There are geeks who think Windows sucks, And won't pay B. Gates the bucks, Screams geek expertise: "Kill all Windows keys!" Switch to a keyboard with Tux!
the firewall that the spam trojan is legitimate traffic?
I'm pretty sure that most folks see the little "Allow this application to connect?" dialog and click OK automatically. That's what Windows has been teaching them to do for eons... try and delete something, then click Ok. Try and close a program, then click Ok.
So when the firewall says "Do you want to allow Bob's Friendly Spam Puppy to connect to the Internet?" they just automatically click Ok. This is additionally reinforced when they click "No" after seeing "Do you want to allow msimn.exe to connect to the Internet" (What's that anyway - sound suspicous!) and mail stops working. Oh oh! Better never click No!
Communism, unfortunately, is one of those ideas that is brilliant in theory and (IMO) impossible in practice.
When Marx came up with the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" idea, he completely failed to account for two (almost) universal human conditions: greed and sloth. In the end, the only way to get "from each" is coersion and disagreements about what contstitutes a "need" are inevitable. You wind up with a few thousand commissars living in dachas on the Volga, and a few hundred-million colectivized farmers living in utter poverty. No thanks.
Creativity and communism (in practice), while not mutually exclusive, certainly aren't sublimely compatible.
Don't think so... Drying out requires the water in the body to go somewhere else.
At the temperatures in space this far from the sun, I think a corpsicle is more likely than a mummy.
I agree with your response - the "greed" of individuals is _not_ negative. Totally, 100% spot on.
But I'd also argue that corporations are not "greedy" in the anthropomorphic sense you're indicating. Corporations are that way because they're started and run by people with that motivation... The CEO, VP's, venture capitalists, shareholders, and employees are all driven by (for want of a better term) the profit motive.
I know there's no easy solution to the problems we're facing as globalization impacts the US economy. I hope my post didn't sound like laisse fair captialism was some magic bullet that would solve all our ills. Certainly there's a need for a "safety net" while the economy is undergoing this change.
As I said, I'm just not convinced that a "5-year plan" or "Great leap forward" is going to resolve the problems more quickly than letting market forces work.
1. Tax US companies that move jobs overseas 2. Watch while U.S. companies go under because they're unable to compete on cost 3. See tax revenues fall as the US economy tanks.
Economics isn't as straighforward as the parent seems to imply. Capital has always been mobile. Now labor is, too.
US companies move jobs overseas for a number of reasons - one of which is the need to compete in both the US and world markets against foreign companies that use cheap labor to reduce their price-point. If the gov't taxes these companies for moving the jobs overseas, where do you think the money to pay those taxes is going to come from... thin air? Nope - higher prices. And when the US companies raise prices, what will consumers buy at the local Stuff-Mart? Non-US products. That's rather counter-productive if you're looking to keep US jobs.
Think about past situations that are (somewhat) analogous to the current one... Say textile manufacturing. When non-US textile companies started competing against US companies in the US market, prices fell and yes, some US companies went out of business. But that's because those companies couldn't compete on cost (or apparently, quality). That "inefficient" portion of the US economy shrank and there are very few US-based textile manufacturers left. But our economy moved on to focus on different strengths - manufacturing and then "technology."
I'm afraid that I'm not willing to conceed economic planning to the government. We all know where that leads For now, despite the fact that I've been laid off twice in three years, I'm still more confident in allowing the economy to be directed by market forces (within reason, of course) than by the inteligence of our elected officials.
Capitalism (of the laisse fair type) succeeds because it's based on a solid reality - human greed, and the necessity of restraining it.
Offshoring is a sensitive topic, I know. But the solution isn't necessarily government intervention to prevent it. IMO, it makes more sense to try and ease the impact on laid off workers than to prevent economic forces from making the market more efficient.
Leaving aside the Beowulf cluster jokes... I wonder if these could work cooperatively? It seems like six or eight of them could move light stuff around.
Or for projects were more than one view would be helpful (aligning parts by remote, for instance) because of the lack of image depth, you could send two or three to capture an image from different viewpoints to help with the alignment.
If someone is too stupid to use a _second_ free email account, on a different service, to back up "vital" data, they deserve what they get. Poor or rich, it's such an obvious solution that if they didn't see it... too bad.
IANAGE (I am not a genetics expert) but my experience of the universe tells against any "end to aging." All natural systems decay and breakdown.
With a system as complex as the human body, it seems unlikley that science will be able to overcome this decay. At the cellular level, there are millions of processes that are occurring every day to sustain life. Any one of these can go awry. Many do, and contribute to what we call aging.
