being 'vocal' about DRM on slashdot is fucking worthless when you're shoveling money at the companies for making it! We're concerned because they're making money off of you by raping all the other consumers.
I directly fight DRM in the publishing industry, and in the software industry as well. Aside from that, speaking out is definitely not worthless; discussion is a critical part of society's management of divisive issues. I prefer not to go straight to civil disobedience or violence, myself. One more thing: I don't object in the least to paying for entertainment, be it music, plays, movies, software, whatever. My objection centers around how I am able to use media and hardware I purchase. I bought a component system because it was DRM free and it had everything technically needed to handle the task at hand. My options once that turned out not to be usable were either not have hi-def 1080p movies, or move to HDMI. Neither precludes discussion, funding countering viewpoints, or a focus on my own productions that eschews DRM. Given that, I'll go with the 1080p. You, of course, are entitled to your opinions and choices.
Yeah, yeah, it was just a troll post, but come on.:)
It was either a troll or a serious post of doubtful merit. I treated it as the latter because it wasn't clear to me that it was actually a troll; I thought the poster probably deserved the courtesy of a reply. Unfortunately, on slashdot, we see that the GP was moderated "insightful" when it was no such thing, and my attempt at a courteous reply was moderated "troll" when it was no such thing.
That's why anyone who really wants to read posts here pretty much has to read at -1; your reply, for instance, would have been buried from my sight if I paid any attention to post ratings. Slashdot's moderation system isn't even useful as commentary because everyone can't do it, and it certainly isn't useful for determining what is worth reading. Moderation here needs serious reform.
Also, just in case you've been considering a PS3, be aware that the PS3 does Blue-ray progressive scan in 480p max over component. So you get about the same image you would from a DVD. Games are presented in component 720p, however, and they look outstanding.
I agree, component "just works" and it works really well. It also allows routing of the audio any way you like — as audio has nothing to do with component — so as to enable all manner of audio and image flexibility. I was really disappointed that the industry turned away from component, quite aside from the inconvenience and financial hit I ended up dealing with.
... man, you're a really good consumer! The movie industry must love you
No doubt they'd consider me a success on one level; I don't pirate and I have a lot of DVDs. However, I am absolutely anti-DRM and quite vocal about it, so it's not a perfect match.
No seriously... Why didn't you just, you know, NOT BUY the new stuff, and read a book or something instead? Books are cheaper, and have better special effects than any video game.
I have a 10,000+ volume library and I read about a book a day on average when I'm in the mood for reading fiction, which is perhaps about half the time in blocks of several weeks at once. My library is primarily science fiction and a fair assortment of best sellers, many volumes from several different areas of electronics, programming, hundreds of books on religion (a hobby, I am not religious), and hundreds on and in multiple languages (Chinese, Korean, Spanish and my own native English.) I own a literary agency and my immediate family counts a hugo-winning author, a couple of less successful, but published, authors, another literary agent, and an excellent translator among them. I've written numerous magazine columns and a couple of technical works myself. I've also written courses on learning to read Korean and a 400-page integrated martial arts curriculum. I teach martial arts three nights a week, work part of the day Saturday and Sunday for a charity I favor, and I run six companies (one of which is the aforementioned literary agency) during the weekdays. I don't party, drink, or do recreational drugs though if pot were legal, I'd change that.
Now that you know a little more about me in particular, I would like to ask you: Why would you assume that an interest in movies and gaming would preclude reading? For that matter, even if all I did was read, why would you think that my three sons, my grandson, and my lady would not have interests of their own that I might find it worthwhile to be supportive of? Finally, why is it that you would be concerned with my leisure habits at all? Doesn't it make more sense to be focused on your own?
Not at all. Just as I don't use my computer's DVD drive to watch DVDs because I want its useful lifetime to be spent dealing with software, similarly, I want my PS3 drive's life-span to be spent reading game disks, and my HD and Blue-ray players playing the entertainment disks. I don't even have an HDDVD drive for my 360, nor do I want one, so it isn't an option.
I have already seen DVD player, PS1 and PS2 drive lasers die; they all have demonstrated limited life-spans and I prefer knowing that if the PS3 dies, I can still watch my Blue-ray disks, or of the Blue-ray player dies, I can still enjoy Fall of Man.
Now... you can do things any way you want with your system, of course, and I wouldn't have any comment on that, but this is how I prefer to use mine, and I am perfectly content with it. Others may feel the same way — there are tons of different ways to set home systems up, the only "wrong" way is probably a way that results in poorer than necessary performance. I say that because quality of results is the point for most people, and ideally, you would want to get, and actually get, the best possible results from your equipment.
...see what might be done to make HDMI a little more consumer-friendly
The first thing that needs to be done is to create legislation that makes DRM illegal. This would remove the threat that HDMI poses to other technologies (such as component) and force it to compete on technical merit. Not to mention solve a lot of other consumer issues.
