Can you please provide some references for that graph? I'm interested particularly in how questions from different tests are compared to determine how they are weighted for difficulty.
First and foremost, they need to change the name. Whoever decided that zune was a cool sounding name either doesn't speak french slang or is some kind of sleeper agent from Apple.
I humbly suggest that they call it the IE-Pod, and give it away for free, with the purchase of a music site subscription. Oh, and make sure it's incompatible with iTunes too.
I'd be careful when ordering one of these. They don't say how much the extended warranty costs, and you really should get the extended warranty (with accident and theft protection) when buying a new laptop.
To do the same kind of shock today would need a female Muslim character in charge of the photon torpedoes, a gay security chief, and a Frenchman for captain. well, two out of three ain't bad:
I think he's saying that off-grid solar is more cost effective than on-grid conventional if you live way out in the sticks, because it would cost the electric company millions of dollars to run a line to your house, but it would only cost you a few grand to set up some panels and an energy storage system.
Another point in favour of off-grid solar is that your costs are all capital costs, as opposed to operating costs. You buy the hardware, set it up and forget about it. Also, when comparing costs, you get to amortize over the life of the equipment.
On the point of batteries, I think that if your batteries are always charged, then you are storing more energy than you are using. You can therefore further reduce your capital costs by reducing the number of solar panels you use.
On the point of subsidies, if you are going to exclude any subsidies given to off-grid solar, then you should also exclude any subsidies given to conventional electric companies, when calculating costs. This includes subsidies on fuel used to generate power, and on the transportation industries that move the fuel.
Finally, I'd like to make a point regarding the general economics of going off-grid. Sure, it might cost me more to go off grid than to stay on-grid. It might, in fact, cost me a lot more. However, when I weigh the costs, I weigh them against the benefits. I can only speak for myself, but I see great benefit in being off-grid, and still having electric lights, heat and refrigeration (ok, and maybe a laptop too). That self reliance is worth a lot to me. If I had, say, fifty grand to blow, I would rather use it to set up an off-grid power system than to purchase a nice 70" plasma TV.
Making a weapon requires foresight into the possible effects they may have. I seriously doubt chimps have such cognitive skills. IAAC, and I take exception to that remark. You humans think you're so superior. Let's see what kind of foresight y'all have expressed recently:
nuclear weapons
the internal combustion engine
cod fishing on the Grand Banks
clearcutting of rainforest in Brazil to raise cattle
software patents
the patriot act
"the solution to pollution is dilution"
lawyers
If you know to whom my sig is attributed, then you probably know how I think all this is going to end.
Yeah, They sent the B ark off first, telling the occupants that they would be following shortly. That's why the captain is always looking out the back window. Very humane solution, if you ask me.
You don't need evidence to sue someone. It helps to have evidence if you want to win, but you could pick someone at random, and sue them for looking at you funny, without any evidence.
All a lawsuit really is, is you asking a judge to order someone to give you something. The judge probably won't do it if you can't convince him that you deserve it, and that's where evidence is useful. There's no law that says that you can't ask, though.
The problem is that killing people is bad. Maybe we could talk to each other and be friends instead. Then we might actually want to find a solution, because to do otherwise would be to hurt our friends as well as ourselves.
Are you bugged by the Apple commercial where John Hodgman is the PC, and he has to undergo surgery to get Vista?
I've never seen it. I don't think the over 90 percent of the [population] who use Windows PCs think of themselves as dullards, or the kind of klutzes that somebody is trying to say they are.
It sound like Mr. Gates completely missed the point of the commercial. It's an allegory. The dumpy guy in the suit represents a PC, not a PC user. The cool guy with the artsy facial hair represents a Mac, not a Mac user.
Not only that, but it's a really good allegory, IMHO:
- PC is overweight, and his suit is kind of generic and boring. It doesn't really fit very well.
- Mac is streamlined and efficient. His clothes are stylish and well integrated. They look like they were tailored for him.
- PC's multimedia output can be awkward and ugly. It's rough around the edges and looks bad in a dress.
- Mac's multimedia output is professional and beautiful, like a supermodel.
- PC gets sick a lot, and has to reboot often.
- Mac is much healthier, and has better natural immunity.
- If muscle and body fat represent the OS layer, then PC's Vista surgery must be some bizarre form of reverse liposuction, where more fat is added to the body, and then the skeleton has to be upgraded to carry the additional load. At least he's going to get a nicer suit out of it.
