Good luck with your frivolous lawsuits. I expect they'll be rather expensive for you, seeing as how it is not illegal to have a building that doesn't transmit cell phone signals. You may have noticed there are already plenty of buildings and areas that get no reception. You have never received a guarantee from anyone that you will receive cell phone reception in their private property, I am sure of that. So what grounds are you filing this lawsuit on?
If you are in a building that gets no cell phone reception, of which there are already MANY, you need to deal with it on your own. I already do -- roaming ring will try my cell, then my office, then let them leave voicemail.
That said, I have to highlight that the option to open the CLI on my w2k desktop, when I rightclick a folder icon, is named "DOS prompt here".
Actually that powertoy has been called "Command Prompt Here" for a long time now. It was called DOS Prompt Here from back in the win95 days when it really was still DOS behind the scenes.
There is no advantage to going native over using.NET for 99% of windows programs. The speed is the same. The big advantage is security (no buffer overflows), the much better APIs and default libraries. I'm not saying get rid of Carbon/Cocoa apps. Just offer a way to run.NET apps alongside them, just as Apple already does for Java.
In the end, Apple doesn't care about the underlying OS.... It will also ship with all of the Vista subsystem. That will allow all the device installers to run and gain the ability to run all Windows apps besides. Which also solves the Microsoft Office availibility problem.
Here's the thing. Apple wants to sell hardware. They do this by creating a unified set of products that "just work." These products are shiny goodness, great design, easy to use.
Grafting their prettyinterface on top of a Windows Vista subsystem will not make Macs work more securely, or more easily. They will gain the.NET platform. They will gain possibly the ability to connect to more devices. However, down that road means relying on Microsoft for Q&A and Security. Is that a good path for Apple? I don't think so.
(As a.NET programmer, I would love to see.NET platform become available on my macs, though.)
Apple wants MacIntel for two reasons: Intel can deliver the goods, and it makes it easier for Windows users to switch to Mac OS, and thus enter the Mac empire of hardware.
I have a navigation system. The thing is completely crippled while driving due to morons like the ones in this study. It's like, because some people are complete morons, responsible people can't use the system as intended. I don't talk on my cell phone while driving. I don't punch in a new address in my nav system while driving (my old one let you do that). However, my passenger could! Nope, not with these wonderful new lawyer-ized systems that have navigation warnings when you start the car. Every time you start the car. Not with these systems that require your parking break to be on in order to use most of the functionality.
How about a screen when you boot the device up for the first time ever:
"Please punch in your driver's license number and name, and click 'I Agree' if you agree that any accidents you may have while driving using this navigation system are your responsibility alone, and you agree not to sue us."
This is stupid because nobody makes money for content directly off consumer in any broadcast medium.
Luckily this is podcasting, not broadcasting. You can control who gets your 'signal' in a podcast, for the most part. Also, check with DirecTV and find out how many people pay for content from them. They're broadcasting across the globe.
This is stupid because nobody makes money for content directly off consumer in any broadcast medium. Why does the sudden addition of the Internet change this in people's minds?
It's not the addition of the internet, it's the subtraction of advertising dollars. When the new format promotes very simple ad-skipping, you have to find another way to make money off it.
I pay $0 directly to the cable companies for their cable content (though the cable provider does filter some of my money back to the stations -- it's still not me paying the station; if it was, I could order just the channels I want).
I don't really understand your point here. HBO, for example, signs a contract with YourCableCompany dictating they will get, e.g. $2 per month per cable subscriber. As a customer, therefore, you are paying $2 a month to HBO for their content. If HBO raises their rates too high, your cable company raises your rates or drops them, in which case you decide whether or not to continue subscribing, and thus continue paying HBO.
The same idiocy of assuming the Net must play by different rules goes into advertising decisions too: execs get 0 click-through from TV ads, but they freak out when they don't get X% click through from Net ads that they are paying significantly less for.
If you think advertising firms have no way of gauging the impact of a TV advertisement, I would submit that you are ignorant about how they operate.
Usenet is a peer to peer network of "servers". This is a re-invention of the way articles propagate in Usenet.
Except that Feed Tree doesn't propagate articles for usenet, it propagates entries posted to RSS feeds. I'm really trying to understand how this is a re-invention of netnews?
