Actually, you are correct about there being no difference. However, we have passed laws banning the open display of such materials at point-of-sale. Everywhere you go now that has adult content for sale in areas open to minors is required to have them in black bags, or some such. But there is no law about someone sitting down with a playboy on the subway or bus. And I have just as much concern about it. I actually rode the subway (light-rail) into downtown last week and there was a guy (18-20 y.o. kid) showing off his new 3G phone to his friends, and, while I did not see the screen, the moans, sounds, and "conversation" issuing from the device left no doubt about the type of video clip he was using as a demonstration.
Like I said in my post, this is an area where the Libertarian in me buts up against the parent in me. I am nothing even close to a prude, and yes my son has seen "adult" material in certain contexts. I do not want him growing up a sheltered wall-flower unable to cope with the reality of society around him. I also think that, in the U.S., we are way too repressed when it comes to nudity. I actually would not really have a problem with my neighbor on the bus having a Playboy, or possibly even a Hustler. Hard-core bondage porn, water sports, or a collection of goatse and tubgirl's best are things I don't want to have to see in public, let alone have my son exposed to. I hate to see laws restricting people's rights to be an ass, but the old adage of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose," needs to be updated when we are talking about "your right to view something I consider unwholesome, ends at the edge of my viewing range." That is not an acceptable replacement adage, but we need to (well it would be nice if we could) find a common consensus about where such things are acceptable and how to warn people who might be protective about situations not to go into.
Some examples include:
I have no problem with nudist camps or beaches. They are clearly marked and people can go or avoid as they see fit.
I have no problem with "lifestyle" conventions or parties at hotels, restaurants, etc., as long as there is sufficient warning for patrons who are entering or making reservations for the same time.
I had a bit of a problem with the movie Bloodrayne. (ok, no comments from the peanut gallery on all of the horrible problems it has as a movie or story.) Yes, it was an R rated movie, but I take my son to many R rated movies. I expected the blood and gore, I even expected selected boobie shots. I didn't expect, and had not seen mentioned in any of the reviews, the totally gratuitous explicit sex scene in the middle of the movie. Now, unlike another parent who had brought their child to the same movie, I didn't gasp loudly, plaster my hand over my child's eyes, then loudly complain (as if the manager were actually near enough to hear or care) about the scene. It's an R rating, you takes your chances. Had I known, in detail, about that scene, no I probably would not have taken my son to see the movie.
I guess I am just lamenting the loss of courtesy and discression among the general masses when it comes what is appropriate in a public forum with no notice to passersby to choose to be exposed or not. Then again, in Japan they sell used panites (represented as from little girls) in vending machines on the street available and open to everyone. Maybe it just is my cultural bias showing through.
The problem is irrelevant commercials or poorly made commercials.
Ding, ding, ding!!!! Poor advertising is one of the few non-IT specialties that consistently maintains 5 nines reliability. Even Googles targeted adwords are over 50% irrelevant on most of the things I search for. Except when I am actually searching for a product. Then they all point to shysters and shady businesses I would never trust with my credit card number.
The problem is that mass advertising is so much easier and more effective than targeted advertising. Yes, the total expense is greater, but the marketing droids are addicted to eyeball count, not sales-per-view. If this wasn't the case spam email would have died out long ago. But Madison Ave. just believes on a grand scale what the \/1@grA scammers put into practice on a daily basis. True or not, the perception is that selling feminine hygene products in a $2 Mil super bowl ad results in much higher total profits than selling the same product in a $50k add during afternoon soaps.
The parent poster's point is valid across media. Most of the EU has fairly strict regulations on what type of content can be broadcast, or when certain kinds of content is allowed. What the proposed rules state is that if you don't allow hate speech on radio or TV, it shouldn't be allowed on any broadcast, just because it is on a phone and IP instead of a portable TV receiver shouldn't make a difference. Or, if adult content is limited to broadcast after 10 p.m. to avoid children seeing it, a similar restriction should be in place for cell phones.
