Move the entire population of the US just 600 miles north (I'm assuming you'd all hug the border) and see what impact the climate has on it's energy use per head.
Presumably, the per capita air conditioning bill would go WAY down.
As for the "patents are bad for innovation" argument : if you come up with a way to manufacture widgets that no one else has before, and that innovation has cost you a certain amount in development costs, should you not have the right to protect that investment? If your competition can just steal your methods, then you would have no incentive to innovate.
If you come up with a novel way to manufacture a widget, that should be patentable, but it is not a business method. It is a method for making widgets.
An idea ("rent DVDs online") has no development cost. The implementation of the idea (DVD database, packaging hardware, etc) does require some development and that may deserve some protection.
Isn't this exactly how libraries have worked since...um, long before 2003?
I wouldn't say that it is exactly how libraries work. I don't recall ever maintaining a dynamic list at the library of books that they would automatically send me once I returned the old ones. Heck, they never sent me a book at all. Seems like regardless of how many books I had out, there was also a definite date that they wanted each one returned by, too. There may be some parallels to draw with recalling books and renewing due dates, but it gets a little fuzzy because you're comparing a for-profit business with something that is generally non-profit.
Please note, I don't support the whole patenting of business methods.
Right on. It's not just about the money, but being able to do what you want to do. In some fields, a B.S. is not going to get you anywhere beyond doing the trained monkey work in your chosen field. Plus, if you get into a good graduate program (i.e. brings in lots of research grants), you will get paid to go to school instead of the other way around.
The reeks of a delibratly skewed statistic. I mean why would one pick that particular age range? Why would you include 18 and 19 year olds, who are adults in every country I'm aware of, with teens and children?
The reason is most likely that if you narrow the paramaters to 9-17 year olds, you find that the number who have viewed porn drops significantly. Of course the idea is to try and generate outrage "OMG t3h childrens are viewing t3h porn!!! Ban it!!!!!" This leaves the reader with the impression that "half of all children have viewed porn." However the reality might be something more along the lines of "10% of children 9-17 and more than 50% of 18-19 years olds have seen porn online."
Ok. The study mentioned that 57 percent of "children" 9-19 had viewed porn online. If you assume that the age distribution was equal across the age range then assume that all the 18-19 year olds looked at porn, removing them from the study only drops the number who have looked at porn online to ~47 percent. That's still a pretty siginificant proportion. *disclaimer*disclaimer* I am not calling for govt involvement, but seeing such a number could be a wakeup call for some parents.
If you want to argue that kids have been looking at pornography for ages, I would say that what is available now on the internet is a far cry from the occasional Playboy I got a peek at as a kid. Most of what I seem to recall seeing was lone, naked women striking naughty poses. What you would do with said woman was left to the imagination. (I know there are more hard-core magazines, but Playboy was what was most likely found in the back of dad's closet)
A young person could get a rather twisted view of what sex is really like from looking at what's available today on the internet. Sure, crazy stuff goes on, but it's not like every sexual encounter involves fucking a woman (or more!) in the mouth, pussy, and ass finally coming on her face all the while maintaining the awkward positions necessary so the camera can see the action.
Reducing this, we end up with [E]/[L]. However, the dimensions of the Newton are ([M][L])/([T][T]), as the units are kgms^-2. (From F=ma, F is in N, m is in kg, a is in ms^-2)
But [E] can also be expressed as force times distance, i.e. Newton-meters, which when divided by distance obviously returns a measurement of force.
When I want to do something online, I'll use a PC.
Well, duh, if you are sitting in front of your PC, it would be silly to use your phone to check your email. Presumably some of the FBI agents need to do some work outside of the office on a regular basis though and don't want to lug around a laptop or stop at the nearest internet cafe to check their email, etc.
Because it costs less (no need for pesiticides) and they can sell it for more. For some reason, organic seems to cost more than non-organic foods. Also, many farms are labeling food organic when its not actually organic at all.
I am dubious it costs less on a per unit yield basis. Otherwise why wouldn't every farmer be doing it? It's the higher-priced niche market that makes it profitable.
Reminds me of a post I saw on usenet a while back where a guy was wondering why he had to pay extra to his power company to buy his electricity from renewable sources. Shouldn't they give him a discount instead to encourage its use?
You're right though that often the cheapest, most convenient way to do something is rarely the most environmentally friendly.