Apparently he's not too concerned about giving them clean air, though.
Energy. Zero Pollution.
Pick one.
These people need energy. They are already burning cow dung, wood, whatever they can burn, to create fire for heat and cooking. That produces the pollution you talk about. Now with a machine like this, they could use this kind of energy to power electric lights, power tools, farm equipment, etc.
You have to start somewhere. If I had to choose between pollution and energy, I'd choose energy. You can't fix the pollution problem until you are better developed. And even then, it's hard.
Today we don't know the fate of that brave young man, but we can safely assume that there is more steel in that young man's spine than any of the leaders in Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Cicso who would choose to clear the way for the Chinese tanks if they were given the choice.
Ladies and gentlemen! We have seen the new Godwin's Law!
Sundroid apparantly feels that the Chinese people are better served using Chinese search engines that simply hide the results from them, without acknowledging the filtering. I'm not sure how that is better, but I know that Sundroid can enlighten us.
I watched this hearing on CNN Pipeline (very cool service, btw).
Unlike most hearings, which seem to be nothing more than the two parties posturing for different reasons, this largely seemed non-partisan, and was quite interesting. At first. Then it got surreal.
A congressman (not sure which party) was berating the companies, badgering them. His questioning finally boiled down to, "Have you done anything here you should be ASHAMED of?" Over and over, he kept asking them, are they ashamed, and they kept trying to answer the question... balancing between, yes China sucks, but we honestly feel this is the lesser of two evils. It appeared this congressman was trying to lump them in with IBM's work with the Nazis. He flat out made the comparison. (No one brought up Godwin's, natch.)
I mean, I get what he was aiming at, but he was unreasonable. They kept saying, we're not happy with what China requires, but we feel providing some service (with disclosures on things being removed from view, in Google's case) that this can be a helpful thing. Compared to our Chinese search competitors, who don't let the Chinese people know when things are being filtered. It wasn't good enough for the congressman. This guy wanted to hear them say, Yeah, we're ashamed.
Here's where it gets interesting.
A short while later, a Democratic congressman praised this other congressman, the chair of the hearing, and how much he respected him. But then he started railing against Congress. His point was, Congress is trying to take these companies to task, and yet Congress is giving China favored nation trading status, and why don't we also ask these hard questions of Congress?!
Then a Republican congressman started next -- essentially saying, excuse me, but the reason Congress grants favored nation status to China is because these large companies pay to have all this lobbying done in order to get China's favored nation trading status so they can keep doing business with them! So take that!
Aside from the strangeness of a Democrat standing up for big business and a Republican condemning them, we were left with a huge elephant standing in the corner:
WHY DOESN'T CONGRESS DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE FUCKING LOBBYISTS?
This was the next logical course of reasoning, but no congressman asked that question.
The Congress will take action against businesses dealing with China only when it's in their best interest, not ours or China's.
The global internet is making the world smaller. The idea of the nation matters less and less. In the future, everyone will be brown, and smart people will lead the world in wealth, power, charity, and evil.
Actually they won by portraying OTHER POLITICIANS are untrustworthy.
To call a politician an intellectual is a bit of a stretch. I can count intellectual politicians on one hand and still have a finger left to pick my nose.
If one ideology generates oppression, the other inculcates greed.
I'm sorry, Michael Douglas's character in Wall Street was right at a basic level: greed is good. By good, really, I mean "necessary." His character took it to the extreme, and ultimately paid the price. But the basic idea is correct: capitalism is efficient because of greed at all levels.
Greed is what drives the balance of supply and demand. If you are too greedy in your pricing, you will likely sell less product. Conversely, if you are too greedy on what you're willing to pay, you likely will not be able to buy enough of what you need. You meet in the middle at a reasonable price.
The bottom line drives efficiencies. Your company needs to be "greedy" to encourage streamlining and saving money so that it makes more money. It can then spend money on capital, labor, investments, which can help it earn more money.
Likewise, a person needs to be "greedy" to increase their efficiency and income, so that they can buy housing, clothing, food, and extra goods. A person needs to be "greedy" so that they can save and invest money. So that they have money to spend on charity.