I am generally not an advocate for this kind of restriction, and yes I am a parent. However, what I am more concerned with is the fact that all of this is mobile. I don't care if you watch soft porn at home for a lunchtime quickie... I do have a problem sitting beside you with my son on the subway while you run playboy channel with the sound turned up. At any time of the day.
I can control what my child is exposed to, and how he is exposed to it, at home. Having some slimeball thrust his fantasies into everyone's face in a public venue should be unacceptable from the stand point of common courtesy, let alone from a legal standpoint. However, like sense, courtesy is not so common any more.
I've done a lot of driving along country highways. Have ssen various wildlife alongside the road at both day and night. Elk beside the road 1 mile ahead during the day, I can see as a possible situation where a human driver would see and have time to formulate a correct action to avoid an incident. However, most vehicle-animal incidents occur at night, at relatively high speeds, with little to no warning. The accident records that I review as part of my job most tend to reveal that in night time vehicle-animal incidents, the vast majority of bad wrecks come from the driver noticing the animal far to late to take any effective action, but taking a panic induced reaction anyway that results in complete loss of control of the vehicle.
Actually it's closer to hiring a cab, or a chauffer. Both things that people would like, and that people who can afford it use. Public transport is slow (all of those stops for other people's destinations), messy, and, well... so very public.
The beauty of an autonomous roads system would be chauffer convenience at public transport, or private automobile price. I think, except for the control freaks, speed fanatics, and conspiracy theorists, that the vast majority of people will accept this, once it is ubiquitous. The one glaring downside is additional cost. The infrastructure upgrades needed to make this easy with current technology would require more money to be spent on roads, i.e. higher taxes, and the increase in automobile price will be noticable. Much like the infrared video system in some of the high end cars now, the question isn't one of increased safety, it is whether we will ever be able to make it cheap enough to fit in a Kia, that the average family can afford. Because, if we don't get enough market penetration, or a high enough percentage of vehicles on the road equipped with the technology, we won't see the benefits of reduced accidents and reduced congestion.
I will, slightly, agree with your contention that computer and human controlled vehicles will not co-exist on the same structure. However, there are already numerous examples of seperated roadways that carry automated vehicles. Las Vegas has just installed an automated busway where the buses have drivers, but in reality, the bus does 99% of the driving with the driver just there "in case" (really just there so the people on board don't freak out over no human driver). You also see more and more HOV lanes going in all over the country. It wouldn't take much to turn the HOV lanes into high-speed automated vehicle lanes.
All of the other points in your article are merely technological difficulties, and not particularly difficult ones to solve. Solving cost effectively right now is the issue, but as technology is improved in testing and the incremental cost comes down it is almost inevitable.
In addition, are you serious that you believe a human being in a car at night is more likely to notice a deer at the side of the road at highway speeds than a computerized hazard identification system? Let alone said human being able to take an appropriate action in sufficient time. Humans work on the order of seconds, while a decent control system will work on the order of milliseconds. This would make a huge difference in a lot of cases.
Add to this the fact that the vast majority of drivers would really prefer to be able to get into their car in the garage, tell it to take them to work, then sit and read the paper, talk on the phone, apply makeup, etc. and have the vehicle deliver them to the front door of their office in a fast, safe manner... then go park itself to wait until they needed it again. The representative audience of/. is highly skewed to do-it-youselfers with a high level of scepticism toward untested technology. The average person who first sees an automated vehicle speeding past the congestion with the person inside drinking coffee over a newspaper is immediately going to want the same experience. (of course, in today's world the next reaction will be to hope that lucky s.o.b. dies in a fire, and he doesn't deserve it, and obviously we should raise taxes on the rich so-and-so, etc., etc.)
Your contention that "something will go wrong, it will cost significant human life, it will be abandoned" is laughable. The system we have today kills over 45,000 americans per year. To me that's pretty significant loss of life, and not only do I not see people trying to abandon the system, I see idiots all over (in this discussion thread even) defending it in the name of "I should be free to drive like an asshat if I want to."
