The actions made by these companies, right or wrong, are legal. You can't expect companies (or governments... or individuals) to stop doing this if it is convenient, profitable, and legal. We need some legislation that basically says that they can't publish, transmit, or sell personal information without prior consent. And that any such release - intentional or accidental - must be reported to the individual.
In the US, we have such legislation but it only applies to medical information. That is silly - there's just no reason for companies to be giving this stuff out.
Actually, let me go a step further -- they shouldn't even store this information. I walked into Target and returned some merchandise. It was really simple -- because they kept my credit card on file. I never told them they could do that. As I walked away, they said "Thank you [my name]" so they knew that too. Why is it okay for a store clerk to have this? Why did my credit card company give out the credit card number and name? They don't need that. They need to know "User 81234756897 authorized purchase for $57.34 to vendor 9234857 on 2010/05/23 17:24 with authorization #239485768934." That's it. It should have been illegal for my credit card company to even give the information. Then for Target to store it. As a nice side-benefit, this also prevents fraud since no one in the chain can use my credit card.
The platform is the benefit though. Right now it has 4GB/250GB is 1.6% flash. Once this proof-of-concept works, I bet they could make one with closer to 20% flash. At that point it might spin-up the platter drive rarely enough that the power-draw issue goes away. If the drive is usually parked, the shock benefits improve a bit. That might be a good-enough solution to stick around for 5-10 years before the next thing comes along.
Readyboost really doesn't help unless you have a really low-memory situation.
ReadyBoost goes through USB, which is a huge bottleneck. On top of that, most USB flash drives have really slow write speeds. ReadyBoost also has to read the file, then write it to the USB drive. Windows also must assume that the user could remove the flash drive at any point, so it can't cache writes. Integrating the cache into the drive solves all of these problems.
At present the local TV stations offer fantastic coverage of severe weather events
I find the internet actually provides better local coverage than TV or radio news.
Google maps, weather.com, etc are faster and more accurate than local broadcasts. Those sites are so local that when I leave the office, my phone tells me the state of the roads right at my very position. I've stopped using the local radio stations to get traffic reports because they only offer the reports every 11 minutes, and they try to cram all the traffic information for a 100 mile radius into a 45 second time slot. Auctioneers would be jealous of the traffic reporters.
Same thing goes for weather: I work 25 miles north of the city where I leave. The forecast is slightly different - it might rain at work but not at home. This is another thing the local forecast won't tell me, but the internet can.
FYI: In some states (I know Maryland and Pennsylvania), if someone gets hurt while performing a recreational activity on your property, and the landowner did not charge them for use of the land, the landowner is not liable.
The lawyers at the USHPGA drill this into all the members. They helped make these laws happen because people weren't allowing us to launch on their property out of fear of being sued.
But it seems you'd rather insult me than offer any geniune insight.
I didn't insult you because you want high-DPI displays. I insulted you because of your lack of reading comprehension.
Where are these mythical 150+dpi displays sold?
The very first post in this thread links to one. That's what started the discussion.
I have yet to see any for sale outside of the...
Aha! So you even know of them.
I want print-quality text on my monitor and I'm willing to compromise on a lot of other parameters to get it,
Except for price apparently. Every post you've complained that they are expensive. And every reply I've explained why manufacturing high DPI displays is pricier.
That doesn't answer the question. That is why it isn't stopped. The question is "why did it start?" There must be some cause that motivates them to even propose these bills.
The United States Senate thinks sharing photos is risky, but sharing DNA is okay. To become a US Senator, is it a requirement to lose all sense of perspective?
Logically, since they lowered prices to push Rambus out of the market, the money should go to Rambus. But... nobody would want that. yuck. This is simply a lose-lose situation for the entire planet Earth.
Arbitrage exploits inefficiencies, but it also reduces them.
But is it worth the risk of a market crash because of a software glitch?
Right now, my company stock can be bought for $12.30, or sold for $11.80. That's like a 4% fee to buying the stock.
What's wrong with that? There is uncertainty in the value of the stock. In your example, the traders don't want to sell the stock unless they can make 4% back - anything less is not worth the risk. This is just fine.