The only thing I don't like about Sirius is the horrible sound quality of most channels. The classical channels are good and Howard Stern is good, most other music channels are mediocre, and all talk stations (except for Howard Stern) sound worse than AM. I wish they would get rid of twenty or thirty stations that I never listen to and use that bandwidth to improve the quality of their other channels.
I was wondering if I was just hearing things. I've had XM for about 7 months and like it. Mostly I listen to the news stations, classical stations, and rock. The sound quality is pretty good. Some channels it is horrible on purpose to save bandwidth (e.g. the traffic channels have humans compressed so much they sound like robots almost... and no, they're not robots).
I just got Sirius as a xmas present, and listen to Howard Stern most of the time, which sounds great. But their other channels definitely sound much worse than XM. Specifically, I have CNN on both and so can compare the two of them directly, and Sirius's quality sucks.
If you had RTFA, you would know the "true" reference means.
"Readers will recall that during the brouhaha leading up to the October release of the 5G iPod last year, Think Secret maintained that the video iPod would not be released at the time and, following the roll-out of the 5G iPod, that that iPod was "not the video iPod" but rather a souped up 4G iPod with video capabilities. This forthcoming iPod revision is what sources have said for some time will be the incarnation of a complete video iPod solution."
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck with your frivolous lawsuits. I expect they'll be rather expensive for you, seeing as how it is not illegal to have a building that doesn't transmit cell phone signals. You may have noticed there are already plenty of buildings and areas that get no reception. You have never received a guarantee from anyone that you will receive cell phone reception in their private property, I am sure of that. So what grounds are you filing this lawsuit on?
If you are in a building that gets no cell phone reception, of which there are already MANY, you need to deal with it on your own. I already do -- roaming ring will try my cell, then my office, then let them leave voicemail.
That said, I have to highlight that the option to open the CLI on my w2k desktop, when I rightclick a folder icon, is named "DOS prompt here".
Actually that powertoy has been called "Command Prompt Here" for a long time now. It was called DOS Prompt Here from back in the win95 days when it really was still DOS behind the scenes.
There is no advantage to going native over using .NET for 99% of windows programs. The speed is the same. The big advantage is security (no buffer overflows), the much better APIs and default libraries. I'm not saying get rid of Carbon/Cocoa apps. Just offer a way to run .NET apps alongside them, just as Apple already does for Java.
In the end, Apple doesn't care about the underlying OS. ...
.NET platform. They will gain possibly the ability to connect to more devices. However, down that road means relying on Microsoft for Q&A and Security. Is that a good path for Apple? I don't think so.
.NET programmer, I would love to see .NET platform become available on my macs, though.)
It will also ship with all of the Vista subsystem. That will allow all the device installers to run and gain the ability to run all Windows apps besides. Which also solves the Microsoft Office availibility problem.
Here's the thing. Apple wants to sell hardware. They do this by creating a unified set of products that "just work." These products are shiny goodness, great design, easy to use.
Grafting their prettyinterface on top of a Windows Vista subsystem will not make Macs work more securely, or more easily. They will gain the
(As a
Apple wants MacIntel for two reasons: Intel can deliver the goods, and it makes it easier for Windows users to switch to Mac OS, and thus enter the Mac empire of hardware.
Dvorak continues to be a fucking moron.
Like the parent poster?
I have a navigation system. The thing is completely crippled while driving due to morons like the ones in this study. It's like, because some people are complete morons, responsible people can't use the system as intended. I don't talk on my cell phone while driving. I don't punch in a new address in my nav system while driving (my old one let you do that). However, my passenger could! Nope, not with these wonderful new lawyer-ized systems that have navigation warnings when you start the car. Every time you start the car. Not with these systems that require your parking break to be on in order to use most of the functionality.
How about a screen when you boot the device up for the first time ever:
"Please punch in your driver's license number and name, and click 'I Agree' if you agree that any accidents you may have while driving using this navigation system are your responsibility alone, and you agree not to sue us."
Rarer things are more valuable. Rush Limbaugh talks on radio every day. Gervais doesn't.
Yet this, $7, is almost 4 times the cost of a television show.
$7 == one month of gervais podcast == 4 shows. That's $1.75 per half-hour show. That is in-line with what apple is charging for TV shows.
But, but, but this is audio only. Whatever the market will bear...
This is stupid because nobody makes money for content directly off consumer in any broadcast medium.