Of course, your Subaru has all-wheel drive. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. I agree for stabilty in a larger range of conditions, all-wheel drive is great. However, the added complexity and cost is a serious trade off.
Actually the x50v has a 624 Mhz processor, 64MB RAM and 128MB internal ROM and a full 640x480 vga screen. Throw in the 2GB SD card and 4GB CF card I have and it should be a sweet little machine.
As to the size, I already carry a paperback book around with me almost everywhere. I do some book reading on the Axim (much better than my old Palm), but there is still something about paper I like, and the screen is about half the size I would prefer for book reading. The bookreader software doesn't support scrolling, except autoscroll, any more, and flipping the page every 150 oor so words is annoying, especially since a lot of the technical and non-fiction I read lends itself to looking back several sentances or paragraphs as you read along to keep things straight.
As an owner of a Windows Mobile PDA (Dell Axim x50v) I can say authoratatively that Windows Mobile software sucks in so many ways it's hard to count. The OS is buggy, slow, an so severly crippled in areas that desktop users take for granted that it is physically painful to use. The software selection for add-on programs is so diminuative that when I switched from PalmOS, I honestly thought that I had to be missing some secret community of developers. I couldn't believe that 1) there were no Windows versions of so many of the Palm apps that I had found essential, and 2) there was no active community of programmers and hobbiests trading code and writing scripts to do all the little things that hadn't been included in the OS.
The Windows Mobile world is dominated by a very few developers who write commercial software for profit. The wonderful selection of little free/share-ware apps that exist in the desktop and Palm world is totally non-existent in the WinMobile world. In addition, MS makes it exremely difficult for the hobbiest to "play around" with the devices and this keeps many who might be interested from even bothering.
Some examples:
There is one, and only one, program that can be used to completely backup your Windows Mobile device, and it is not included with the OS. This program must be bought, from a third party, and the WM 5.0 version took 4 months to be released after WM 5.0 was released.
To "Active Sync" your WM 5.0 device you MUST have Outlook or Outlook Express, not only installed on your windows desktop, but it MUST be the default email client.
There are only two usable alternatives to the internal contact/calender management programs, both commercial software, and almost no external script abilitiy to customize these apps beyond the limited choices offered by the developers.
I left Palm because the hardware offereings have fallen so far behind state-of-the-art it is pathetic. My Dell has built-in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, SD card slot, CF Card slot, and a true VGA screen. There is no comparable Palm offering, even the rediculously overpriced LifeDrive. I find myself using my Dell much less than I used to use my Palm, with the exception of GPS navigation, which the Palm couldn't do at all. I am using my laptop much more, but carrying that bulk around is tiresome, in more ways than one.
I will definately be keeping my eyes on these new devices. If I could get a $600-$800 device in a paperback size form factor, with a full OS, good battery life and a thumb keyboard, I would jump at the chance.
Political parties shouldn't be allowed to take any campaign donations whatsoever - put the damned thing back on an even footing.
Wha? Run that by me again.
How would removing all campaign donations "put things on an even footing"? Money is required for the advertising necessary to win a political office in the U.S. It has been proven over and over that name recognition, of either the candidate or her associated political party, is the key to winning an election. Campaign donations are supposed to be a way for less wealthy, but more deserving, candidates to be able to compete against super-wealthy candiates.
This is not how reality has worked out, but the basic intention was good. Without campaign donations we might as well go back to a hereditary monarchy with full royal court. Of course, what we have now is the election of whoever can convince the most special interest groups that they will get special legislation if they donate money, so maybe a hereditary ruling class might be less corrupt. You might have a point.
I am *confident* that most americans don't mind people who are taking calls to and from the middle east are being monitored.
Ahhhh...but you see that is the point. How do you know that only people who are takiing calls to and from the middle east are being monitored. How do you know they aren't also monitoring those domestic terrorist from the ELF group? Oh, that's OK, is it? Well how do you know they aren't monitoring everyone who tries to buy any form of explosive, or explosive ingredient? Oh, that's OK, is it? What? Nitrogen based fertilizer can be used as an ingredient in explosives? So every farmer, or even yourself (because you bought fertilizer at Home Depot for your garden) might be being monitored? Well, that's why we have the FISA court, to make sure the goverment only monitors legitimate suspects. Oh, the goverment deliberately did not go through the FISA court for any of this surveillance because they thought the FISA court would not approve it? Wait a minute! How do we know who they are doing surveillance on then?