The second thing to be done - obviously - is make a single standard and stick to it; however that requires cooperation among the manufacturers and seems unlikely at best. Still, we can always ask them nicely, and follow up by voting with our wallets.
HDMI has been a nightmare for me. I started out with a hi-def (I thought) component video system, fully capable of 1080p bandwidth-wise and full of switching capabilities I liked and thought could take me quite some distance down the road; then the collusion between manufacturers not to provide full hi-def on component, but only on HDMI, came about, and there went that investment out the window. That system can only do 720p now (I find 1080i to be useless - part of the point was to get RID of flicker) and it lives in my basement. I had to re-buy my theater system, invest in a bunch of new cabling to reproduce signal routing I already had in place that was perfectly adequate, technically speaking... man. That was one irritating evolution.
Also, I have yet to see a single home theater receiver that has a reasonable number of HDMI inputs. HD-DVD. Blue-ray. PS3. a new XBox 360. A computer. A camera. That's six, even if you only have one of each. And you need lots of component, S-Video and composite inputs with up-conversion; as well as standard audio, coaxial digital and optical digital... just because HDMI canwant it to. There are plenty of older tech gadgets out there that could still be very reasonable assets to such a system but need other types of inputs. So far, typically you find 2 or 3 HDMI inputs on a higher end theater system.
a digestive system is required to not digest the system's owner
But it can do so; take a bite of your arm and see what happens. Yes, that's right, your digestive system starts at your mouth and teeth. Quite aside from that, the number of potential problems from alien life-forms is equal to the number of ways humans can be hurt, damaged or killed times the number of possible tools that can be used to do the job. Teeth, claws, injected and secreted toxins, and brute force being the obvious basic examples. For instance, the practice of killing something in order to infest the remains might get us, even if the remains (ours) are not actually infestable, as it were. The idea that somewhere that is radically different is safe on the microscopic level )or any other level, for that matter) simply because it is different, is absolutely indefensible.
Doesn't SETI focus on a specific band of the EM spectrum that is not polluted by solar radiation and thus an obvious place for any sentient beings on another world to broadcast a signal that would allow themselves to be found?
The follow up question being: Are we broadcasting such a signal at that frequency?
The answers are, respectively, yes, and no. Though we have made a heck of a lot of noise at other frequencies, and the earliest of those signals are very roughly about 100 light-years out by now. They would be extremely weak and difficult to detect, though with a large enough space-based antenna system, it is certainly doable if they listen in the right direction. Signals that have gotten about 50 light years out are much more powerful; they've reached fewer stars, of course.
I suspect that our "window" of using RF transmissions through the air will close within another century or so. There are better, more reliable things available to us such as fiber; almost incomprehensibly higher bandwidth by virtue of one fiber being able to lie next to another, not so easy when using RF, better availability, much more difficult to interfere with, more efficient in terms of energy required in use... RF just doesn't make a huge amount of sense for broadcast, and this is becoming more so every day. And I say that with a certain degree of regret, being an extra-class ham radio operator who grew up with the romance - no, really, I'm serious, romance! - of radio signals fading in and out from all over the world.
Seems like if we're assuming whatever sentient beings out there think like us and thus we can deduce what they would do to be found, that only makes sense if it's something we would do in order to be found by other sentient life forms.
It is what we'd do - we're not doing it for political reasons, not scientific or technical reasons. It has been proposed over and over that we broadcast; and has been turned down every time. The question is, do we want to invite visitors? It is one thing to be curious to see if you have neighbors, and to learn the answer without disturbing them or letting them know we're here; it is entirely something else to let them know we're here, or to invite them over - as unlikely as that seems given what we know of physics today. Considering that it is unlikely, it would be all the more intimidating if someone from the Sirius system, just to pluck one out of a hat, heard our signal and a day after they heard it there, they showed up here. The question is, what would they show up with if their physics are that good? All they really need is the ability to shove a few large rocks in our direction and they could go home snickering about those silly primates that used to live on Sol 3... that concerns a lot of people. Some earth species are quite aggressive and territorial, and man is one of them. Looking at our own behavior, it doesn't seem too conservative to think that the same might apply to someone else. So the politics are knotty.
We also know that life exists presently in ecological niches that are far from "human ideal"; right here, there are life-forms in volcanic vents, in the depths of tar pits, at the tops of mountains and at both poles.
The entire "life as we know it" argument needs to actually pay attention to life as we know it, because that includes residence in a considerable range of environments, and with some wildly varying nutritional and/or respiratory requirements.
The good news is, no person's opinion on this matters one bit. If life is there, it is there, and that's the end of the story. We're not too far, technologically speaking, from being able to build an ultra wide-aperture space telescope that could trivially resolve continental details or better on a planet in the 50 or so light year range. That in turn will tell us a great deal about conditions there as recently in years as the distance in light years. A few centuries of progress should get us there (into space and building big science projects) easily, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to human history. So within a few generations, we'll know, and everyone will settle down.