Luckily this is podcasting, not broadcasting. You can control who gets your 'signal' in a podcast, for the most part. Also, check with DirecTV and find out how many people pay for content from them. They're broadcasting across the globe.
This is stupid because nobody makes money for content directly off consumer in any broadcast medium. Why does the sudden addition of the Internet change this in people's minds?
It's not the addition of the internet, it's the subtraction of advertising dollars. When the new format promotes very simple ad-skipping, you have to find another way to make money off it.
I pay $0 directly to the cable companies for their cable content (though the cable provider does filter some of my money back to the stations -- it's still not me paying the station; if it was, I could order just the channels I want).
I don't really understand your point here. HBO, for example, signs a contract with YourCableCompany dictating they will get, e.g. $2 per month per cable subscriber. As a customer, therefore, you are paying $2 a month to HBO for their content. If HBO raises their rates too high, your cable company raises your rates or drops them, in which case you decide whether or not to continue subscribing, and thus continue paying HBO.
The same idiocy of assuming the Net must play by different rules goes into advertising decisions too: execs get 0 click-through from TV ads, but they freak out when they don't get X% click through from Net ads that they are paying significantly less for.
If you think advertising firms have no way of gauging the impact of a TV advertisement, I would submit that you are ignorant about how they operate.
Usenet is a peer to peer network of "servers". This is a re-invention of the way articles propagate in Usenet.
Except that Feed Tree doesn't propagate articles for usenet, it propagates entries posted to RSS feeds. I'm really trying to understand how this is a re-invention of netnews?
That's like saying IMAP just reinvented POP3.
This is designed for USERS to help each other get the very latest RSS feeds using p2p tech.
netnews is designed to let SERVERS help each other distribute messages posted by users.
I don't really see how it is a re-invention at all.
David St. Hubbins: We say, "Love your brother." We don't say it really, but...
Nigel Tufnel: We don't literally say it.
David St. Hubbins: No, we don't say it.
Nigel Tufnel: We don't really, actually mean it.
David St. Hubbins: No, we don't believe it either, but...
Nigel Tufnel: But we're not racists.
David St. Hubbins: But that message should be clear.
Apparently he's not too concerned about giving them clean air, though.
Energy.
Zero Pollution.
Pick one.
These people need energy. They are already burning cow dung, wood, whatever they can burn, to create fire for heat and cooking. That produces the pollution you talk about. Now with a machine like this, they could use this kind of energy to power electric lights, power tools, farm equipment, etc.
You have to start somewhere. If I had to choose between pollution and energy, I'd choose energy. You can't fix the pollution problem until you are better developed. And even then, it's hard.
The day that PC games do not literally have a fraction of the shelf space in a store is the day the universe faces some serious, serious issues.
You should be ashamed! The fact that you did not complete your joke with a reference to the company's name, Irrational Computing, is unforgivable.
It would appear that you're trying to let google off the hook
No it would appear he's trying to point out the hypocrisy of Congress, judging by the subject and content of his post. And he succeeded.
I had another post in the original slashdot article on this topic about this particular exchange.
Today we don't know the fate of that brave young man, but we can safely assume that there is more steel in that young man's spine than any of the leaders in Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Cicso who would choose to clear the way for the Chinese tanks if they were given the choice.
Ladies and gentlemen! We have seen the new Godwin's Law!
Sundroid apparantly feels that the Chinese people are better served using Chinese search engines that simply hide the results from them, without acknowledging the filtering. I'm not sure how that is better, but I know that Sundroid can enlighten us.
I watched this hearing on CNN Pipeline (very cool service, btw).
Unlike most hearings, which seem to be nothing more than the two parties posturing for different reasons, this largely seemed non-partisan, and was quite interesting. At first. Then it got surreal.
A congressman (not sure which party) was berating the companies, badgering them. His questioning finally boiled down to, "Have you done anything here you should be ASHAMED of?" Over and over, he kept asking them, are they ashamed, and they kept trying to answer the question... balancing between, yes China sucks, but we honestly feel this is the lesser of two evils. It appeared this congressman was trying to lump them in with IBM's work with the Nazis. He flat out made the comparison. (No one brought up Godwin's, natch.)
