I'm glad someone mentioned this as I was just about to.
Speaking as someone living outside the US, it struck me that the reason is at least partially socialist. I know that many US citizens hate the idea that their country might have such socialistic leanings but this is just one example. It's not the only reason, but one reason for supporting the present system is that dealers are pillars of the community.
I couldn't agree with your more. But this is an argument that has been used for quite some time now as a reason for people to support GMO's.
As with so many things though, people have to take a for or against stance. In general, I support scientific progress, including genetics. In principle I would like to support the genetic modification of foodstuffs if there are positives that could be achieved. My main concern is that GMO crops are being introduced too quickly and without environmental consideration. We already know that there have been instances of harm to insects as a consequence of GMOs. Given that impact can take time to be noticed, the testing needs to be longer and more thorough. In addition, there are some clearly irresponsible plans that make no sense. Although I believe Terminator technology is currently on the shelf, it doesn't mean that it won't come up again. Introduction of plants that are incapable reproduction is very dangerous and simply should not be allowed. We need to consider the Earth as a single ecosystem. We are already aware of our ability to damage the environment without intending to do so. With the knowledge we have now, we should be more careful about things like GMOs than we are.
If gun control was responsible for saving just one life then it would be worth it. Violence isn't going away and you're right to suggest that the impact might be limited but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. In the 5-10 years you suggest this law might be effective, more needs to be done. I don't see the short term potential as a reason for doing nothing though.
I think if they'd had the monopoly then Itanium would have been a success. It's largely because AMD came up with a way of making X86 into a 64-bit processor (to a degree) that undermined Itanimum.
I'm not sure that this is fair. It's true that Jeremy and James do not like American cars. However, Richard is mad keen on them! From this perspective they are probably quite well supported. Interestingly though, they at least tried to work out why they don't like them in a recent show. The reality is that American muscle cars are a bit on the cheap side. The cars they're most likely to be compared to are Jags, Astons, Porsches and high end Beemers. All are better put together with better quality components.
Better is definitely a subjective term. However, Betamax was capable of doing a number of things in advance of VHS. For example, shuttle search was something Betamax was natively able to do. When VHS was able to do shuttle search, it had to partially unspool the tape to achieve this. This meant that it was a bit laborious if you only wanted to move forward 30 or so seconds. Indeed, my Beta Hi-Fi (which really was a good deal better than mere stereo) had a peep search feature that would allow you to see where you were on a tape during a fast forward or rewind. It had to slow the tape a bit but not a lot.
In terms of quality of picture, whilst VHS was able to catch up, whilst there was a competition, it would probably have been fair to say that at any given moment, Betamax quality was generally better. As to how much better the quality actually was is certainly a valid discussion.
Lastly, whilst not a consumer product, it's worth remembering that Betamax had a big brother in Betacam. This most certainly was better picture quality than VHS.
I've worked in open plan offices for the last 20 years. Mostly they are ok. They would benefit from a degree of division, but I generally feel I benefit from knowing what team mates are doing and I don't find it particularly distracting. On the other hand, my (limited) experience of cubes is that people occupying them don't appreciate that they're not in a closed off office and so they don't realise how much they can be overheard. When you're open plan, this is rarely a problem as you know where people are and if they're going to hear you.
I agree on the point regarding distance. One of the supposed goals of HDTV was to make it more immersive. The reality is that the pixels are still too big on an HD screen for you to sit close enough to allow the picture to fill your view. This to me is the most important promise from higher resolutions, the chance to sit close enough to a large screen for it to look like an image instead of a collection of coloured dots.