Just an IMHO, but my confidence is fairly high that not only will we find life of one kind or another, we'll find it most places that have had a stable geological history and some form of mostly medium to medium-low energy climate. Doesn't seem likely that life would find a foothold very often on planets that are mostly dead, like mars, lack an atmosphere, or are molten... but a nice mix of gases, some carbon (or who knows, maybe something else.. but we know carbon is handy), some energy exchange that isn't so violent as to kill off anything that might arise... water is important to us, but both hydrogen and oxygen are common elements, so that doesn't seem like it'd be much of a problem... yep, my money's on life FTW.:-)
because the summary says that this allows them to get the payments without going through Visa or Mastercard, who charge for every transaction? If you use this to process credit cards, you're just going to run into the same problem.
First of all, the summary doesn't say anything about charges; it just says that visa and mc aren't involved. Secondly, visa and mc charge the retailer a percentage for each purchase; not the buyer. When the buyer sees an item for $10.00, they still pay $10.00. But the merchant, who would have gotten $10.00 for the item had they been paid in cash, gets less by several percent. Third, visa and mc collect interest from the buyer as the debt gets older but this can be avoided by not letting the debt age, and some cards additionally charge a fee, but that can be avoided also by keeping good credit and not accepting such cards. Fourth, an intermediate collection entity usually takes an additional percentage and sometimes interface rentals from the business. Lastly, if there is fraud on a credit card, the business (not mc or visa or the buyer) absorbs the loss the vast majority of the time - chargebacks come right from the seller's pocket. These are where the costs of credit cards lie; essentially, on the seller's side of the transaction.
Now, given those costs, and the fact that no one has to talk you into getting a license, as you most likely already have one, who do they really have to sell this idea to? The seller, of course.
And sure enough, reading the article, we see that it is primarily the seller's costs that this network is designed to cut:
...participating retailers bypass credit card companies such as Visa and Mastercard (MA)--and their processing fees...
Visa and mc "processing fees" are not the interest charges buyers pay; they are fees the seller pays.
The company, National Payment Card is in this to make money. Right? Of course. They aren't making it from processing fees; so they say. They even offer a "customer loyalty" program so you can get a few pennies off purchases made with the card (see the article), which means the seller gets less money on a per-sale basis, even though they sell the same goods. So where is NPC making money? You pay less, no processing fees... they have to be charging the seller less of a percentage on the one hand to enable that discount, so they aren't going to make nearly as much as visa and mc do per transaction. What does that leave as a potential income stream? Interest. The hidden elephant in the room with all credit cards (not debit cards.) If the company extends credit and the buyer lets that credit ride, they'll make money on interest. This is why I call credit cards "debt cards" (or as I said above, "a license to print money."); without meticulous handling, they raise the cost of the goods people buy to an astonishing degree. My guess is that interest will show up sooner rather than later from NPC, all the more likely because their income model isn't as robust as the visa and mc model.
This is definitely an IMHO, but I think it is very likely. It's the kind of thing I'd take a friendly bet over.
What makes you think they'll limit this to a debit card? Credit cards are basically a license to mint money, debit cards aren't. So which do you think this idea will end up with? Remember: If they tie your license - a government issued thing - to your finances, you'll end up with the worst of both worlds. It's always that way.
im curious, if you consider the barcode 'digital' then what would an analog one be?
Linearly encoded (greyscale or color) information instead of color/no-color encoded information. Slope encoding. Fuzzy encoding. Charge or field encoding (linear only, of course.) 1D binary digital is more convenient by far than analog (or systems like trinary and upwards, 2D and upwards) but analog isn't out of the question, either.
I would like to be the first to say this is a really bad idea.
I'm sorry, you're going to have to take your place in line behind all the people who think RealID is a bad idea. This just isn't quite as bad, as yet. These ideas are all very much along the same lines. They are all about consolidation of your resources, identification, and risks, and that is a bad idea in general for your safety, your privacy and your liberties.
Oh, I'm sure there will be other results from the mishmash as well. Such as your interest rate going up if you get a ticket (I give the legislators just a little time to come up with that one.)
even if I am wrong about determinism and quantum theory (which is a theory mind you)
Yes, it is a theory; however, the behavior that the theory attempts to explain is fact. For the purposes of the issues we are discussing, quantum theory is only a label, and the operative issue is the fact that at a low level, non-deterministic activity is known to occur.
I work in a psych department for/with people who do know this stuff better than 99% of those on/.
I'm sure they think they do. However, as an observer, I've watched their speciality move from one fad to another - from the Freudians and the Jungians on the one hand to the primal screamers and the "repressed memory miners" on the other - and I'm afraid they're going to have to demonstrate considerably more results in order to convince me they're much more than people flailing about for metaphors that change as does the social matrix. Should they - or anyone - attempt to say that they know for certain how the mind works, I know they are leaping to conclusions, though I accept the possibility that said conclusion may be correct. For myself, I remain open minded to both the mechanistic views and the free will views at this point. There are good reasons to consider both that arise from science outside the mind, and since we're so short on the science that describes the inside of the mind... my jury, as it were, remains out.
