Yes, except, there are a lot of HAMs who won't participate in the hobby, or won't keep gear capable of using the HF frequencies if the HF frequencies are dead. Further, there may not be power in the disaster area, but that doesn't mean the areas outside the disaster area are out of power, and therefore dead zones for communication.
He's intentionally trying to use sarcasm, and did it as clearly as can be done in text via the use of quotation marks to indicate words being said sarcastically.
If you're talking about I-69, that's up around Flint and Lansing, and then down toward Fort Wayne. I assume you meant I-96, which is it's own disaster. I tend to find the people on I-69 are the idiots who either drive 5 mph under the speed limit in the left lane, or drive until they are next to someone else and then drive at the same speed as that person for extended periods. Both of which don't help the free flow of traffic. Fortunately, because of the death of Flint and Lansing, the traffic tends to be pretty light.
The problem with this, in principle, is that it takes a lot of time and money to come up with, and design a mousetrap. If they build a completely different device for catching/killing mice, then I agree with you. If they take your device, rebrand it, and sell it, then there is a problem. If they take your device and change it only marginally, then there is a problem.
I think the drug company idea is a better example. It costs many millions of dollars to develop a new drug, put it through trials, get it approved by the FDA, etc. There would be no incentive to do R&D if the next person could simply copy the formula, or make a simple change like give it a candy coating. In this case, and what I hope you're referring to, is the idea that a drug company patents "Curing AIDS". An overly broad, non-specific implementation, wherein, if another company comes up with a completely different way to cure AIDS, they shouldn't be blocked from producing and selling it.*
*This is an analogy. Analogies aren't perfect. Please refrain from debating the specific merits and ethics of patenting drugs. (Social benefits, withholding health, etc.)
I've found, not so much that all meetings are useless, just that they tend to be held by the wrong people, include the wrong people, and work through the wrong things. A small team of technical people, all directly related to some problem or task getting together to work out details, or figure something out is a "meeting". The problem comes in when you tie up those technical people on a mundane call or meeting run by non-technical people who just want those technical people there in case there is a question.
Agreed. The money being spent is generally that of status. That said, those items listed are more affordable today than they were in the 50's, brought to you by your not-so-local cheap Chinese labor.
I personally feel that a great many personal problems would be avoided with at least a slightly more simple lifestyle. Reduced pressure and stress being the primary factor. But it'd be interesting to see how the US would look if people weren't so driven to have those things. A great deal of our growth and economic clout is built on people striving to have more. I don't know that I can live my slightly reduced, lower stress life in nearly so much comfort if there aren't those super stressed, status obsessed people around me propping up the economy.
I think we can expand slightly on the 1950's lifestyle and still live quite nicely. I can't find an source, but I do remember the report in the last few weeks in which American's planned to keep new cars, on average, approximately 48-50 months. Add in leisure items like electronics that get replaced every year or two, and two closets of clothes that need to be replaced every couple seasons, and we can see where some of our money goes. The serviceable life on a car has been getting better, and plenty of cars, with good care, live 10-15 years in respectable condition, and get the insurance breaks in addition. Clothing lasts longer than a handful of uses and most of the electronics aren't used to justify initial purchase, much less replacement. Everyone has to choose their individual luxuries, but someone who wants to travel out of the country may have to sacrifice a car every 3-4 years to accomplish it. They could reduce their clothing spending, choose a slightly less expensive location for their home, etc. For the super consumer, I thank you, because if it weren't for you, I couldn't buy clothes on sale, have a huge inventory of available used cars, etc. I save several thousand dollars per year on those items and can put those into the smaller number of luxuries I appreciate.
That said, to give credit where credit is due, Bill Gates never quite matched the extreme wealth of people like John Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie. Both over $300 billion, adjusted for inflation.
Also note, that while it may write documents and the new word processors only have say, 10x the functionality for you, it doesn't mean they don't have 1000x the functionality as a whole. First, they likely include elements you don't use, but that others couldn't live without. Second, the amount of computing power to do some of the more advanced tasks really may be 1000x more. Consider adding photos from a digital camera into a document and having it scale the image appropriately, reflow the text, and do it all really quickly. Document templates, integration with the internet, collaboration, document versioning and revision logs, etc. I think ti's subjective to say these things are 10x, 100x, or 1000x the functional increase over earlier technologies that didn't have these capabilities. It's more appropriate to look at the computing power behind what it takes to do these things and consider the amount of power to do those things.
Can anyone give an overview of the relative performance in Windows vs Linux? I have both, and if there are going to be issues, I'd hate to have to go back and buy it again to get it running on Windows...
Doesn't this sound a lot like, "We have this super special material and this really cool laser, but we can't tell you what they are. But it lasts 1000 years...really...trust us."
Pandora doesn't do that because they would lose a significant portion of their target market. They want to play in the market that includes the major players, and they need to accept the fees, which, after some fighting, they have.
I've found that in the last few years, the generic business apps for generic business users haven't increased in required system resources enough to justify the same upgrade cycles as before. Hardware has been incredibly reliable, and aside from occasional cleanups of bloat and malware, have met the needs of newer software. The arbitrary time frames are becoming less necessary. I suspect, the economy being the way it is, that companies will start reevaluating those policies in favor of extending hardware/software lifecycles.