Whilst I share your hope that we will see a new Half Life game soon (either HL2 Ep 3 or HL3) and a new Portal, I don't think that we will be seeing a new Xbox or PS any time soon. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that Sony have been giving serious consideration to leaving the games market. The PS3 was a huge investment that I'm not sure that present Sony can afford. It's worth remembering that when launched, Sony had hopes that the PS3 would have a seriously long lifespan (in excess of 10 years) and this certainly hasn't been reached yet. Additionally, I'm really not sure if a new console is needed yet. Granted a new console allows you to get new features out there as standard (Move and eye for example could be standard equipment) but I'm not convinced that there is so severe a shortcoming in power or graphical ability that warrants a new console. If you look at the WiiU as an example, sure it's a lot more powerful than the Wii. But it's not really much more powerful than the PS3 or Xbox360. I think the simple reason for this is that it doesn't need to be. Right now it can play all the games that the designers throw at it and I think the same still goes for PS3 and Xbox. Xbox is different. MS is still rich. However, I think that with the combination of a well regarded online service and the kinect device, again I don't see any rush to replace the console with something new. Let's not forget after all, the console is 'just' the platform. Whether your console is a loss leader or not, I've no doubt that the biggest element of profit will come from selling games and services, not from console sales.
I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment. What this really shows is that most people didn't read the linked article, just the posting. Nothing in the posting mentions the ITU and you only realize this is in fact who control will be given to when you actually read the associated link.
I realize that you may be in a good position to comment but I question both if it's arrogance and, if it is, is that a problem? Is it possible it's just the fact that they know more?
Your right that this alone isn't the solution. However, dealing with waste in this way is something we have to start doing. For too long we have thrown waste away. However, this waste does go somewhere and something does have to be done with it. If it's put in a landfill, it's only taking up space. Worse, it's contaminating an area of land (or sea) that causes further problems. In a reply before yours, someone suggested a complete cycle for the by products - you make wine, the waste is used to make fuel. From the waste of this process, you can make fertilizer. Cycles such as that mean that you have no waste at all. Obviously we can't apply this to every circumstance where waste is produced. However, where you can, it seems to me to be worth the effort. More than ever, with resources becoming more scarce, we have to accept the idea that something isn't waste as such but simply a by-product that has potential for further use.
You're right, they do have Solaris. However, Oracle developed their own Linux before the Sun acquisition. They clearly don't feel it makes sense at this time to focus just on Solaris. In all honesty, I don't think they mind having their kernel patches shared. In fact, I expect what they really want is for those patches to be part of the official Redhat kernel. Maybe once that's been achieved they would drop their own linux distro.
I'm sure there are some marketing and political factors. However, one of the reasons why Oracle have spun up their own Linux distro is to they can have a custom kernel. There are several patches in it that are not in the Redhat supplied kernel including some to better support databases running within virtual machines.
yes, you're right, a collision involving a car could well involve a serious injury to pretty much any part of the body. However, although I could (very reluctantly) live with a missing arm or leg, I'm pretty sure medical science hasn't got to the stage yet where I can exist without a head. I cycle to work every day. I don't want to die from a head injury or exist in a mental state less than I do today, hence I wear a helmet.
Your point is sort of valid but I think there is an important aspect missing. Hypothetically, the purpose of road tax is to maintain the road infrastructure. Even if everyone cycled, the roads would need an awful lot less maintenance than they do currently. In fact, cycling is so low an impact of tarmac roads that it is effectively negligible.
A couple of years back I would have disagreed with you. However, since Unity and Gnome 3, have come along, there is no doubt that the Ubuntu desktop isn't as good as it was. It's got to the point where I'm seriously looking a KDE desktop. Given that I've been using a Linux desktop for over a decade now, this will be as big a change as it was when I moved off windows. The shame is that Gnome 2 was really good. The extra bells and whistles that came through with the likes of Compiz where welcome even though they weren't necessary. Both Gnome 3 and Unity have seemingly thrown that all away. Were there no redeeming qualities of Gnome 2 that someone thought to keep?
You may well joke about this sort of thing but Data General (that I know of) produced a RAID DAT drive. The version I used had 5 drives but it would go to a total of 7.
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~rdv/comp-arch-storage/FAQ-1.10.html
For the organisation I worked for, it was a great piece of kit as it allowed us to stream backups for three different servers to what was effectively a single tape drive. We would never have been able to afford even a modest library so this really was reliable, fast and cost effective. Alas, the follow up to this drive used DLT and that model was entirely outside of our price bracket.