Some people buy them for philisophical reasons (think ethical funds). They hope their money goes up, but if it turns out they just invested in 'good' companies, they're happy (think charity with potential profits)......
Larry was very clear -- buy Google shares because you want to give us cash to keep doing what we've always done.
But in both of these cases you are only really giving money to the company if you buy the stock from the company through an IPO or later new stock offering. Otherwise, you may be "investing" in that company, but the only one benefitting from your investment is the person who sold the you the stock.
The idea of investing in a restaurant chain just to say that you did, whether it is profitable or not, blows my mind.
Following up on my own post, maybe it could come with the Firefox download as pre-installed extension and if you know you don't want it you can delete it. Less bloat for those who want that and those who don't know any better will be automagically protected.
This is a scientific study though not an opinion poll. Presumably the research will be done by actual scientists and not random people pulled off the street who will freak out when they here the word radiation, conclude that their cellphone is filled with nuclear waste and recommend that they must all be disposed of.
The article said it was about 500 meters, JPL said it was about 580 meters. One "about" was simply more generous than the other. Given a notable asteroid can vary in size from tens of meters to thousands of meters, saying 580 is about 500 and a meter is about a yard seems reasonable.
Only on slashdot would that be the natural +5,Insightful conclusion. If MS sales went down compared to UNIX then the conclusion would be that MS is the suxx0r and everyone knows it, correct? Fact is, non-MS sales, i.e. including Linux, are still greater than MS sales, so it must be that cheap UNIX/UNIX-like hardware that is crapping out after all. Without greater analysis of who bought what and why, no meaningful conclusions can be made here except exactly what the numbers say: MS sales have accelerated past UNIX sales.
I heard the same interview and agree that it does cast the situation in a somewhat different light. Who is to say that said employee(s) wouldn't have handed over the information anyway if they were faced with arrest? I get the feeling that going to jail over ones principles is probably less popular in China than it is elsewhere.
Not everyone has those kinds of deals available. I live in Bellsouth/Time Warner Cable country. AFAIK, my cheapest options are BS's 256/128 DSL for $24.95 (+$3 "fee") or Roadrunner for $49.95. There are some DSL resellers but they aren't any cheaper. The DSL isn't that much more per month if you were switching from like AOL, but it isn't really fast enough for streaming video and is mainly handy for its "always on" nature.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly is strange that not one person who was killed in a car accident at six years old has piped up about their experience yet.
Presumably, the per capita air conditioning bill would go WAY down.
Wow! I see where they got the name Venus Express from. It was only two days ago that they were planning to send a probe to Venus.
If you come up with a novel way to manufacture a widget, that should be patentable, but it is not a business method. It is a method for making widgets.
An idea ("rent DVDs online") has no development cost. The implementation of the idea (DVD database, packaging hardware, etc) does require some development and that may deserve some protection.
I wouldn't say that it is exactly how libraries work. I don't recall ever maintaining a dynamic list at the library of books that they would automatically send me once I returned the old ones. Heck, they never sent me a book at all. Seems like regardless of how many books I had out, there was also a definite date that they wanted each one returned by, too. There may be some parallels to draw with recalling books and renewing due dates, but it gets a little fuzzy because you're comparing a for-profit business with something that is generally non-profit.
Please note, I don't support the whole patenting of business methods.
Right on. It's not just about the money, but being able to do what you want to do. In some fields, a B.S. is not going to get you anywhere beyond doing the trained monkey work in your chosen field. Plus, if you get into a good graduate program (i.e. brings in lots of research grants), you will get paid to go to school instead of the other way around.
That poorly constructed sentence is saying that the US has veto power not the conservative Christian groups.
The reason is most likely that if you narrow the paramaters to 9-17 year olds, you find that the number who have viewed porn drops significantly. Of course the idea is to try and generate outrage "OMG t3h childrens are viewing t3h porn!!! Ban it!!!!!" This leaves the reader with the impression that "half of all children have viewed porn." However the reality might be something more along the lines of "10% of children 9-17 and more than 50% of 18-19 years olds have seen porn online."
Ok. The study mentioned that 57 percent of "children" 9-19 had viewed porn online. If you assume that the age distribution was equal across the age range then assume that all the 18-19 year olds looked at porn, removing them from the study only drops the number who have looked at porn online to ~47 percent. That's still a pretty siginificant proportion. *disclaimer*disclaimer* I am not calling for govt involvement, but seeing such a number could be a wakeup call for some parents.