Currently, yes. They're all amped up, you'll be unable to resist them when they come out. Shocking charges, I know, but few have the capacity to induce or impede such a flow of power, watt?
Whether or not their is quantum activity in the brain, (and probably so) we do not control said activity and therefore still cannot say that we have free will.
Not at all. Your argument was that everything is deterministic. Quantum activity is not deterministic. Quantum activity of an absolutely (as of today) unpredictable nature results from electrical signals stimulating other electrical signals, and from the operation of chemical processes; therefore, there are non-deterministic components that can reasonably be attributed to the processes of brain operation, and this in turn presents opportunities for processes to hinge on non-deterministic elements that arise because of other non-deterministic elements, it may mean that your choices have non deterministic elements, that your choices themselves, rational and trained as they may be, may see a balance where there is none, or an imbalance were there is none, and so you would have to make a determination based on perceptions that are unique to you.
I think that as of right now, today, you need to look the state of knowledge about how the brain works with the concept firmly in mind that we do not have a good handle on either the low level details, or the high level operations. It is, it seems to me, an act of hubris to say that you are certain that determinism rules the day. Sometimes the wise thing is to say "I don't know", or at least, "I'm not certain", and that is all the more true when you're lacking critical information, as is certain to be the case here. We'll know more about this as time passes; it isn't a religious issue by any means, this is strictly scientific ground. Do you really want to form final conclusions before the evidence is in?
I don't see how that counters my argument though. Electrical signals and chemical reactions control everything we do
Quantum effects determine how chemical reactions and electrical signals act, and the "smaller" the event gets, the more this is so. Your mind uses very small electrical and chemical mechanisms; significant quantum effects are quite likely as a direct consequence. This is where the counter to your argument may make itself felt. As an example, quantum effects are critical to the functioning of transistors and LEDs and so forth, and they are working at much higher energy levels than portions of your brain does; presuming there is no quantum component in brain activity seems like a very risky strategy to base firm conclusions upon to me.
Atheists tend to have naturalistic views and that should lead them toward determinism pretty easily. If the universe is governed by immutable laws/forces then...
Yes, but you see, one doesn't follow the other - they're entirely independent. I am atheist; I hold no belief in a god or gods. This does not mean that I presume that the universe is governed by immutable behaviors and effects, or behaviors and effects that are mutable, or a combination of the two. In fact, I don't know, and I don't presume to know, though I have a moderate level of confidence that we will eventually know which of these is the case as a consequence of our scientific explorations.
Atheism — which is, at its core, simply the lack of a belief in a god or gods — doesn't really take you anywhere else in particular. There are as many different outlooks that contain atheism as there are outlooks that are theist, that is, those outlooks that hold a belief in a god or gods. I personally find a great deal to disagree over when I talk to others who are atheist, more often than not.
Finally, two things: "design" isn't a capability that is only to be visualized as something in the hands of a god or gods. Just ask a real watchmaker or chip architect. On top of that, naturalism isn't something that precludes design.
Personally I think universal sufferage would be a better idea instead of stripping one of the duties of citizenship as an unusual punishment.
The concept of "paying one's debt to society" no longer applies in the USA. That's why felons are stripped of numerous rights and privileges. The consequence of this is an underclass that cannot obtain good jobs, cannot affect the political direction of the country, and which can only defend itself if it breaks more laws.
This is wrong in every sense of the word. If a criminal cannot be rehabilitated, that criminal should not be returned to society. If they can, then apply sufficient punishment in the first place so that the punishment fits the crime, then give them a new start in life and see if they can do something with it.
Product activation... sends your product key in a secure fashion over the internet (or phone) and allows Microsoft to verify that you are actually using a legit copy of Windows. The only way I can see this as invasion of privacy and not being legal
Well, here's the thing that bothers me about it.
Let's say that some years down the road, I radically reconfigure my system, or it crashes, or I replace the machine with something else completely, and I have to reinstall. I have to go to MS, again, and re-activate.
But suppose MS refuses... perhaps some kid has my product key out on the net, or I'm on some irrevocable government list that makes it a crime to sell to me, or maybe I have the same name as a known pirate, or because Vista's support window has closed, as Win95's and Win98's has.
Or... suppose MS can't because there are patent issues, or their activation servers crashed, or because a meteor wiped them off the face of the earth, or because the west coast suddenly fell into the sea, or because terrorists nuked them, or the northwest becomes an active volcano zone... or perhaps other things I could probably think of if I was feeling a little more creative.
Now let's imagine this same problem across all the desktops in the six businesses I own. That's a couple hundred machines. That's my livelihood, and the livelihood of all my employees. Now you have my full attention.
Activation is DRM that depends upon the good will, continuing existence, legal ability, and support policies of the company doing the activating.