Oh, cause GWB says it's all OK, don't worry our little heads about it.
Actually the scariest thing I've heard so far is the white house excuse that the Congress gave GWB authority to take any measure necessary to protect the nation from terrorist attack, including direct violation of existing Federal Law. Using that logic, when the 2008 elections come around, obviously, GWB can't be elected again, and since no one can keep the country safe like he has (we haven't had another attack while he's been in office have we?), he has a mandate and authority from Congress to suspend term limits, heck even suspend the general election until this whole "War on Terror" thing is wrapped up.
Or Gee, maybe the thousands of political enemies of George Bush, Jr. (since we're throwing out wild speculation on just what that data contains) who are innocent of any crime, but are being targeted for future harrassment, will find out in time to defend themselves.
The government and it's psycophant apologizers constantly tell us that,"If we're not doing anything wrong, we shouldn't worry about our actions being watched." If that goes for the populace it must certainly go for the government. If they aren't doing anything wrong, why are they so reluctant to have any kind of oversight?
I have a friend that's into running marathons. She spends far more time exercising than I spend on the computer. I keep telling her that it's an unhealthy addiction and she needs to get a hobby.
The one big reason I support AIDS research is precisely because it is a "fashionable" disease. We finally have a virus that the general public, political figures, and media/publicity types will support spending massive amounts of time and money researching a cure for. Every single breakthrough or discovery in researching AIDS helps the research on all of the ther viral diseases out there, that no one has spent much money or time on.
Cancer research has made huge advances in the last 50 years. Bacterial disease prevention and cure is at an amazing level compared to 50 years ago. Genetic disorders, heart disease, allergic reactions, etc. have all had large advances in their areas. The success of these has been due in large part to one or both of two factors. Either some celebrity gets the disease, or supports research into curing it (Jerry Lewis telethon, etc.) or the barriers to research are low, with significant gains acheivable by just finding improved ways of doing what is already being done.
Viral infections, however, are notoriously intractable to anything we try. Until AIDS came along we had very little understanding of how virii operated and what their lifecycle consisted of. Up until AIDS, very few virii were widespread-debilitating-and most importantly-lethal. It is hard to generate the kind of support for research needed to attack the problem with poster diseases like Herpes, Influenza, Chicken Pox, and the Measles. Especially since we have been somewhat successful with the strategy of developing an inoculation then letting all the non-inoculated die off. Worked with Small Pox, almost finished with Polio, if we can get the Africans to stop killing the doctors providing inoculation.
If we can actually figure out how to cure someone from any single virus, the door opens to treatments for the last great frontier of immunological pathology. If it takes jumping on a bandwagon to support battling an entirely preventable disease killing a fashionable (but minor in number to the sufferers of other diseases) portion of society, I'll be right there leading the band and beating the big drum.
Turn in your/. - geek cred immediatly! Shame on you for not including long distance upskirts/voyuerism in your short list of applications. Everyone knows that porn is what drives all new technologies.
Not to mention resale value on hybrids is gonna be pathetic.
When is someone going to want to get rid of their hybrid, just before or just after they have to replace ~$5,000 worth of batteries? Especially when that battery replacement is going to be required in the same 3-5 year period that most people buy a new vehicle in. Think about it. Do you put new tires on the car you are selling, or leave the old worn out ones on, knowing that the cost of new tires will be more than you can increase the resale price for?
Expect to see a slew of used hybrids hit the market in 2008-2010 with worn out batteries that will cost unsuspecting buyers an extra 25%-50% over purchase price to keep running.
American: In America we have great, unabridgable rights like Freedom of Speach. I can go stand in front of the White House and yell "President Carter is a jerk" and no one can do anything to me.