My point is that the average monitor is still stuck somewhere below 100dpi for no good reason.
My point is that 1) they aren't stuck, and 2) there is good reason for them to be behind.
Laptops are available with 145+dpi displays...Why can't I buy a desktop monitor with the same pixel density display as a 15.4" 1920x1200 Thinkpad?
You can. And they are expensive. Just like laptop displays are expensive.
- Somehow the panel manufacturers make it work for laptops etc.
Yes, just like they do for desktops. It's exactly the same - laptop displays are really expensive. This is why.
- It's just higher resolution, nothing fancy about it until you reach the limits of DVI etc.
There's a lot that is fancy about it. Memory usage, bandwidth, cost. Monitors work over more than just DVI connections. Manufacturing yields decrease by the square of the pixel density. So the higher the resolution, the harder it is to manufacture.
Can't see stuff because it's too small? Too bad, some of us can and glasses and contact lenses have been available for a long time.
I suggest you write to Sony and tell them how great your vision is. I'm sure they will jump right on making those high DPI displays just for you. Also, write a letter to everyone who can't read their monitors, and tell those morons to put on their friekin glasses! Or get contact lenses! Or surgery! They are holding you back! Sorry dude: the world does not revolve around you.
- I want to tile my windows for efficient usage without having them resized to unusuably small window sizes.
Then you are the 1%.
Just about any graphics adapter today can do at least 2560x1600 via dual link DVI, regardless of price
Your facts are simply wrong. For example: I work in a building with over 500 people. Most of them don't even have DVI connections.
Like all car analogies yours falls flat, you're comparing apples to oranges,
*facepalm*
Your analogy was stupid. I made an even stupider analogy to point out the flaws. The fact that you thought it was serious shows just how far-out there you are.
Why, when there have there been such massive leaps forwards in electronics as relates to personal computers in almost every aspect are we left with one glaring exception?
This really is the heart of the issue. It is a common fallacy. People see a leap in some area of technology, and assume that all areas of technology must scale the same way. The world isn't that way. The DPI of monitors doesn't scale linearly with the speed of microprocessors.
I took the opposite approach. I see it as a challenge to find a set of laws that would allow for C to change, but for the experiment to result in conservation of energy. That is how I like to think of Einstein and relativity: When he discovered that C is constant... what had to change for things to work? Space itself had to change. That's a crazy awesome leap of intellect. Maybe one is needed here too.
We aren't stuck at 100dpi. The monitor quoted by otuz is about 200 dpi. If you are asking why they aren't more common, and why they are so expensive. That is becaus they are: - Difficult to manufacture - Unsupported by most software - Pointless for 99% of applications - Require high-end hardware to even make use of it
You can't compare the DPI of mice to DPI of screens. To increase the resolution of a mouse you don't have to increase the density of the sensors. Creating high resolution LCD screens is not trivial. Your other comparisons are equally silly. I could make a similar plea: Dear car manufacturers, I just want a car that gets 500 miles per gallon, is that really so hard to understand? 30mpg is a stone age technology compared to the massive leaps forward every other piece of hardware has experienced. Even the lowly radio has increased it's signal gains 10-fold. Computers are 100x faster than they were a decade ago. Yet - my new car is just as large as my old one and doesn't even go as fast! Won't you please release a car that goes 500mph and fits in my pocket?
I agree. The ACS is not the best charity to donate to. Charity Navigator gives them 3 stars, so they aren't the worst - but they are still fairly inefficient, and as an AC pointed out their CEO makes millions of dollars.
One more thing: research grants to private corporations are still considered "program expenses."
I don't know about you, but I don't see a problem with that. It isn't perfect, but I don't think all research must be done by schools or non-profits. That isn't realistic unfortunately.
The ACS is definitely not a 4-star charity. Even if they were, what they do isn't really that important. I say this even though I have lost a family member to cancer, and another one was cured. There are better places to put your money.