It may be possible to lengthen life. Perhaps significantly (say a factor of 2) but I think perpetual youth is still... unlikley
I know that many cars already come with OBD II compliant ports (http://www.obdii.com/) and there are interfaces out there to hook your laptop to the OBD port and check the engine management software. Indeed there are tools to remap the engine software that use the same OBD port (I've installed this on my BMW)
Given that this type of standardized interface exists, and that tools for "exploiting" it are readily available and fairly cheap, I don't see how it would be possible to keep this information (error codes and the like) secret.
1. Consumers are already getting used to the subscription model; they buy the anti-virus software and then pay a yearly subscription for updates. This seems to be a pretty widely accepted policy.
2. Some people (myself included) would be wary of "leasing" or "renting" hardware, because they'll want to know what will happen to "their" data when the hardware rental agreement expires. This would be especially problematic if there were some sort of DRM or other scheme that would prevent your using the hardware when the subscription was up. I don't see businesses going for that, either.
Call me crazy, but I actually just keep logically structured directories and make sure to save items into the appropriate location... It's much simpler to take 10 seconds to place a file in the appropriate directory at the start than to hunt for it later.
Even when a file crosses multiple logical groups, (picture, jpg, family, nephews, 2004) if my information categories are sensible, and I use a heirarchy that makes sense to me, I don't need search that often. In fact, I can't recall the last time I had to do a search of my drive to find a file. (I should probably mention that my work requires a lot of information mapping, so creating and maintaining such a structure is trivial for me)
Of course, since Windows search is so inefficient and (sometimes) problematic, I learned long ago not to rely on it.
Take 30 seconds and go look up the braking distance numbers for a 2597 lb. 2004 Honda Civic and a 7200 lb GMC Yukon. At three times the weight, the Yukon takes almost twice the distance to stop from 60 mph as the Honda.
The reason it's safer for the smaller car to travel faster is that the stopping distance (if there's a pedestrian or stopped car around the corner) is about 1/2 as long.
Of course there's visibility as a factor, but visibility around a curve (as opposed to over the tops of other vehicles, or a hill - which is why I chose this example traffic) is the same in most cases for an SUV and a sports car, so it's still all about physics.
Slashdot Mirror
There are geeks who think Windows sucks,
;o)
And won't pay B. Gates the bucks,
Screams geek expertise:
"Kill all Windows keys!"
Switch to a keyboard with Tux!
Sorry - I don't know what came over me
5 is right out...
3 shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be 3. Four shalt thou not count...
the firewall that the spam trojan is legitimate traffic?
I'm pretty sure that most folks see the little "Allow this application to connect?" dialog and click OK automatically. That's what Windows has been teaching them to do for eons... try and delete something, then click Ok. Try and close a program, then click Ok.
So when the firewall says "Do you want to allow Bob's Friendly Spam Puppy to connect to the Internet?" they just automatically click Ok. This is additionally reinforced when they click "No" after seeing "Do you want to allow msimn.exe to connect to the Internet" (What's that anyway - sound suspicous!) and mail stops working. Oh oh! Better never click No!
There's no silver bullet.
(Stabs self)
Communism, unfortunately, is one of those ideas that is brilliant in theory and (IMO) impossible in practice. When Marx came up with the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" idea, he completely failed to account for two (almost) universal human conditions: greed and sloth. In the end, the only way to get "from each" is coersion and disagreements about what contstitutes a "need" are inevitable. You wind up with a few thousand commissars living in dachas on the Volga, and a few hundred-million colectivized farmers living in utter poverty. No thanks. Creativity and communism (in practice), while not mutually exclusive, certainly aren't sublimely compatible.
That's what I want to know :-)
Just my $0.02
You say YES!
(Visions of the 300 ft. Stay-Puft marshmallow man dancing in my head)
Don't think so... Drying out requires the water in the body to go somewhere else. At the temperatures in space this far from the sun, I think a corpsicle is more likely than a mummy.
Now when I lose my pen, I'll be losing both a pen AND my data!
I agree with your response - the "greed" of individuals is _not_ negative. Totally, 100% spot on.
But I'd also argue that corporations are not "greedy" in the anthropomorphic sense you're indicating. Corporations are that way because they're started and run by people with that motivation... The CEO, VP's, venture capitalists, shareholders, and employees are all driven by (for want of a better term) the profit motive.
I know there's no easy solution to the problems we're facing as globalization impacts the US economy. I hope my post didn't sound like laisse fair captialism was some magic bullet that would solve all our ills. Certainly there's a need for a "safety net" while the economy is undergoing this change.
As I said, I'm just not convinced that a "5-year plan" or "Great leap forward" is going to resolve the problems more quickly than letting market forces work.
1. Tax US companies that move jobs overseas
2. Watch while U.S. companies go under because they're unable to compete on cost
3. See tax revenues fall as the US economy tanks.
Economics isn't as straighforward as the parent seems to imply. Capital has always been mobile. Now labor is, too.