It doesn't make much sense to me that Samsung would want to produce their own phone OS. As far as I am aware, Samsung are in the phone game for broadly the same reason that Apple are - to sell hardware. Sure, Apple have managed to make software sell but this has largely been by using lock-in to force everyone to sell their s/w through Apple. Of course, Apple gets a nice cut for providing this service. Although I do appreciate that this is not a black and white issue, it still seems to me that Apple continue to be the hardware company they have always been. The difference now is that they produce various piece of s/w to make that hardware work, not only for the users but also for Apple by helping it to generate more revenue. Samsung aren't really any different. They are most definitely a hardware company but it's pretty clear they are also producing software. Smart TVs are smart because of built in software. A smartphone is no different. What I think Samsung should be doing is more in software to differentiate themselves from their competitors. S-Voice is clearly a rip off of Siri but it is a start. It would be nice for them to innovate or differentiate themselves more but this is the best area for them to work on.
Although I don't disagree with the point, I do think that a better example of our regression is that we have stopped living in the supersonic era. Deliberately ignoring the Russian input into this, Concorde really was the first and last supersonic airliner. Although I accept that there were several factors in it's downfall, it cannot be ignored that there are no major aircraft companies with an interest in producing a replacement. Surely it must be easier to produce an efficient supersonic aircraft than it was 40 odd years ago. So much of today's businesses are focused only on the bottom line. In fact, ironically, space is the exception. I can't honestly believe that the likes of SpaceX, Virgin etc feel sure of success. Are they not showing the kind of imagination that seems to have been lost by organizations such as NASA?
You've made a crucial mistake. Although there may well be atheists that do hold personal beliefs of one kind or another, in principle, atheism is not having beliefs, at least when it comes to religion. As a consequence, most atheists tend to have a stronger interest in science and the scientific method than many theists. To use your words, it's no surprise that there is an increase in atheists becoming 'louder', it's a simple consequence of the way that religion, particularly fundamentalists, have been dragging reason in a backward direction.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad someone mentioned this as I was just about to. Speaking as someone living outside the US, it struck me that the reason is at least partially socialist. I know that many US citizens hate the idea that their country might have such socialistic leanings but this is just one example. It's not the only reason, but one reason for supporting the present system is that dealers are pillars of the community.
I couldn't agree with your more. But this is an argument that has been used for quite some time now as a reason for people to support GMO's. As with so many things though, people have to take a for or against stance. In general, I support scientific progress, including genetics. In principle I would like to support the genetic modification of foodstuffs if there are positives that could be achieved. My main concern is that GMO crops are being introduced too quickly and without environmental consideration. We already know that there have been instances of harm to insects as a consequence of GMOs. Given that impact can take time to be noticed, the testing needs to be longer and more thorough. In addition, there are some clearly irresponsible plans that make no sense. Although I believe Terminator technology is currently on the shelf, it doesn't mean that it won't come up again. Introduction of plants that are incapable reproduction is very dangerous and simply should not be allowed. We need to consider the Earth as a single ecosystem. We are already aware of our ability to damage the environment without intending to do so. With the knowledge we have now, we should be more careful about things like GMOs than we are.
If gun control was responsible for saving just one life then it would be worth it. Violence isn't going away and you're right to suggest that the impact might be limited but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. In the 5-10 years you suggest this law might be effective, more needs to be done. I don't see the short term potential as a reason for doing nothing though.
I think if they'd had the monopoly then Itanium would have been a success. It's largely because AMD came up with a way of making X86 into a 64-bit processor (to a degree) that undermined Itanimum.
No. They were simply making a point. When the car has run out of power, you can't just refuel it in a few mins.
I'm not sure that this is fair. It's true that Jeremy and James do not like American cars. However, Richard is mad keen on them! From this perspective they are probably quite well supported. Interestingly though, they at least tried to work out why they don't like them in a recent show. The reality is that American muscle cars are a bit on the cheap side. The cars they're most likely to be compared to are Jags, Astons, Porsches and high end Beemers. All are better put together with better quality components.