- Mac doesn't seem to have any extra fat. He upgrades by working out, I guess. (I don't know, I'm reaching here. The allegory is getting thin).
But to be safe I'm sticking with component video for HDTV
Remember, though, that the HDCP standard places the authentication responsibility on the transmitting device. A transmitter is not supposed to send the data stream to a receiver until it authenticates the receiver. Receivers, on the other hand, are not required to authenticate transmitters before accepting a data stream.
As long as the authentication is transmitter initiated, I don't need to care about it when I'm shopping for a new TV, because I can just get a DVI->HDMI adaptor and use it as a big-ass computer monitor.
Ok, that's an interesting point, about the proxy. I hadn't thought of that.
As for the email address, I was thinking rather that the sender would push the notification to me, and then I would choose to pull the contents. In this case, the sender would already know my email address.
Also, when you surf, its not connected to your email address - just your ip - and there can be thousands of people sitting behind that public ip address.
I'm not trying to address authentication/anonymity issues here. I'm just trying to shift the resource burden to the sender. But say someone knows my IP address, my email address and that I'm online. I don't see what the big deal is.
So, every day you're going to check the sites of all people who could possible have mailed you something? Or are you going ask everyone to give you a call when they sent you a mail?
I was thinking more along the lines of having my email client program do all that for me. The client would present the sender information, size, maybe a short subject line, and I would then decide whether or not to "read" (meaning download) the message, by clicking the entry. Just like how I do it now, except that the message doesn't get transmitted to me until I read it. Spam filters would still work on the contents of the subject line, or the sender's information. One thing I like about this idea is that it doesn't have to dramatically change the end user's experience, compared to how it is today.
When you surf to a web page, all they get is your ip address. This, they have both your current ip and your email address, plus the fact that you (email recipient) are currently on-line.
When you surf the web, they know you are online. Also, if we implemented it so that the recipient gets only the notification, but is responsible for retrieving the content himself, as a previous post suggested, then the sender would already have the recipient's email address.
I like this idea. It's like the parcel slip you get from the post office. All the slip tells you is that you have a package, and where to pick it up. We can strictly control the size and content of the notification, so even if spam continues to be sent in great quantity, it won't eat up the bandwidth like it does now.
So, basically, it's an application that helps you to pretend you're friends with the person you're talking to, without all the tedious work of actually getting to know said person?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks.
Can you please provide some references for that graph? I'm interested particularly in how questions from different tests are compared to determine how they are weighted for difficulty.
Yes, and with each generation, it becomes more and more apparent.
I humbly suggest that they call it the IE-Pod, and give it away for free, with the purchase of a music site subscription. Oh, and make sure it's incompatible with iTunes too.
I'd be careful when ordering one of these. They don't say how much the extended warranty costs, and you really should get the extended warranty (with accident and theft protection) when buying a new laptop.
Yeah, and the yggdrasil link is broken too!
Two all beef patties
Special sauce, lettuce, cheese
Pickles, onions
On a sesame seed bun
The Black Ship passage from the Guide seemed appropriate, but I couldn't find a copy online. A little help please?
well, two out of three ain't bad:
TNG: Captain Jean Luc Picard.
Enterprise: Lieutenant Malcom Reid.
Another point in favour of off-grid solar is that your costs are all capital costs, as opposed to operating costs. You buy the hardware, set it up and forget about it. Also, when comparing costs, you get to amortize over the life of the equipment.
On the point of batteries, I think that if your batteries are always charged, then you are storing more energy than you are using. You can therefore further reduce your capital costs by reducing the number of solar panels you use.
On the point of subsidies, if you are going to exclude any subsidies given to off-grid solar, then you should also exclude any subsidies given to conventional electric companies, when calculating costs. This includes subsidies on fuel used to generate power, and on the transportation industries that move the fuel.
Finally, I'd like to make a point regarding the general economics of going off-grid. Sure, it might cost me more to go off grid than to stay on-grid. It might, in fact, cost me a lot more. However, when I weigh the costs, I weigh them against the benefits. I can only speak for myself, but I see great benefit in being off-grid, and still having electric lights, heat and refrigeration (ok, and maybe a laptop too). That self reliance is worth a lot to me. If I had, say, fifty grand to blow, I would rather use it to set up an off-grid power system than to purchase a nice 70" plasma TV.
nuclear weapons
the internal combustion engine
cod fishing on the Grand Banks
clearcutting of rainforest in Brazil to raise cattle
software patents
the patriot act
"the solution to pollution is dilution"
lawyers
If you know to whom my sig is attributed, then you probably know how I think all this is going to end.