I mean, I get what he was aiming at, but he was unreasonable. They kept saying, we're not happy with what China requires, but we feel providing some service (with disclosures on things being removed from view, in Google's case) that this can be a helpful thing. Compared to our Chinese search competitors, who don't let the Chinese people know when things are being filtered. It wasn't good enough for the congressman. This guy wanted to hear them say, Yeah, we're ashamed.
Here's where it gets interesting.
A short while later, a Democratic congressman praised this other congressman, the chair of the hearing, and how much he respected him. But then he started railing against Congress. His point was, Congress is trying to take these companies to task, and yet Congress is giving China favored nation trading status, and why don't we also ask these hard questions of Congress?!
Then a Republican congressman started next -- essentially saying, excuse me, but the reason Congress grants favored nation status to China is because these large companies pay to have all this lobbying done in order to get China's favored nation trading status so they can keep doing business with them! So take that!
Aside from the strangeness of a Democrat standing up for big business and a Republican condemning them, we were left with a huge elephant standing in the corner:
WHY DOESN'T CONGRESS DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE FUCKING LOBBYISTS?
This was the next logical course of reasoning, but no congressman asked that question.
The Congress will take action against businesses dealing with China only when it's in their best interest, not ours or China's.
The global internet is making the world smaller. The idea of the nation matters less and less. In the future, everyone will be brown, and smart people will lead the world in wealth, power, charity, and evil.
Actually they won by portraying OTHER POLITICIANS are untrustworthy.
To call a politician an intellectual is a bit of a stretch. I can count intellectual politicians on one hand and still have a finger left to pick my nose.
"Selling's legal. Fucking's legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?!?!!"
But seriously, selling fucking is legal in some areas of Nevada (but as my friend found out -- NOT LEGAL IN VEGAS, STRANGELY ENOUGH!)
If one ideology generates oppression, the other inculcates greed.
I'm sorry, Michael Douglas's character in Wall Street was right at a basic level: greed is good. By good, really, I mean "necessary." His character took it to the extreme, and ultimately paid the price. But the basic idea is correct: capitalism is efficient because of greed at all levels.
Greed is what drives the balance of supply and demand. If you are too greedy in your pricing, you will likely sell less product. Conversely, if you are too greedy on what you're willing to pay, you likely will not be able to buy enough of what you need. You meet in the middle at a reasonable price.
The bottom line drives efficiencies. Your company needs to be "greedy" to encourage streamlining and saving money so that it makes more money. It can then spend money on capital, labor, investments, which can help it earn more money.
Likewise, a person needs to be "greedy" to increase their efficiency and income, so that they can buy housing, clothing, food, and extra goods. A person needs to be "greedy" so that they can save and invest money. So that they have money to spend on charity.
This is interesting (about the sliding bandwidth usage at Sirius). Are there any public documents that discuss the technology?
The only thing I don't like about Sirius is the horrible sound quality of most channels. The classical channels are good and Howard Stern is good, most other music channels are mediocre, and all talk stations (except for Howard Stern) sound worse than AM. I wish they would get rid of twenty or thirty stations that I never listen to and use that bandwidth to improve the quality of their other channels.
I was wondering if I was just hearing things. I've had XM for about 7 months and like it. Mostly I listen to the news stations, classical stations, and rock. The sound quality is pretty good. Some channels it is horrible on purpose to save bandwidth (e.g. the traffic channels have humans compressed so much they sound like robots almost... and no, they're not robots).
I just got Sirius as a xmas present, and listen to Howard Stern most of the time, which sounds great. But their other channels definitely sound much worse than XM. Specifically, I have CNN on both and so can compare the two of them directly, and Sirius's quality sucks.
I can't say that I like the idea of a full touch-screen interface. While it may be nice, it prevents you from using the device without looking at it
It's a VIDEO iPod. Are you really planning on using it without looking at it?!??
If you had RTFA, you would know the "true" reference means.
"Readers will recall that during the brouhaha leading up to the October release of the 5G iPod last year, Think Secret maintained that the video iPod would not be released at the time and, following the roll-out of the 5G iPod, that that iPod was "not the video iPod" but rather a souped up 4G iPod with video capabilities. This forthcoming iPod revision is what sources have said for some time will be the incarnation of a complete video iPod solution."