.
My ideal outcome for the next two elections would be to see the Democrats lose the House and Senate this November but President Obama to just eek out re-election in 2012.
Fresh water is a renewable resource. Land is in abundance in most of the 1st world. The way to reduce the birthrate is to assist the developing world into realizing it's potential. Developed societies have lower birthrates and the technology to support a higher population. It's a win win on both fronts.
Yeah, the current crop culture is broken. But so what? It can be changed. It would actually be better for us if it did change. We've centralized the food production and distribution network to a dangerous extreme, IMHO. My state can grow many types of fruits and vegetables at home but we import 95% of our produce from California. This is more expensive in terms of energy and more vulnerable to failure from unseasonable weather and disease.
Change is never easy. It's often quite painful and disruptive. But most of us will still be around after it happens. That's why it's hard for me to take seriously the claims that we are 50 years away from being completely screwed.
I would concur with that. I was rather pissed when we had to shut off our analog TV, supposedly to receive a "third pipe", then all the recovered bandwidth was auctioned off to the major wireless players (AT&T and Verizon) whom have no interest in seeing that pipe become a reality.
Unfortunately the unholy marriage between big business and big government is a bipartisan affair. The Republicans feed defense contractors and energy companies. The Democrats feed media outfits and big pharma. Both parties feed the financial sector.
Btw hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's just a very volatile, hard to handle energy storage medium.
I didn't claim it as an energy source. I offered it as a replacement for petroleum in mobile applications. The ultimate source would be the electrical grid. As previously established we know how to generate electricity without producing CO2.
Where do we get the oil to support the other 80% of the world's population?
Why are you assuming that oil is the only way to support civilization?
Are you old enough to remember how close we came to having several of the Great Lakes become completely dead bodies of water?
Are you old enough to remember when it didn't take nine years of lawsuits and reviews by an alphabet soup of state, local and federal governmental agencies to get approval to build something?
Take a good look at that. A wind energy project. Something that's a win win for everybody. Carbon free electricity for the green crowd. Jobs for the area that it's going to be built in. Energy for nearby homes and businesses. It took nine years just to get approval to break ground and there will probably be more lawsuits before that happens. This type of excessive regulation discourages private investment -- why put your money up for something that may not happen when you can invest it in these nice safe packaged up mortgages instead?
I don't want to see the Great Lakes on fire again. But I also want to see us able to move forward as a country. Could it just be that there's some healthy middle ground that would do that and still keep our air and water clean?
If you wanted it, why did you turn all your data over to them? I don't keep notes I want kept private on DRM'ed hardware that I essentially lease from someone else. I keep them on paper or my own hardware.
Even then, it'll all be gone in well under a century...
The point was, that we found a previously unexploited resource. There is no reason to assume that humanity is doomed when that resource runs out. As I said, we already have the technology to produce energy from renewable resources, specifically hydro, wind and nuclear. You can't look at current resource utilization and assume that humanity is fucked in X number of years.
Yes, because there's no possible way to have more than two telecommunications/tv offerings without it looking like that. I don't agree with the notion that the last mile has to be a natural monopoly. If you think it is, try to build municipal fiber networks. I'm opposed to the laws that prevent communities from doing that. If they want to build it with local resources and money then all the power to them.
I just have a problem with the notion that we should compel the existing carriers to lease out the networks that they built. I doubt we'll see eye to eye on that point though.
I'm guessing it will take no more than a month for a combination of "conservative" and "progressive" blogs to rev up their teams of dittoheads to start flooding Twitter with politically themed messages, thus totally skewing the results.
I love seeing them rally the troops to get everybody to go and vote on the unscientific polls that pop up all over the internet. I suppose one should never discount their importance. As an example, I'm sure that CNN's current quick vote poll, "Do you agree with President Obama's choice of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court?" will determine the success or failure of the nomination process.
Slashdot Mirror
This, and the left side search refinement panel Google have introduced, are both directly lifted from Bing.
That left side search refinement panel is an eyesore. It's an eyesore at high monitor resolutions and downright painful at smaller ones. Try running a Google search now at 800x600 or 1024x768.
Google made it big in part because of their minimalist interface. They need to provide an opt-out for this new "feature". They've never before forced something like this on their userbase -- new features like iGoogle were always rolled out on an opt-in basis.
I've never heard the suburbs of Binghamton NY referred to as a "dense urban area" before.
What does this have to do with the content providers? I thought it had to do with the ISPs? Time Warner Cable is not a content provider. It's a delivery system for content. Ditto for Verizon. Ditto for AT&T. Probably ditto for Comcast, though it's murkier with them since they bought NBC.
No? Dam*#^&*(!(*df@)~J!JH*3bv()~()NO CARRIER
FTFY
what are you going to do if the other company says "NO [boingboing.net]"?
Go to another company? There isn't a monopoly on IP transit providers. You can also peer directly with the content distribution networks. They want to get their content to your customers and would have no reason to say no.