The consequences of the OS not working include not being able to work with data once the grace period expires, in the cases where there is such a thing (30 days with Vista.) It can be moved, but if Vista has proven to be intractable, it would not make sense to continue trying to use Vista. If the data is moved to linux or OSX, the data may be lost anyway anyway, unless there are compatible programs that can translate it, or ports of those apps that can read it as if it was native.
So clearly, the smart thing is to go with an OS that doesn't give any crap about reinstalling it. That means, at least today, either OSX or linux. Now the only thing stopping machines from keeping on keeping on, as it were, are backup habits. Mine, and those controlled by me, have been honed to a pretty fine sensibility by 37 years of being involved with computers.
As far as I am concerned, MS went a step too far with product activation. My opinion only controls an incredibly miniscule portion of the market, and so I'm quite sure MS doesn't give a hoot on any level whatsoever, but that's no longer my problem, as I'm no longer tied to their OS either personally or with regard to my business operations.
You want to hear from scientists? Perhaps you should go read what these scientists have to say (The scientist's comments are a little way down the page.)
Suffice it to say that the scientific community is not unanimous on the issue of anthropocentric warming.
Slashdot Mirror
I directly fight DRM in the publishing industry, and in the software industry as well. Aside from that, speaking out is definitely not worthless; discussion is a critical part of society's management of divisive issues. I prefer not to go straight to civil disobedience or violence, myself. One more thing: I don't object in the least to paying for entertainment, be it music, plays, movies, software, whatever. My objection centers around how I am able to use media and hardware I purchase. I bought a component system because it was DRM free and it had everything technically needed to handle the task at hand. My options once that turned out not to be usable were either not have hi-def 1080p movies, or move to HDMI. Neither precludes discussion, funding countering viewpoints, or a focus on my own productions that eschews DRM. Given that, I'll go with the 1080p. You, of course, are entitled to your opinions and choices.
It was either a troll or a serious post of doubtful merit. I treated it as the latter because it wasn't clear to me that it was actually a troll; I thought the poster probably deserved the courtesy of a reply. Unfortunately, on slashdot, we see that the GP was moderated "insightful" when it was no such thing, and my attempt at a courteous reply was moderated "troll" when it was no such thing.
That's why anyone who really wants to read posts here pretty much has to read at -1; your reply, for instance, would have been buried from my sight if I paid any attention to post ratings. Slashdot's moderation system isn't even useful as commentary because everyone can't do it, and it certainly isn't useful for determining what is worth reading. Moderation here needs serious reform.
Also, just in case you've been considering a PS3, be aware that the PS3 does Blue-ray progressive scan in 480p max over component. So you get about the same image you would from a DVD. Games are presented in component 720p, however, and they look outstanding.
I agree, component "just works" and it works really well. It also allows routing of the audio any way you like — as audio has nothing to do with component — so as to enable all manner of audio and image flexibility. I was really disappointed that the industry turned away from component, quite aside from the inconvenience and financial hit I ended up dealing with.
No doubt they'd consider me a success on one level; I don't pirate and I have a lot of DVDs. However, I am absolutely anti-DRM and quite vocal about it, so it's not a perfect match.
I have a 10,000+ volume library and I read about a book a day on average when I'm in the mood for reading fiction, which is perhaps about half the time in blocks of several weeks at once. My library is primarily science fiction and a fair assortment of best sellers, many volumes from several different areas of electronics, programming, hundreds of books on religion (a hobby, I am not religious), and hundreds on and in multiple languages (Chinese, Korean, Spanish and my own native English.) I own a literary agency and my immediate family counts a hugo-winning author, a couple of less successful, but published, authors, another literary agent, and an excellent translator among them. I've written numerous magazine columns and a couple of technical works myself. I've also written courses on learning to read Korean and a 400-page integrated martial arts curriculum. I teach martial arts three nights a week, work part of the day Saturday and Sunday for a charity I favor, and I run six companies (one of which is the aforementioned literary agency) during the weekdays. I don't party, drink, or do recreational drugs though if pot were legal, I'd change that.
Now that you know a little more about me in particular, I would like to ask you: Why would you assume that an interest in movies and gaming would preclude reading? For that matter, even if all I did was read, why would you think that my three sons, my grandson, and my lady would not have interests of their own that I might find it worthwhile to be supportive of? Finally, why is it that you would be concerned with my leisure habits at all? Doesn't it make more sense to be focused on your own?
Just wondering.
Not at all. Just as I don't use my computer's DVD drive to watch DVDs because I want its useful lifetime to be spent dealing with software, similarly, I want my PS3 drive's life-span to be spent reading game disks, and my HD and Blue-ray players playing the entertainment disks. I don't even have an HDDVD drive for my 360, nor do I want one, so it isn't an option.
I have already seen DVD player, PS1 and PS2 drive lasers die; they all have demonstrated limited life-spans and I prefer knowing that if the PS3 dies, I can still watch my Blue-ray disks, or of the Blue-ray player dies, I can still enjoy Fall of Man.