I trust Charity Navigator a lot more than thus guy. His site looks like a non-profit organization, but it seems to be just one guy looking for a way to sell his own books. All the publications on the site are written by this one guy, Samuel Epstein. He criticizes the ACS, but his nonprofit isn't even listed on Charity Navigator.
in 1988 the ACS held a fund balance of over $400 million...Of that money, the ACS spent only $90 million— 26 percent of its budget— on medical research and programs
That was 22 years ago! Based on Charity Navigator, they spent 6.9% on administrative expenses, and 72.8% on programs. The names he mentions in his article aren't current.
It was probably a good criticism in it's time, and it appears that the ACS has reformed -- perhaps as a result of the article.
You are not alone. I can say it was before 2006, when I wrote my Myths about Network Neutrality article because already the idea was getting screwed-up.
As a side-note, the EPA is absurd about covering the water. A local marina was forced to scrap a design for their new piers because they were too wide. (The old piers were destroyed in hurrican Katrina.) Now, this river is miles wide, while the 2 piers are probably a few hundred feet long each. There's maybe 50 boats at the marina. Are those piers covering.1% of the water?.0001%? Yet the EPA forced the marina to cut the width of the piers in half. Now they are so narrow that they move when you walk on them and it is easy to fall off.
The problem is that these Flash apps would not support the Multitasking APIs (for example), users would say multitasking on iPhone does not work.
Just like regular iPhone apps. To use any new API, the developer must update the code, rebuild the app, resubmit it to the store, and get approval. Then the users would need to download the update.
I specifically said arrows because the circle system is dumb. The arrows system is mostly foolproof - far more so than the computer system.
After the whole election 2000 fiasco
The 2000 election was a fiasco because of electronic voting machines. You should point to 2000 as a reason NOT to use electronic voting, not a reason in favor of it.
Slashdot Mirror
The actions made by these companies, right or wrong, are legal. You can't expect companies (or governments... or individuals) to stop doing this if it is convenient, profitable, and legal. We need some legislation that basically says that they can't publish, transmit, or sell personal information without prior consent. And that any such release - intentional or accidental - must be reported to the individual.
In the US, we have such legislation but it only applies to medical information. That is silly - there's just no reason for companies to be giving this stuff out.
Actually, let me go a step further -- they shouldn't even store this information. I walked into Target and returned some merchandise. It was really simple -- because they kept my credit card on file. I never told them they could do that. As I walked away, they said "Thank you [my name]" so they knew that too. Why is it okay for a store clerk to have this? Why did my credit card company give out the credit card number and name? They don't need that. They need to know "User 81234756897 authorized purchase for $57.34 to vendor 9234857 on 2010/05/23 17:24 with authorization #239485768934." That's it. It should have been illegal for my credit card company to even give the information. Then for Target to store it. As a nice side-benefit, this also prevents fraud since no one in the chain can use my credit card.
The platform is the benefit though. Right now it has 4GB/250GB is 1.6% flash. Once this proof-of-concept works, I bet they could make one with closer to 20% flash. At that point it might spin-up the platter drive rarely enough that the power-draw issue goes away. If the drive is usually parked, the shock benefits improve a bit. That might be a good-enough solution to stick around for 5-10 years before the next thing comes along.
First, this only improves read speed as it's not used as a write-cache.
Are you sure that is how they implemented it? That is very foolish of them. That means this won't help my compile times.
And lastly, it's not quite going to match the price/capacity of traditional drives due to the need for mult-GB of SLC cache.
But it is darned close. I saw that this drive is only a $40 premium over existing drives. That sounds very worthwhile on a mid to high-end computer.
Readyboost really doesn't help unless you have a really low-memory situation.
ReadyBoost goes through USB, which is a huge bottleneck. On top of that, most USB flash drives have really slow write speeds. ReadyBoost also has to read the file, then write it to the USB drive. Windows also must assume that the user could remove the flash drive at any point, so it can't cache writes. Integrating the cache into the drive solves all of these problems.
Further, IBMs system requires investments in the tens of billions (if not hundreds)...
And now you know why IBM would prefer this approach.
At present the local TV stations offer fantastic coverage of severe weather events
I find the internet actually provides better local coverage than TV or radio news.