Better is definitely a subjective term. However, Betamax was capable of doing a number of things in advance of VHS. For example, shuttle search was something Betamax was natively able to do. When VHS was able to do shuttle search, it had to partially unspool the tape to achieve this. This meant that it was a bit laborious if you only wanted to move forward 30 or so seconds. Indeed, my Beta Hi-Fi (which really was a good deal better than mere stereo) had a peep search feature that would allow you to see where you were on a tape during a fast forward or rewind. It had to slow the tape a bit but not a lot. In terms of quality of picture, whilst VHS was able to catch up, whilst there was a competition, it would probably have been fair to say that at any given moment, Betamax quality was generally better. As to how much better the quality actually was is certainly a valid discussion. Lastly, whilst not a consumer product, it's worth remembering that Betamax had a big brother in Betacam. This most certainly was better picture quality than VHS.
I've worked in open plan offices for the last 20 years. Mostly they are ok. They would benefit from a degree of division, but I generally feel I benefit from knowing what team mates are doing and I don't find it particularly distracting. On the other hand, my (limited) experience of cubes is that people occupying them don't appreciate that they're not in a closed off office and so they don't realise how much they can be overheard. When you're open plan, this is rarely a problem as you know where people are and if they're going to hear you.
No need to wait. Half Life is on the list so what on earth would stop you!
The McLaren F1 has two passenger seats.
I agree on the point regarding distance. One of the supposed goals of HDTV was to make it more immersive. The reality is that the pixels are still too big on an HD screen for you to sit close enough to allow the picture to fill your view. This to me is the most important promise from higher resolutions, the chance to sit close enough to a large screen for it to look like an image instead of a collection of coloured dots.
Strangely enough, I read that page and decided the answer was yes.
Whilst I share your hope that we will see a new Half Life game soon (either HL2 Ep 3 or HL3) and a new Portal, I don't think that we will be seeing a new Xbox or PS any time soon. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that Sony have been giving serious consideration to leaving the games market. The PS3 was a huge investment that I'm not sure that present Sony can afford. It's worth remembering that when launched, Sony had hopes that the PS3 would have a seriously long lifespan (in excess of 10 years) and this certainly hasn't been reached yet. Additionally, I'm really not sure if a new console is needed yet. Granted a new console allows you to get new features out there as standard (Move and eye for example could be standard equipment) but I'm not convinced that there is so severe a shortcoming in power or graphical ability that warrants a new console. If you look at the WiiU as an example, sure it's a lot more powerful than the Wii. But it's not really much more powerful than the PS3 or Xbox360. I think the simple reason for this is that it doesn't need to be. Right now it can play all the games that the designers throw at it and I think the same still goes for PS3 and Xbox. Xbox is different. MS is still rich. However, I think that with the combination of a well regarded online service and the kinect device, again I don't see any rush to replace the console with something new. Let's not forget after all, the console is 'just' the platform. Whether your console is a loss leader or not, I've no doubt that the biggest element of profit will come from selling games and services, not from console sales.
I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment. What this really shows is that most people didn't read the linked article, just the posting. Nothing in the posting mentions the ITU and you only realize this is in fact who control will be given to when you actually read the associated link.
I realize that you may be in a good position to comment but I question both if it's arrogance and, if it is, is that a problem? Is it possible it's just the fact that they know more?
Your right that this alone isn't the solution. However, dealing with waste in this way is something we have to start doing. For too long we have thrown waste away. However, this waste does go somewhere and something does have to be done with it. If it's put in a landfill, it's only taking up space. Worse, it's contaminating an area of land (or sea) that causes further problems. In a reply before yours, someone suggested a complete cycle for the by products - you make wine, the waste is used to make fuel. From the waste of this process, you can make fertilizer. Cycles such as that mean that you have no waste at all. Obviously we can't apply this to every circumstance where waste is produced. However, where you can, it seems to me to be worth the effort. More than ever, with resources becoming more scarce, we have to accept the idea that something isn't waste as such but simply a by-product that has potential for further use.