Russian: That's nothing. I can go stand in front of the Kremlin and yell "President Carter is a jerk" and they will give me a medal.
Slashdot Mirror
And here, since this is
Then we could have all the follow on comments about hot grits, Portman, and statues.
So, it sounds like they just re-invented puppeteers?
Actually, you are correct about there being no difference. However, we have passed laws banning the open display of such materials at point-of-sale. Everywhere you go now that has adult content for sale in areas open to minors is required to have them in black bags, or some such. But there is no law about someone sitting down with a playboy on the subway or bus. And I have just as much concern about it. I actually rode the subway (light-rail) into downtown last week and there was a guy (18-20 y.o. kid) showing off his new 3G phone to his friends, and, while I did not see the screen, the moans, sounds, and "conversation" issuing from the device left no doubt about the type of video clip he was using as a demonstration.
Like I said in my post, this is an area where the Libertarian in me buts up against the parent in me. I am nothing even close to a prude, and yes my son has seen "adult" material in certain contexts. I do not want him growing up a sheltered wall-flower unable to cope with the reality of society around him. I also think that, in the U.S., we are way too repressed when it comes to nudity. I actually would not really have a problem with my neighbor on the bus having a Playboy, or possibly even a Hustler. Hard-core bondage porn, water sports, or a collection of goatse and tubgirl's best are things I don't want to have to see in public, let alone have my son exposed to. I hate to see laws restricting people's rights to be an ass, but the old adage of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose," needs to be updated when we are talking about "your right to view something I consider unwholesome, ends at the edge of my viewing range." That is not an acceptable replacement adage, but we need to (well it would be nice if we could) find a common consensus about where such things are acceptable and how to warn people who might be protective about situations not to go into.
Some examples include:
I have no problem with nudist camps or beaches. They are clearly marked and people can go or avoid as they see fit.
I have no problem with "lifestyle" conventions or parties at hotels, restaurants, etc., as long as there is sufficient warning for patrons who are entering or making reservations for the same time.
I had a bit of a problem with the movie Bloodrayne. (ok, no comments from the peanut gallery on all of the horrible problems it has as a movie or story.) Yes, it was an R rated movie, but I take my son to many R rated movies. I expected the blood and gore, I even expected selected boobie shots. I didn't expect, and had not seen mentioned in any of the reviews, the totally gratuitous explicit sex scene in the middle of the movie. Now, unlike another parent who had brought their child to the same movie, I didn't gasp loudly, plaster my hand over my child's eyes, then loudly complain (as if the manager were actually near enough to hear or care) about the scene. It's an R rating, you takes your chances. Had I known, in detail, about that scene, no I probably would not have taken my son to see the movie.
I guess I am just lamenting the loss of courtesy and discression among the general masses when it comes what is appropriate in a public forum with no notice to passersby to choose to be exposed or not. Then again, in Japan they sell used panites (represented as from little girls) in vending machines on the street available and open to everyone. Maybe it just is my cultural bias showing through.
Ding, ding, ding!!!! Poor advertising is one of the few non-IT specialties that consistently maintains 5 nines reliability. Even Googles targeted adwords are over 50% irrelevant on most of the things I search for. Except when I am actually searching for a product. Then they all point to shysters and shady businesses I would never trust with my credit card number.
The problem is that mass advertising is so much easier and more effective than targeted advertising. Yes, the total expense is greater, but the marketing droids are addicted to eyeball count, not sales-per-view. If this wasn't the case spam email would have died out long ago. But Madison Ave. just believes on a grand scale what the \/1@grA scammers put into practice on a daily basis. True or not, the perception is that selling feminine hygene products in a $2 Mil super bowl ad results in much higher total profits than selling the same product in a $50k add during afternoon soaps.
The parent poster's point is valid across media. Most of the EU has fairly strict regulations on what type of content can be broadcast, or when certain kinds of content is allowed. What the proposed rules state is that if you don't allow hate speech on radio or TV, it shouldn't be allowed on any broadcast, just because it is on a phone and IP instead of a portable TV receiver shouldn't make a difference. Or, if adult content is limited to broadcast after 10 p.m. to avoid children seeing it, a similar restriction should be in place for cell phones.