Google maps, weather.com, etc are faster and more accurate than local broadcasts. Those sites are so local that when I leave the office, my phone tells me the state of the roads right at my very position. I've stopped using the local radio stations to get traffic reports because they only offer the reports every 11 minutes, and they try to cram all the traffic information for a 100 mile radius into a 45 second time slot. Auctioneers would be jealous of the traffic reporters.
Same thing goes for weather: I work 25 miles north of the city where I leave. The forecast is slightly different - it might rain at work but not at home. This is another thing the local forecast won't tell me, but the internet can.
FYI: In some states (I know Maryland and Pennsylvania), if someone gets hurt while performing a recreational activity on your property, and the landowner did not charge them for use of the land, the landowner is not liable.
The lawyers at the USHPGA drill this into all the members. They helped make these laws happen because people weren't allowing us to launch on their property out of fear of being sued.
But it seems you'd rather insult me than offer any geniune insight.
I didn't insult you because you want high-DPI displays. I insulted you because of your lack of reading comprehension.
Where are these mythical 150+dpi displays sold?
The very first post in this thread links to one. That's what started the discussion.
I have yet to see any for sale outside of the...
Aha! So you even know of them.
I want print-quality text on my monitor and I'm willing to compromise on a lot of other parameters to get it,
Except for price apparently. Every post you've complained that they are expensive. And every reply I've explained why manufacturing high DPI displays is pricier.
That doesn't answer the question. That is why it isn't stopped. The question is "why did it start?" There must be some cause that motivates them to even propose these bills.
The United States Senate thinks sharing photos is risky, but sharing DNA is okay. To become a US Senator, is it a requirement to lose all sense of perspective?
Logically, since they lowered prices to push Rambus out of the market, the money should go to Rambus. But... nobody would want that. yuck. This is simply a lose-lose situation for the entire planet Earth.
Arbitrage exploits inefficiencies, but it also reduces them.
But is it worth the risk of a market crash because of a software glitch?
Right now, my company stock can be bought for $12.30, or sold for $11.80. That's like a 4% fee to buying the stock.
What's wrong with that? There is uncertainty in the value of the stock. In your example, the traders don't want to sell the stock unless they can make 4% back - anything less is not worth the risk. This is just fine.
My point is that the average monitor is still stuck somewhere below 100dpi for no good reason.
My point is that 1) they aren't stuck, and 2) there is good reason for them to be behind.
Laptops are available with 145+dpi displays...Why can't I buy a desktop monitor with the same pixel density display as a 15.4" 1920x1200 Thinkpad?
You can. And they are expensive. Just like laptop displays are expensive.
- Somehow the panel manufacturers make it work for laptops etc.
Yes, just like they do for desktops. It's exactly the same - laptop displays are really expensive. This is why.
- It's just higher resolution, nothing fancy about it until you reach the limits of DVI etc.
There's a lot that is fancy about it. Memory usage, bandwidth, cost. Monitors work over more than just DVI connections. Manufacturing yields decrease by the square of the pixel density. So the higher the resolution, the harder it is to manufacture.
Can't see stuff because it's too small? Too bad, some of us can and glasses and contact lenses have been available for a long time.
I suggest you write to Sony and tell them how great your vision is. I'm sure they will jump right on making those high DPI displays just for you. Also, write a letter to everyone who can't read their monitors, and tell those morons to put on their friekin glasses! Or get contact lenses! Or surgery! They are holding you back! Sorry dude: the world does not revolve around you.
- I want to tile my windows for efficient usage without having them resized to unusuably small window sizes.
Then you are the 1%.
Just about any graphics adapter today can do at least 2560x1600 via dual link DVI, regardless of price
Your facts are simply wrong. For example: I work in a building with over 500 people. Most of them don't even have DVI connections.
Like all car analogies yours falls flat, you're comparing apples to oranges,
*facepalm*
Your analogy was stupid. I made an even stupider analogy to point out the flaws. The fact that you thought it was serious shows just how far-out there you are.
Why, when there have there been such massive leaps forwards in electronics as relates to personal computers in almost every aspect are we left with one glaring exception?
This really is the heart of the issue. It is a common fallacy. People see a leap in some area of technology, and assume that all areas of technology must scale the same way. The world isn't that way. The DPI of monitors doesn't scale linearly with the speed of microprocessors.