Now... you can do things any way you want with your system, of course, and I wouldn't have any comment on that, but this is how I prefer to use mine, and I am perfectly content with it. Others may feel the same way — there are tons of different ways to set home systems up, the only "wrong" way is probably a way that results in poorer than necessary performance. I say that because quality of results is the point for most people, and ideally, you would want to get, and actually get, the best possible results from your equipment.
My apologies.
The first thing that needs to be done is to create legislation that makes DRM illegal. This would remove the threat that HDMI poses to other technologies (such as component) and force it to compete on technical merit. Not to mention solve a lot of other consumer issues.
The second thing to be done - obviously - is make a single standard and stick to it; however that requires cooperation among the manufacturers and seems unlikely at best. Still, we can always ask them nicely, and follow up by voting with our wallets.
HDMI has been a nightmare for me. I started out with a hi-def (I thought) component video system, fully capable of 1080p bandwidth-wise and full of switching capabilities I liked and thought could take me quite some distance down the road; then the collusion between manufacturers not to provide full hi-def on component, but only on HDMI, came about, and there went that investment out the window. That system can only do 720p now (I find 1080i to be useless - part of the point was to get RID of flicker) and it lives in my basement. I had to re-buy my theater system, invest in a bunch of new cabling to reproduce signal routing I already had in place that was perfectly adequate, technically speaking... man. That was one irritating evolution.
Also, I have yet to see a single home theater receiver that has a reasonable number of HDMI inputs. HD-DVD. Blue-ray. PS3. a new XBox 360. A computer. A camera. That's six, even if you only have one of each. And you need lots of component, S-Video and composite inputs with up-conversion; as well as standard audio, coaxial digital and optical digital... just because HDMI canwant it to. There are plenty of older tech gadgets out there that could still be very reasonable assets to such a system but need other types of inputs. So far, typically you find 2 or 3 HDMI inputs on a higher end theater system.
But it can do so; take a bite of your arm and see what happens. Yes, that's right, your digestive system starts at your mouth and teeth. Quite aside from that, the number of potential problems from alien life-forms is equal to the number of ways humans can be hurt, damaged or killed times the number of possible tools that can be used to do the job. Teeth, claws, injected and secreted toxins, and brute force being the obvious basic examples. For instance, the practice of killing something in order to infest the remains might get us, even if the remains (ours) are not actually infestable, as it were. The idea that somewhere that is radically different is safe on the microscopic level )or any other level, for that matter) simply because it is different, is absolutely indefensible.
The answers are, respectively, yes, and no. Though we have made a heck of a lot of noise at other frequencies, and the earliest of those signals are very roughly about 100 light-years out by now. They would be extremely weak and difficult to detect, though with a large enough space-based antenna system, it is certainly doable if they listen in the right direction. Signals that have gotten about 50 light years out are much more powerful; they've reached fewer stars, of course.
I suspect that our "window" of using RF transmissions through the air will close within another century or so. There are better, more reliable things available to us such as fiber; almost incomprehensibly higher bandwidth by virtue of one fiber being able to lie next to another, not so easy when using RF, better availability, much more difficult to interfere with, more efficient in terms of energy required in use... RF just doesn't make a huge amount of sense for broadcast, and this is becoming more so every day. And I say that with a certain degree of regret, being an extra-class ham radio operator who grew up with the romance - no, really, I'm serious, romance! - of radio signals fading in and out from all over the world.
It is what we'd do - we're not doing it for political reasons, not scientific or technical reasons. It has been proposed over and over that we broadcast; and has been turned down every time. The question is, do we want to invite visitors? It is one thing to be curious to see if you have neighbors, and to learn the answer without disturbing them or letting them know we're here; it is entirely something else to let them know we're here, or to invite them over - as unlikely as that seems given what we know of physics today. Considering that it is unlikely, it would be all the more intimidating if someone from the Sirius system, just to pluck one out of a hat, heard our signal and a day after they heard it there, they showed up here. The question is, what would they show up with if their physics are that good? All they really need is the ability to shove a few large rocks in our direction and they could go home snickering about those silly primates that used to live on Sol 3... that concerns a lot of people. Some earth species are quite aggressive and territorial, and man is one of them. Looking at our own behavior, it doesn't seem too conservative to think that the same might apply to someone else. So the politics are knotty.
We also know that life exists presently in ecological niches that are far from "human ideal"; right here, there are life-forms in volcanic vents, in the depths of tar pits, at the tops of mountains and at both poles.
The entire "life as we know it" argument needs to actually pay attention to life as we know it, because that includes residence in a considerable range of environments, and with some wildly varying nutritional and/or respiratory requirements.
The good news is, no person's opinion on this matters one bit. If life is there, it is there, and that's the end of the story. We're not too far, technologically speaking, from being able to build an ultra wide-aperture space telescope that could trivially resolve continental details or better on a planet in the 50 or so light year range. That in turn will tell us a great deal about conditions there as recently in years as the distance in light years. A few centuries of progress should get us there (into space and building big science projects) easily, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to human history. So within a few generations, we'll know, and everyone will settle down.