I am generally not an advocate for this kind of restriction, and yes I am a parent. However, what I am more concerned with is the fact that all of this is mobile. I don't care if you watch soft porn at home for a lunchtime quickie... I do have a problem sitting beside you with my son on the subway while you run playboy channel with the sound turned up. At any time of the day.
I can control what my child is exposed to, and how he is exposed to it, at home. Having some slimeball thrust his fantasies into everyone's face in a public venue should be unacceptable from the stand point of common courtesy, let alone from a legal standpoint. However, like sense, courtesy is not so common any more.
I've done a lot of driving along country highways. Have ssen various wildlife alongside the road at both day and night. Elk beside the road 1 mile ahead during the day, I can see as a possible situation where a human driver would see and have time to formulate a correct action to avoid an incident. However, most vehicle-animal incidents occur at night, at relatively high speeds, with little to no warning. The accident records that I review as part of my job most tend to reveal that in night time vehicle-animal incidents, the vast majority of bad wrecks come from the driver noticing the animal far to late to take any effective action, but taking a panic induced reaction anyway that results in complete loss of control of the vehicle.
Actually it's closer to hiring a cab, or a chauffer. Both things that people would like, and that people who can afford it use. Public transport is slow (all of those stops for other people's destinations), messy, and, well... so very public.
The beauty of an autonomous roads system would be chauffer convenience at public transport, or private automobile price. I think, except for the control freaks, speed fanatics, and conspiracy theorists, that the vast majority of people will accept this, once it is ubiquitous. The one glaring downside is additional cost. The infrastructure upgrades needed to make this easy with current technology would require more money to be spent on roads, i.e. higher taxes, and the increase in automobile price will be noticable. Much like the infrared video system in some of the high end cars now, the question isn't one of increased safety, it is whether we will ever be able to make it cheap enough to fit in a Kia, that the average family can afford. Because, if we don't get enough market penetration, or a high enough percentage of vehicles on the road equipped with the technology, we won't see the benefits of reduced accidents and reduced congestion.
I will, slightly, agree with your contention that computer and human controlled vehicles will not co-exist on the same structure. However, there are already numerous examples of seperated roadways that carry automated vehicles. Las Vegas has just installed an automated busway where the buses have drivers, but in reality, the bus does 99% of the driving with the driver just there "in case" (really just there so the people on board don't freak out over no human driver). You also see more and more HOV lanes going in all over the country. It wouldn't take much to turn the HOV lanes into high-speed automated vehicle lanes.
All of the other points in your article are merely technological difficulties, and not particularly difficult ones to solve. Solving cost effectively right now is the issue, but as technology is improved in testing and the incremental cost comes down it is almost inevitable.
In addition, are you serious that you believe a human being in a car at night is more likely to notice a deer at the side of the road at highway speeds than a computerized hazard identification system? Let alone said human being able to take an appropriate action in sufficient time. Humans work on the order of seconds, while a decent control system will work on the order of milliseconds. This would make a huge difference in a lot of cases.
Add to this the fact that the vast majority of drivers would really prefer to be able to get into their car in the garage, tell it to take them to work, then sit and read the paper, talk on the phone, apply makeup, etc. and have the vehicle deliver them to the front door of their office in a fast, safe manner... then go park itself to wait until they needed it again. The representative audience of
Your contention that "something will go wrong, it will cost significant human life, it will be abandoned" is laughable. The system we have today kills over 45,000 americans per year. To me that's pretty significant loss of life, and not only do I not see people trying to abandon the system, I see idiots all over (in this discussion thread even) defending it in the name of "I should be free to drive like an asshat if I want to."
Of course, your Subaru has all-wheel drive. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. I agree for stabilty in a larger range of conditions, all-wheel drive is great. However, the added complexity and cost is a serious trade off.
And here I just thought everything sucked.
I'll stop channeling my inner goth now.