Comparing the United States to Canada is rather absurd in this context.
I don't know, ten years ago I was getting online with a 33.6 modem. Now I have a 15mbit/s connection.
You lost me when you suggested that a desire to carry on the family line is "multigenerational racism".
It worked in the 90s, for the most part. We just have to kick the Democrats out of Congress and make sure we don't go and do something stupid like also kick them out of the White House and return the Republicans to one party control.
My ideal outcome for the next two elections would be to see the Democrats lose the House and Senate this November but President Obama to just eek out re-election in 2012.
Fresh water is a renewable resource. Land is in abundance in most of the 1st world. The way to reduce the birthrate is to assist the developing world into realizing it's potential. Developed societies have lower birthrates and the technology to support a higher population. It's a win win on both fronts.
Yeah, the current crop culture is broken. But so what? It can be changed. It would actually be better for us if it did change. We've centralized the food production and distribution network to a dangerous extreme, IMHO. My state can grow many types of fruits and vegetables at home but we import 95% of our produce from California. This is more expensive in terms of energy and more vulnerable to failure from unseasonable weather and disease.
Change is never easy. It's often quite painful and disruptive. But most of us will still be around after it happens. That's why it's hard for me to take seriously the claims that we are 50 years away from being completely screwed.
Yeah, that was bizarre. Post form kept erroring out on me.
There used to be this advanced technology called VHS. It let you watch movies years after they had first come out.
There used to be this advanced technology called VHS. It let you watch movies years after they had first come out.
There used to be this advanced technology called VHS. It let you watch movies years after they first came out.
Africa is his best bet. Life expectancies in the 40s. That should be suitable pre-industrial age nostalgia.
I would concur with that. I was rather pissed when we had to shut off our analog TV, supposedly to receive a "third pipe", then all the recovered bandwidth was auctioned off to the major wireless players (AT&T and Verizon) whom have no interest in seeing that pipe become a reality.
Unfortunately the unholy marriage between big business and big government is a bipartisan affair. The Republicans feed defense contractors and energy companies. The Democrats feed media outfits and big pharma. Both parties feed the financial sector.
Btw hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's just a very volatile, hard to handle energy storage medium.
I didn't claim it as an energy source. I offered it as a replacement for petroleum in mobile applications. The ultimate source would be the electrical grid. As previously established we know how to generate electricity without producing CO2.
Where do we get the oil to support the other 80% of the world's population?
Why are you assuming that oil is the only way to support civilization?
Are you old enough to remember how close we came to having several of the Great Lakes become completely dead bodies of water?
Are you old enough to remember when it didn't take nine years of lawsuits and reviews by an alphabet soup of state, local and federal governmental agencies to get approval to build something?
Take a good look at that. A wind energy project. Something that's a win win for everybody. Carbon free electricity for the green crowd. Jobs for the area that it's going to be built in. Energy for nearby homes and businesses. It took nine years just to get approval to break ground and there will probably be more lawsuits before that happens. This type of excessive regulation discourages private investment -- why put your money up for something that may not happen when you can invest it in these nice safe packaged up mortgages instead?
I don't want to see the Great Lakes on fire again. But I also want to see us able to move forward as a country. Could it just be that there's some healthy middle ground that would do that and still keep our air and water clean?
It is called privacy.
If you wanted it, why did you turn all your data over to them? I don't keep notes I want kept private on DRM'ed hardware that I essentially lease from someone else. I keep them on paper or my own hardware.
Even then, it'll all be gone in well under a century ...
The point was, that we found a previously unexploited resource. There is no reason to assume that humanity is doomed when that resource runs out. As I said, we already have the technology to produce energy from renewable resources, specifically hydro, wind and nuclear. You can't look at current resource utilization and assume that humanity is fucked in X number of years.
The Hanford site was a plutonium processing site. It created the plutonium used by our nuclear weapons. It had little to do with nuclear power.
Yes, because there's no possible way to have more than two telecommunications/tv offerings without it looking like that. I don't agree with the notion that the last mile has to be a natural monopoly. If you think it is, try to build municipal fiber networks. I'm opposed to the laws that prevent communities from doing that. If they want to build it with local resources and money then all the power to them.
I just have a problem with the notion that we should compel the existing carriers to lease out the networks that they built. I doubt we'll see eye to eye on that point though.
Maybe we shouldn't allow two companies to monopolize the utility easement?
I'm pretty sure this past month BP has polluted more than the US government ever has.
Are you sure about that?
Take a number.
Indeed.
I'm guessing it will take no more than a month for a combination of "conservative" and "progressive" blogs to rev up their teams of dittoheads to start flooding Twitter with politically themed messages, thus totally skewing the results.
I love seeing them rally the troops to get everybody to go and vote on the unscientific polls that pop up all over the internet. I suppose one should never discount their importance. As an example, I'm sure that CNN's current quick vote poll, "Do you agree with President Obama's choice of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court?" will determine the success or failure of the nomination process.