Just an IMHO, but my confidence is fairly high that not only will we find life of one kind or another, we'll find it most places that have had a stable geological history and some form of mostly medium to medium-low energy climate. Doesn't seem likely that life would find a foothold very often on planets that are mostly dead, like mars, lack an atmosphere, or are molten... but a nice mix of gases, some carbon (or who knows, maybe something else.. but we know carbon is handy), some energy exchange that isn't so violent as to kill off anything that might arise... water is important to us, but both hydrogen and oxygen are common elements, so that doesn't seem like it'd be much of a problem... yep, my money's on life FTW. :-)
First of all, the summary doesn't say anything about charges; it just says that visa and mc aren't involved. Secondly, visa and mc charge the retailer a percentage for each purchase; not the buyer. When the buyer sees an item for $10.00, they still pay $10.00. But the merchant, who would have gotten $10.00 for the item had they been paid in cash, gets less by several percent. Third, visa and mc collect interest from the buyer as the debt gets older but this can be avoided by not letting the debt age, and some cards additionally charge a fee, but that can be avoided also by keeping good credit and not accepting such cards. Fourth, an intermediate collection entity usually takes an additional percentage and sometimes interface rentals from the business. Lastly, if there is fraud on a credit card, the business (not mc or visa or the buyer) absorbs the loss the vast majority of the time - chargebacks come right from the seller's pocket. These are where the costs of credit cards lie; essentially, on the seller's side of the transaction.
Now, given those costs, and the fact that no one has to talk you into getting a license, as you most likely already have one, who do they really have to sell this idea to? The seller, of course.
And sure enough, reading the article, we see that it is primarily the seller's costs that this network is designed to cut:
Visa and mc "processing fees" are not the interest charges buyers pay; they are fees the seller pays.
The company, National Payment Card is in this to make money. Right? Of course. They aren't making it from processing fees; so they say. They even offer a "customer loyalty" program so you can get a few pennies off purchases made with the card (see the article), which means the seller gets less money on a per-sale basis, even though they sell the same goods. So where is NPC making money? You pay less, no processing fees... they have to be charging the seller less of a percentage on the one hand to enable that discount, so they aren't going to make nearly as much as visa and mc do per transaction. What does that leave as a potential income stream? Interest. The hidden elephant in the room with all credit cards (not debit cards.) If the company extends credit and the buyer lets that credit ride, they'll make money on interest. This is why I call credit cards "debt cards" (or as I said above, "a license to print money."); without meticulous handling, they raise the cost of the goods people buy to an astonishing degree. My guess is that interest will show up sooner rather than later from NPC, all the more likely because their income model isn't as robust as the visa and mc model.
This is definitely an IMHO, but I think it is very likely. It's the kind of thing I'd take a friendly bet over.
What makes you think they'll limit this to a debit card? Credit cards are basically a license to mint money, debit cards aren't. So which do you think this idea will end up with? Remember: If they tie your license - a government issued thing - to your finances, you'll end up with the worst of both worlds. It's always that way.
Linearly encoded (greyscale or color) information instead of color/no-color encoded information. Slope encoding. Fuzzy encoding. Charge or field encoding (linear only, of course.) 1D binary digital is more convenient by far than analog (or systems like trinary and upwards, 2D and upwards) but analog isn't out of the question, either.
I'm sorry, you're going to have to take your place in line behind all the people who think RealID is a bad idea. This just isn't quite as bad, as yet. These ideas are all very much along the same lines. They are all about consolidation of your resources, identification, and risks, and that is a bad idea in general for your safety, your privacy and your liberties.
Oh, I'm sure there will be other results from the mishmash as well. Such as your interest rate going up if you get a ticket (I give the legislators just a little time to come up with that one.)
Yes, it is a theory; however, the behavior that the theory attempts to explain is fact. For the purposes of the issues we are discussing, quantum theory is only a label, and the operative issue is the fact that at a low level, non-deterministic activity is known to occur.
I'm sure they think they do. However, as an observer, I've watched their speciality move from one fad to another - from the Freudians and the Jungians on the one hand to the primal screamers and the "repressed memory miners" on the other - and I'm afraid they're going to have to demonstrate considerably more results in order to convince me they're much more than people flailing about for metaphors that change as does the social matrix. Should they - or anyone - attempt to say that they know for certain how the mind works, I know they are leaping to conclusions, though I accept the possibility that said conclusion may be correct. For myself, I remain open minded to both the mechanistic views and the free will views at this point. There are good reasons to consider both that arise from science outside the mind, and since we're so short on the science that describes the inside of the mind... my jury, as it were, remains out.
Currently, yes. They're all amped up, you'll be unable to resist them when they come out. Shocking charges, I know, but few have the capacity to induce or impede such a flow of power, watt?