Actually the x50v has a 624 Mhz processor, 64MB RAM and 128MB internal ROM and a full 640x480 vga screen. Throw in the 2GB SD card and 4GB CF card I have and it should be a sweet little machine.
As to the size, I already carry a paperback book around with me almost everywhere. I do some book reading on the Axim (much better than my old Palm), but there is still something about paper I like, and the screen is about half the size I would prefer for book reading. The bookreader software doesn't support scrolling, except autoscroll, any more, and flipping the page every 150 oor so words is annoying, especially since a lot of the technical and non-fiction I read lends itself to looking back several sentances or paragraphs as you read along to keep things straight.
As an owner of a Windows Mobile PDA (Dell Axim x50v) I can say authoratatively that Windows Mobile software sucks in so many ways it's hard to count. The OS is buggy, slow, an so severly crippled in areas that desktop users take for granted that it is physically painful to use. The software selection for add-on programs is so diminuative that when I switched from PalmOS, I honestly thought that I had to be missing some secret community of developers. I couldn't believe that 1) there were no Windows versions of so many of the Palm apps that I had found essential, and 2) there was no active community of programmers and hobbiests trading code and writing scripts to do all the little things that hadn't been included in the OS.
The Windows Mobile world is dominated by a very few developers who write commercial software for profit. The wonderful selection of little free/share-ware apps that exist in the desktop and Palm world is totally non-existent in the WinMobile world. In addition, MS makes it exremely difficult for the hobbiest to "play around" with the devices and this keeps many who might be interested from even bothering.
Some examples:
There is one, and only one, program that can be used to completely backup your Windows Mobile device, and it is not included with the OS. This program must be bought, from a third party, and the WM 5.0 version took 4 months to be released after WM 5.0 was released.
To "Active Sync" your WM 5.0 device you MUST have Outlook or Outlook Express, not only installed on your windows desktop, but it MUST be the default email client.
There are only two usable alternatives to the internal contact/calender management programs, both commercial software, and almost no external script abilitiy to customize these apps beyond the limited choices offered by the developers.
I left Palm because the hardware offereings have fallen so far behind state-of-the-art it is pathetic. My Dell has built-in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, SD card slot, CF Card slot, and a true VGA screen. There is no comparable Palm offering, even the rediculously overpriced LifeDrive. I find myself using my Dell much less than I used to use my Palm, with the exception of GPS navigation, which the Palm couldn't do at all. I am using my laptop much more, but carrying that bulk around is tiresome, in more ways than one.
I will definately be keeping my eyes on these new devices. If I could get a $600-$800 device in a paperback size form factor, with a full OS, good battery life and a thumb keyboard, I would jump at the chance.
Wha? Run that by me again.
How would removing all campaign donations "put things on an even footing"? Money is required for the advertising necessary to win a political office in the U.S. It has been proven over and over that name recognition, of either the candidate or her associated political party, is the key to winning an election. Campaign donations are supposed to be a way for less wealthy, but more deserving, candidates to be able to compete against super-wealthy candiates.
This is not how reality has worked out, but the basic intention was good. Without campaign donations we might as well go back to a hereditary monarchy with full royal court. Of course, what we have now is the election of whoever can convince the most special interest groups that they will get special legislation if they donate money, so maybe a hereditary ruling class might be less corrupt. You might have a point.
Ahhhh...but you see that is the point. How do you know that only people who are takiing calls to and from the middle east are being monitored. How do you know they aren't also monitoring those domestic terrorist from the ELF group? Oh, that's OK, is it? Well how do you know they aren't monitoring everyone who tries to buy any form of explosive, or explosive ingredient? Oh, that's OK, is it? What? Nitrogen based fertilizer can be used as an ingredient in explosives? So every farmer, or even yourself (because you bought fertilizer at Home Depot for your garden) might be being monitored? Well, that's why we have the FISA court, to make sure the goverment only monitors legitimate suspects. Oh, the goverment deliberately did not go through the FISA court for any of this surveillance because they thought the FISA court would not approve it? Wait a minute! How do we know who they are doing surveillance on then?