If you want to argue that kids have been looking at pornography for ages, I would say that what is available now on the internet is a far cry from the occasional Playboy I got a peek at as a kid. Most of what I seem to recall seeing was lone, naked women striking naughty poses. What you would do with said woman was left to the imagination. (I know there are more hard-core magazines, but Playboy was what was most likely found in the back of dad's closet)
A young person could get a rather twisted view of what sex is really like from looking at what's available today on the internet. Sure, crazy stuff goes on, but it's not like every sexual encounter involves fucking a woman (or more!) in the mouth, pussy, and ass finally coming on her face all the while maintaining the awkward positions necessary so the camera can see the action.
Well, back in my day we would download "Hourlies" to our abacuses and sit around wondering "WTF is the Internet?!"
But [E] can also be expressed as force times distance, i.e. Newton-meters, which when divided by distance obviously returns a measurement of force.
In other words, your equation is wrong :)
Looks like you were wrong, Mr. Smarty Pants.
Well, duh, if you are sitting in front of your PC, it would be silly to use your phone to check your email. Presumably some of the FBI agents need to do some work outside of the office on a regular basis though and don't want to lug around a laptop or stop at the nearest internet cafe to check their email, etc.
I am dubious it costs less on a per unit yield basis. Otherwise why wouldn't every farmer be doing it? It's the higher-priced niche market that makes it profitable.
Reminds me of a post I saw on usenet a while back where a guy was wondering why he had to pay extra to his power company to buy his electricity from renewable sources. Shouldn't they give him a discount instead to encourage its use?
You're right though that often the cheapest, most convenient way to do something is rarely the most environmentally friendly.
Larry was very clear -- buy Google shares because you want to give us cash to keep doing what we've always done.
But in both of these cases you are only really giving money to the company if you buy the stock from the company through an IPO or later new stock offering. Otherwise, you may be "investing" in that company, but the only one benefitting from your investment is the person who sold the you the stock.
The idea of investing in a restaurant chain just to say that you did, whether it is profitable or not, blows my mind.
Following up on my own post, maybe it could come with the Firefox download as pre-installed extension and if you know you don't want it you can delete it. Less bloat for those who want that and those who don't know any better will be automagically protected.
Yes.
The users most susceptible to phishing are also the ones least likely to seek out and install an extension ("what's that?") to prevent it.
If more savvy users are concerned about bloat perhaps this protection could be optional with the default for it to be turned on.
This is a scientific study though not an opinion poll. Presumably the research will be done by actual scientists and not random people pulled off the street who will freak out when they here the word radiation, conclude that their cellphone is filled with nuclear waste and recommend that they must all be disposed of.
If you were one of the test subjects, would you want them taking tissue samples from your brain or family jewels for further study?
The article said it was about 500 meters, JPL said it was about 580 meters. One "about" was simply more generous than the other. Given a notable asteroid can vary in size from tens of meters to thousands of meters, saying 580 is about 500 and a meter is about a yard seems reasonable.
and what rights would those be?
Only on slashdot would that be the natural +5,Insightful conclusion. If MS sales went down compared to UNIX then the conclusion would be that MS is the suxx0r and everyone knows it, correct? Fact is, non-MS sales, i.e. including Linux, are still greater than MS sales, so it must be that cheap UNIX/UNIX-like hardware that is crapping out after all. Without greater analysis of who bought what and why, no meaningful conclusions can be made here except exactly what the numbers say: MS sales have accelerated past UNIX sales.
I heard the same interview and agree that it does cast the situation in a somewhat different light. Who is to say that said employee(s) wouldn't have handed over the information anyway if they were faced with arrest? I get the feeling that going to jail over ones principles is probably less popular in China than it is elsewhere.
Not everyone has those kinds of deals available. I live in Bellsouth/Time Warner Cable country. AFAIK, my cheapest options are BS's 256/128 DSL for $24.95 (+$3 "fee") or Roadrunner for $49.95. There are some DSL resellers but they aren't any cheaper. The DSL isn't that much more per month if you were switching from like AOL, but it isn't really fast enough for streaming video and is mainly handy for its "always on" nature.
No, but the sample emails used in the study could have been selected on the basis of being either predominantly serious or sarcastic.
Yeah, I want my Nikes to come with a helping of moon dust!
upshot != upside
Look up "upshot" in the dictionary and you will find that the upshot of your post is that you looked stupid. The upside is that you learned something.