I took the opposite approach. I see it as a challenge to find a set of laws that would allow for C to change, but for the experiment to result in conservation of energy. That is how I like to think of Einstein and relativity: When he discovered that C is constant... what had to change for things to work? Space itself had to change. That's a crazy awesome leap of intellect. Maybe one is needed here too.
Why are we still stuck at 100dpi?
We aren't stuck at 100dpi. The monitor quoted by otuz is about 200 dpi. If you are asking why they aren't more common, and why they are so expensive. That is becaus they are:
- Difficult to manufacture
- Unsupported by most software
- Pointless for 99% of applications
- Require high-end hardware to even make use of it
You can't compare the DPI of mice to DPI of screens. To increase the resolution of a mouse you don't have to increase the density of the sensors. Creating high resolution LCD screens is not trivial. Your other comparisons are equally silly. I could make a similar plea: Dear car manufacturers, I just want a car that gets 500 miles per gallon, is that really so hard to understand? 30mpg is a stone age technology compared to the massive leaps forward every other piece of hardware has experienced. Even the lowly radio has increased it's signal gains 10-fold. Computers are 100x faster than they were a decade ago. Yet - my new car is just as large as my old one and doesn't even go as fast! Won't you please release a car that goes 500mph and fits in my pocket?
I agree. The ACS is not the best charity to donate to. Charity Navigator gives them 3 stars, so they aren't the worst - but they are still fairly inefficient, and as an AC pointed out their CEO makes millions of dollars.
One more thing: research grants to private corporations are still considered "program expenses."
I don't know about you, but I don't see a problem with that. It isn't perfect, but I don't think all research must be done by schools or non-profits. That isn't realistic unfortunately.
Agreed.
The ACS is definitely not a 4-star charity. Even if they were, what they do isn't really that important. I say this even though I have lost a family member to cancer, and another one was cured. There are better places to put your money.
That article is a bit sketchy, and way out of date. Take a look at this instead: Charity Navigator on the American Cancer Society
I trust Charity Navigator a lot more than thus guy. His site looks like a non-profit organization, but it seems to be just one guy looking for a way to sell his own books. All the publications on the site are written by this one guy, Samuel Epstein. He criticizes the ACS, but his nonprofit isn't even listed on Charity Navigator.
in 1988 the ACS held a fund balance of over $400 million...Of that money, the ACS spent only $90 million— 26 percent of its budget— on medical research and programs
That was 22 years ago! Based on Charity Navigator, they spent 6.9% on administrative expenses, and 72.8% on programs. The names he mentions in his article aren't current.
It was probably a good criticism in it's time, and it appears that the ACS has reformed -- perhaps as a result of the article.
I assumed the poster was referring to the XKCD readers who created the Wikipedia entry.
FYI: EAL ratings I had never heard of this before.
You are not alone. I can say it was before 2006, when I wrote my Myths about Network Neutrality article because already the idea was getting screwed-up.
As a side-note, the EPA is absurd about covering the water. A local marina was forced to scrap a design for their new piers because they were too wide. (The old piers were destroyed in hurrican Katrina.) Now, this river is miles wide, while the 2 piers are probably a few hundred feet long each. There's maybe 50 boats at the marina. Are those piers covering .1% of the water? .0001%? Yet the EPA forced the marina to cut the width of the piers in half. Now they are so narrow that they move when you walk on them and it is easy to fall off.
The problem is that these Flash apps would not support the Multitasking APIs (for example), users would say multitasking on iPhone does not work.
Just like regular iPhone apps. To use any new API, the developer must update the code, rebuild the app, resubmit it to the store, and get approval. Then the users would need to download the update.
The paper ballots did use computerized tabulation. Besides - speed has never been a problem - security and reliability are.
I specifically said arrows because the circle system is dumb. The arrows system is mostly foolproof - far more so than the computer system.
After the whole election 2000 fiasco
The 2000 election was a fiasco because of electronic voting machines. You should point to 2000 as a reason NOT to use electronic voting, not a reason in favor of it.