Oh, cause GWB says it's all OK, don't worry our little heads about it.
Actually the scariest thing I've heard so far is the white house excuse that the Congress gave GWB authority to take any measure necessary to protect the nation from terrorist attack, including direct violation of existing Federal Law. Using that logic, when the 2008 elections come around, obviously, GWB can't be elected again, and since no one can keep the country safe like he has (we haven't had another attack while he's been in office have we?), he has a mandate and authority from Congress to suspend term limits, heck even suspend the general election until this whole "War on Terror" thing is wrapped up.
Or Gee, maybe the thousands of political enemies of George Bush, Jr. (since we're throwing out wild speculation on just what that data contains) who are innocent of any crime, but are being targeted for future harrassment, will find out in time to defend themselves.
The government and it's psycophant apologizers constantly tell us that,"If we're not doing anything wrong, we shouldn't worry about our actions being watched." If that goes for the populace it must certainly go for the government. If they aren't doing anything wrong, why are they so reluctant to have any kind of oversight?
Yeah, but investors who realize that people will always budget for their vices first get better ROI.
Why the pigeons will keep it going of course.
I have a friend that's into running marathons. She spends far more time exercising than I spend on the computer. I keep telling her that it's an unhealthy addiction and she needs to get a hobby.
The one big reason I support AIDS research is precisely because it is a "fashionable" disease. We finally have a virus that the general public, political figures, and media/publicity types will support spending massive amounts of time and money researching a cure for. Every single breakthrough or discovery in researching AIDS helps the research on all of the ther viral diseases out there, that no one has spent much money or time on.
Cancer research has made huge advances in the last 50 years. Bacterial disease prevention and cure is at an amazing level compared to 50 years ago. Genetic disorders, heart disease, allergic reactions, etc. have all had large advances in their areas. The success of these has been due in large part to one or both of two factors. Either some celebrity gets the disease, or supports research into curing it (Jerry Lewis telethon, etc.) or the barriers to research are low, with significant gains acheivable by just finding improved ways of doing what is already being done.
Viral infections, however, are notoriously intractable to anything we try. Until AIDS came along we had very little understanding of how virii operated and what their lifecycle consisted of. Up until AIDS, very few virii were widespread-debilitating-and most importantly-lethal. It is hard to generate the kind of support for research needed to attack the problem with poster diseases like Herpes, Influenza, Chicken Pox, and the Measles. Especially since we have been somewhat successful with the strategy of developing an inoculation then letting all the non-inoculated die off. Worked with Small Pox, almost finished with Polio, if we can get the Africans to stop killing the doctors providing inoculation.
If we can actually figure out how to cure someone from any single virus, the door opens to treatments for the last great frontier of immunological pathology. If it takes jumping on a bandwagon to support battling an entirely preventable disease killing a fashionable (but minor in number to the sufferers of other diseases) portion of society, I'll be right there leading the band and beating the big drum.
Turn in your
'nuff said.
Or was this the time for a "you must be new here" comment?
Not to mention resale value on hybrids is gonna be pathetic.
When is someone going to want to get rid of their hybrid, just before or just after they have to replace ~$5,000 worth of batteries? Especially when that battery replacement is going to be required in the same 3-5 year period that most people buy a new vehicle in. Think about it. Do you put new tires on the car you are selling, or leave the old worn out ones on, knowing that the cost of new tires will be more than you can increase the resale price for?
Expect to see a slew of used hybrids hit the market in 2008-2010 with worn out batteries that will cost unsuspecting buyers an extra 25%-50% over purchase price to keep running.
There are just some comments that the +5 limit should be waived for. Ten out of ten for style...
Exactly...you see my problem. They all end up like that.
Old Soviet Russia joke...
American: In America we have great, unabridgable rights like Freedom of Speach. I can go stand in front of the White House and yell "President Carter is a jerk" and no one can do anything to me.
Russian: That's nothing. I can go stand in front of the Kremlin and yell "President Carter is a jerk" and they will give me a medal.