US companies move jobs overseas for a number of reasons - one of which is the need to compete in both the US and world markets against foreign companies that use cheap labor to reduce their price-point. If the gov't taxes these companies for moving the jobs overseas, where do you think the money to pay those taxes is going to come from... thin air? Nope - higher prices. And when the US companies raise prices, what will consumers buy at the local Stuff-Mart? Non-US products. That's rather counter-productive if you're looking to keep US jobs.
Think about past situations that are (somewhat) analogous to the current one... Say textile manufacturing. When non-US textile companies started competing against US companies in the US market, prices fell and yes, some US companies went out of business. But that's because those companies couldn't compete on cost (or apparently, quality). That "inefficient" portion of the US economy shrank and there are very few US-based textile manufacturers left. But our economy moved on to focus on different strengths - manufacturing and then "technology."
I'm afraid that I'm not willing to conceed economic planning to the government. We all know where that leads For now, despite the fact that I've been laid off twice in three years, I'm still more confident in allowing the economy to be directed by market forces (within reason, of course) than by the inteligence of our elected officials.
Capitalism (of the laisse fair type) succeeds because it's based on a solid reality - human greed, and the necessity of restraining it.
Offshoring is a sensitive topic, I know. But the solution isn't necessarily government intervention to prevent it. IMO, it makes more sense to try and ease the impact on laid off workers than to prevent economic forces from making the market more efficient.
Ha! Loved that flick... Anybody got any Plutonium Nyborg?
Leaving aside the Beowulf cluster jokes... I wonder if these could work cooperatively? It seems like six or eight of them could move light stuff around.
Or for projects were more than one view would be helpful (aligning parts by remote, for instance) because of the lack of image depth, you could send two or three to capture an image from different viewpoints to help with the alignment.
Cool!
SO finds envelope :-)
This is nonsense...
If someone is too stupid to use a _second_ free email account, on a different service, to back up "vital" data, they deserve what they get. Poor or rich, it's such an obvious solution that if they didn't see it... too bad.
If these two drive technology, then what will happen when they converge?
:-)
Sexy soldier robots? CGI fighting-game character p()rn? Virtual mud-wrestling? The possibilities endless!
This is slashdot...
'nuf said.
IANAGE (I am not a genetics expert) but my experience of the universe tells against any "end to aging." All natural systems decay and breakdown.
With a system as complex as the human body, it seems unlikley that science will be able to overcome this decay. At the cellular level, there are millions of processes that are occurring every day to sustain life. Any one of these can go awry. Many do, and contribute to what we call aging.
It may be possible to lengthen life. Perhaps significantly (say a factor of 2) but I think perpetual youth is still... unlikley
When science "solves" entropy, get back to me
Oh, never mind :-)
I know that many cars already come with OBD II compliant ports (http://www.obdii.com/) and there are interfaces out there to hook your laptop to the OBD port and check the engine management software. Indeed there are tools to remap the engine software that use the same OBD port (I've installed this on my BMW)
Given that this type of standardized interface exists, and that tools for "exploiting" it are readily available and fairly cheap, I don't see how it would be possible to keep this information (error codes and the like) secret.
Two (opposing) thoughts:
1. Consumers are already getting used to the subscription model; they buy the anti-virus software and then pay a yearly subscription for updates. This seems to be a pretty widely accepted policy.
2. Some people (myself included) would be wary of "leasing" or "renting" hardware, because they'll want to know what will happen to "their" data when the hardware rental agreement expires. This would be especially problematic if there were some sort of DRM or other scheme that would prevent your using the hardware when the subscription was up. I don't see businesses going for that, either.
Call me crazy, but I actually just keep logically structured directories and make sure to save items into the appropriate location... It's much simpler to take 10 seconds to place a file in the appropriate directory at the start than to hunt for it later.
Even when a file crosses multiple logical groups, (picture, jpg, family, nephews, 2004) if my information categories are sensible, and I use a heirarchy that makes sense to me, I don't need search that often. In fact, I can't recall the last time I had to do a search of my drive to find a file. (I should probably mention that my work requires a lot of information mapping, so creating and maintaining such a structure is trivial for me)
Of course, since Windows search is so inefficient and (sometimes) problematic, I learned long ago not to rely on it.
bluez3
Sounds like there's another whole Dark universe out there. Anybody got a flashlight? :o)
bluez3
How is braking distance not about physics?
Take 30 seconds and go look up the braking distance numbers for a 2597 lb. 2004 Honda Civic and a 7200 lb GMC Yukon. At three times the weight, the Yukon takes almost twice the distance to stop from 60 mph as the Honda.
The reason it's safer for the smaller car to travel faster is that the stopping distance (if there's a pedestrian or stopped car around the corner) is about 1/2 as long.
Of course there's visibility as a factor, but visibility around a curve (as opposed to over the tops of other vehicles, or a hill - which is why I chose this example traffic) is the same in most cases for an SUV and a sports car, so it's still all about physics.
blueZ3