Yeah, They sent the B ark off first, telling the occupants that they would be following shortly. That's why the captain is always looking out the back window. Very humane solution, if you ask me.
No. What's that?
All a lawsuit really is, is you asking a judge to order someone to give you something. The judge probably won't do it if you can't convince him that you deserve it, and that's where evidence is useful. There's no law that says that you can't ask, though.
However, it is not illegal to threaten to sue someone for compensation, if they refuse to settle the matter out of court.
The problem is that killing people is bad. Maybe we could talk to each other and be friends instead. Then we might actually want to find a solution, because to do otherwise would be to hurt our friends as well as ourselves.
Are you bugged by the Apple commercial where John Hodgman is the PC, and he has to undergo surgery to get Vista?
I've never seen it. I don't think the over 90 percent of the [population] who use Windows PCs think of themselves as dullards, or the kind of klutzes that somebody is trying to say they are.
It sound like Mr. Gates completely missed the point of the commercial. It's an allegory. The dumpy guy in the suit represents a PC, not a PC user. The cool guy with the artsy facial hair represents a Mac, not a Mac user.
Not only that, but it's a really good allegory, IMHO:
- PC is overweight, and his suit is kind of generic and boring. It doesn't really fit very well.
- Mac is streamlined and efficient. His clothes are stylish and well integrated. They look like they were tailored for him.
- PC's multimedia output can be awkward and ugly. It's rough around the edges and looks bad in a dress.
- Mac's multimedia output is professional and beautiful, like a supermodel.
- PC gets sick a lot, and has to reboot often.
- Mac is much healthier, and has better natural immunity.
- If muscle and body fat represent the OS layer, then PC's Vista surgery must be some bizarre form of reverse liposuction, where more fat is added to the body, and then the skeleton has to be upgraded to carry the additional load. At least he's going to get a nicer suit out of it.
- Mac doesn't seem to have any extra fat. He upgrades by working out, I guess. (I don't know, I'm reaching here. The allegory is getting thin).
Remember, though, that the HDCP standard places the authentication responsibility on the transmitting device. A transmitter is not supposed to send the data stream to a receiver until it authenticates the receiver. Receivers, on the other hand, are not required to authenticate transmitters before accepting a data stream.
As long as the authentication is transmitter initiated, I don't need to care about it when I'm shopping for a new TV, because I can just get a DVI->HDMI adaptor and use it as a big-ass computer monitor.
Two words: Government Contracts.
Not necessarily. Ever hear of a caching proxy?
Ok, that's an interesting point, about the proxy. I hadn't thought of that.
As for the email address, I was thinking rather that the sender would push the notification to me, and then I would choose to pull the contents. In this case, the sender would already know my email address.
Also, when you surf, its not connected to your email address - just your ip - and there can be thousands of people sitting behind that public ip address.
I'm not trying to address authentication/anonymity issues here. I'm just trying to shift the resource burden to the sender. But say someone knows my IP address, my email address and that I'm online. I don't see what the big deal is.
I was thinking more along the lines of having my email client program do all that for me. The client would present the sender information, size, maybe a short subject line, and I would then decide whether or not to "read" (meaning download) the message, by clicking the entry. Just like how I do it now, except that the message doesn't get transmitted to me until I read it. Spam filters would still work on the contents of the subject line, or the sender's information. One thing I like about this idea is that it doesn't have to dramatically change the end user's experience, compared to how it is today.
What's wrong with that? It doesn't cost me any more effort to surf to the sender's site than to check my local inbox.
When you surf the web, they know you are online. Also, if we implemented it so that the recipient gets only the notification, but is responsible for retrieving the content himself, as a previous post suggested, then the sender would already have the recipient's email address.
I like this idea. It's like the parcel slip you get from the post office. All the slip tells you is that you have a package, and where to pick it up. We can strictly control the size and content of the notification, so even if spam continues to be sent in great quantity, it won't eat up the bandwidth like it does now.
So, basically, it's an application that helps you to pretend you're friends with the person you're talking to, without all the tedious work of actually getting to know said person?