You're right, they do have Solaris. However, Oracle developed their own Linux before the Sun acquisition. They clearly don't feel it makes sense at this time to focus just on Solaris. In all honesty, I don't think they mind having their kernel patches shared. In fact, I expect what they really want is for those patches to be part of the official Redhat kernel. Maybe once that's been achieved they would drop their own linux distro.
I'm sure there are some marketing and political factors. However, one of the reasons why Oracle have spun up their own Linux distro is to they can have a custom kernel. There are several patches in it that are not in the Redhat supplied kernel including some to better support databases running within virtual machines.
yes, you're right, a collision involving a car could well involve a serious injury to pretty much any part of the body. However, although I could (very reluctantly) live with a missing arm or leg, I'm pretty sure medical science hasn't got to the stage yet where I can exist without a head. I cycle to work every day. I don't want to die from a head injury or exist in a mental state less than I do today, hence I wear a helmet.
Your point is sort of valid but I think there is an important aspect missing. Hypothetically, the purpose of road tax is to maintain the road infrastructure. Even if everyone cycled, the roads would need an awful lot less maintenance than they do currently. In fact, cycling is so low an impact of tarmac roads that it is effectively negligible.
A couple of years back I would have disagreed with you. However, since Unity and Gnome 3, have come along, there is no doubt that the Ubuntu desktop isn't as good as it was. It's got to the point where I'm seriously looking a KDE desktop. Given that I've been using a Linux desktop for over a decade now, this will be as big a change as it was when I moved off windows. The shame is that Gnome 2 was really good. The extra bells and whistles that came through with the likes of Compiz where welcome even though they weren't necessary. Both Gnome 3 and Unity have seemingly thrown that all away. Were there no redeeming qualities of Gnome 2 that someone thought to keep?
You may well joke about this sort of thing but Data General (that I know of) produced a RAID DAT drive. The version I used had 5 drives but it would go to a total of 7. http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~rdv/comp-arch-storage/FAQ-1.10.html For the organisation I worked for, it was a great piece of kit as it allowed us to stream backups for three different servers to what was effectively a single tape drive. We would never have been able to afford even a modest library so this really was reliable, fast and cost effective. Alas, the follow up to this drive used DLT and that model was entirely outside of our price bracket.
It doesn't make much sense to me that Samsung would want to produce their own phone OS. As far as I am aware, Samsung are in the phone game for broadly the same reason that Apple are - to sell hardware. Sure, Apple have managed to make software sell but this has largely been by using lock-in to force everyone to sell their s/w through Apple. Of course, Apple gets a nice cut for providing this service. Although I do appreciate that this is not a black and white issue, it still seems to me that Apple continue to be the hardware company they have always been. The difference now is that they produce various piece of s/w to make that hardware work, not only for the users but also for Apple by helping it to generate more revenue. Samsung aren't really any different. They are most definitely a hardware company but it's pretty clear they are also producing software. Smart TVs are smart because of built in software. A smartphone is no different. What I think Samsung should be doing is more in software to differentiate themselves from their competitors. S-Voice is clearly a rip off of Siri but it is a start. It would be nice for them to innovate or differentiate themselves more but this is the best area for them to work on.
Although I don't disagree with the point, I do think that a better example of our regression is that we have stopped living in the supersonic era. Deliberately ignoring the Russian input into this, Concorde really was the first and last supersonic airliner. Although I accept that there were several factors in it's downfall, it cannot be ignored that there are no major aircraft companies with an interest in producing a replacement. Surely it must be easier to produce an efficient supersonic aircraft than it was 40 odd years ago. So much of today's businesses are focused only on the bottom line. In fact, ironically, space is the exception. I can't honestly believe that the likes of SpaceX, Virgin etc feel sure of success. Are they not showing the kind of imagination that seems to have been lost by organizations such as NASA?
You've made a crucial mistake. Although there may well be atheists that do hold personal beliefs of one kind or another, in principle, atheism is not having beliefs, at least when it comes to religion. As a consequence, most atheists tend to have a stronger interest in science and the scientific method than many theists. To use your words, it's no surprise that there is an increase in atheists becoming 'louder', it's a simple consequence of the way that religion, particularly fundamentalists, have been dragging reason in a backward direction.