Not at all. Your argument was that everything is deterministic. Quantum activity is not deterministic. Quantum activity of an absolutely (as of today) unpredictable nature results from electrical signals stimulating other electrical signals, and from the operation of chemical processes; therefore, there are non-deterministic components that can reasonably be attributed to the processes of brain operation, and this in turn presents opportunities for processes to hinge on non-deterministic elements that arise because of other non-deterministic elements, it may mean that your choices have non deterministic elements, that your choices themselves, rational and trained as they may be, may see a balance where there is none, or an imbalance were there is none, and so you would have to make a determination based on perceptions that are unique to you.
I think that as of right now, today, you need to look the state of knowledge about how the brain works with the concept firmly in mind that we do not have a good handle on either the low level details, or the high level operations. It is, it seems to me, an act of hubris to say that you are certain that determinism rules the day. Sometimes the wise thing is to say "I don't know", or at least, "I'm not certain", and that is all the more true when you're lacking critical information, as is certain to be the case here. We'll know more about this as time passes; it isn't a religious issue by any means, this is strictly scientific ground. Do you really want to form final conclusions before the evidence is in?
Quantum effects determine how chemical reactions and electrical signals act, and the "smaller" the event gets, the more this is so. Your mind uses very small electrical and chemical mechanisms; significant quantum effects are quite likely as a direct consequence. This is where the counter to your argument may make itself felt. As an example, quantum effects are critical to the functioning of transistors and LEDs and so forth, and they are working at much higher energy levels than portions of your brain does; presuming there is no quantum component in brain activity seems like a very risky strategy to base firm conclusions upon to me.
Yes, but you see, one doesn't follow the other - they're entirely independent. I am atheist; I hold no belief in a god or gods. This does not mean that I presume that the universe is governed by immutable behaviors and effects, or behaviors and effects that are mutable, or a combination of the two. In fact, I don't know, and I don't presume to know, though I have a moderate level of confidence that we will eventually know which of these is the case as a consequence of our scientific explorations.
Atheism — which is, at its core, simply the lack of a belief in a god or gods — doesn't really take you anywhere else in particular. There are as many different outlooks that contain atheism as there are outlooks that are theist, that is, those outlooks that hold a belief in a god or gods. I personally find a great deal to disagree over when I talk to others who are atheist, more often than not.
Finally, two things: "design" isn't a capability that is only to be visualized as something in the hands of a god or gods. Just ask a real watchmaker or chip architect. On top of that, naturalism isn't something that precludes design.
The concept of "paying one's debt to society" no longer applies in the USA. That's why felons are stripped of numerous rights and privileges. The consequence of this is an underclass that cannot obtain good jobs, cannot affect the political direction of the country, and which can only defend itself if it breaks more laws.
This is wrong in every sense of the word. If a criminal cannot be rehabilitated, that criminal should not be returned to society. If they can, then apply sufficient punishment in the first place so that the punishment fits the crime, then give them a new start in life and see if they can do something with it.
Well, here's the thing that bothers me about it.
Let's say that some years down the road, I radically reconfigure my system, or it crashes, or I replace the machine with something else completely, and I have to reinstall. I have to go to MS, again, and re-activate.
But suppose MS refuses... perhaps some kid has my product key out on the net, or I'm on some irrevocable government list that makes it a crime to sell to me, or maybe I have the same name as a known pirate, or because Vista's support window has closed, as Win95's and Win98's has.
Or... suppose MS can't because there are patent issues, or their activation servers crashed, or because a meteor wiped them off the face of the earth, or because the west coast suddenly fell into the sea, or because terrorists nuked them, or the northwest becomes an active volcano zone... or perhaps other things I could probably think of if I was feeling a little more creative.
Now let's imagine this same problem across all the desktops in the six businesses I own. That's a couple hundred machines. That's my livelihood, and the livelihood of all my employees. Now you have my full attention.
Activation is DRM that depends upon the good will, continuing existence, legal ability, and support policies of the company doing the activating.
The consequences of the OS not working include not being able to work with data once the grace period expires, in the cases where there is such a thing (30 days with Vista.) It can be moved, but if Vista has proven to be intractable, it would not make sense to continue trying to use Vista. If the data is moved to linux or OSX, the data may be lost anyway anyway, unless there are compatible programs that can translate it, or ports of those apps that can read it as if it was native.
So clearly, the smart thing is to go with an OS that doesn't give any crap about reinstalling it. That means, at least today, either OSX or linux. Now the only thing stopping machines from keeping on keeping on, as it were, are backup habits. Mine, and those controlled by me, have been honed to a pretty fine sensibility by 37 years of being involved with computers.
As far as I am concerned, MS went a step too far with product activation. My opinion only controls an incredibly miniscule portion of the market, and so I'm quite sure MS doesn't give a hoot on any level whatsoever, but that's no longer my problem, as I'm no longer tied to their OS either personally or with regard to my business operations.
That was a grammar nazi. Try to keep up.
You want to hear from scientists? Perhaps you should go read what these scientists have to say (The scientist's comments are a little way down the page.)
Suffice it to say that the scientific community is not unanimous on the issue of anthropocentric warming.