I suspect it acted much less like a Faraday cage than just a poor place to get much of a signal. But I also suspect they'd have a much better chance getting a cell signal than a gps signal.
And what's the problem with that? If it isn't a security risk, and there aren't any functional or productivity benefits, then why replace anything? I think buying new hardware because it's met some arbitrary time metric is silly. There needs to be a middle ground where smart people sit down and determine whether the current hardware/software is completing the necessary jobs successfully, and whether new products would or wouldn't help in some way.
Not given, lent. Wells fargo will pay that money back in full. Other banks may not, but the taxpayer isn't paying wells fargo to do this any more than a mortgage holder is paying a person to buy a house. Quite the opposite in fact.
And most pure CS programs would do well to focus on a tool or two so that students can standardize on the tool and stop focusing on it. Unfortunately, many CS degrees are actually software engineering degrees and give a broad introduction to many languages. So many, in fact, that the students stop learning algorithms and computation because they are so focused on making the particular piece of technology work.
This may be a little pedantic, but this isn't a question of mainframes vs non-mainframes. It's about mainframe software. People buy mainframes one to support 10k transaction per second processes, and second because you can't afford to drop any of those transactions. Thusly, the software that sits on top of that mainframe needs to be perfectly reliable, and when it is, you don't change it unless you absolutely have to. It means even when new, fun, fancy languages come out, we still have to maintain that huge catalog of reliable software, because we can't afford the pain of migrating, even if it means paying someone 6 figure salaries.
To be fair, it isn't just million dollar beach homes that get pummeled by hurricanes. there are some incredibly poor areas in Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana that get trashed just as bad and don't have the insurance policies to recover nearly as easily as the owners of said million dollar homes. And for most of these people, simply moving is not nearly so simple as it sounds. It's a very significant problem.
I didn't mean to imply that there wasn't a place for dedicated automotive GPS devices. But for your average commuter who doesn't venture outside a 50mi radius more than once every year or so, those devices tend not to be much more than toys. There are several types of people who could very well make use of such a device. Business travelers come to mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, except, there are a lot of HAMs who won't participate in the hobby, or won't keep gear capable of using the HF frequencies if the HF frequencies are dead. Further, there may not be power in the disaster area, but that doesn't mean the areas outside the disaster area are out of power, and therefore dead zones for communication.
One more time. Not anon this time...
He's intentionally trying to use sarcasm, and did it as clearly as can be done in text via the use of quotation marks to indicate words being said sarcastically.
If you're talking about I-69, that's up around Flint and Lansing, and then down toward Fort Wayne. I assume you meant I-96, which is it's own disaster. I tend to find the people on I-69 are the idiots who either drive 5 mph under the speed limit in the left lane, or drive until they are next to someone else and then drive at the same speed as that person for extended periods. Both of which don't help the free flow of traffic. Fortunately, because of the death of Flint and Lansing, the traffic tends to be pretty light.
Heads up displays do help keep the eyes on the road, better than looking at a screen in one's lap. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGR-4CYNN20-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2052654b82aa1ddd87883c50d4c2ccaf. But paying attention to a HUD is still less responsive than watching the darn road. If you have a moment, the next time you're in your car, focus your eyes on the windshield, which is what you're doing when you look at a HUD. You aren't, generally watching, or seeing the road clearly, you're seeing the inside of the car.
The problem with this, in principle, is that it takes a lot of time and money to come up with, and design a mousetrap. If they build a completely different device for catching/killing mice, then I agree with you. If they take your device, rebrand it, and sell it, then there is a problem. If they take your device and change it only marginally, then there is a problem.
I think the drug company idea is a better example. It costs many millions of dollars to develop a new drug, put it through trials, get it approved by the FDA, etc. There would be no incentive to do R&D if the next person could simply copy the formula, or make a simple change like give it a candy coating. In this case, and what I hope you're referring to, is the idea that a drug company patents "Curing AIDS". An overly broad, non-specific implementation, wherein, if another company comes up with a completely different way to cure AIDS, they shouldn't be blocked from producing and selling it.*
*This is an analogy. Analogies aren't perfect. Please refrain from debating the specific merits and ethics of patenting drugs. (Social benefits, withholding health, etc.)
I've found, not so much that all meetings are useless, just that they tend to be held by the wrong people, include the wrong people, and work through the wrong things. A small team of technical people, all directly related to some problem or task getting together to work out details, or figure something out is a "meeting". The problem comes in when you tie up those technical people on a mundane call or meeting run by non-technical people who just want those technical people there in case there is a question.
Agreed. The money being spent is generally that of status. That said, those items listed are more affordable today than they were in the 50's, brought to you by your not-so-local cheap Chinese labor.
I personally feel that a great many personal problems would be avoided with at least a slightly more simple lifestyle. Reduced pressure and stress being the primary factor. But it'd be interesting to see how the US would look if people weren't so driven to have those things. A great deal of our growth and economic clout is built on people striving to have more. I don't know that I can live my slightly reduced, lower stress life in nearly so much comfort if there aren't those super stressed, status obsessed people around me propping up the economy.
I think we can expand slightly on the 1950's lifestyle and still live quite nicely. I can't find an source, but I do remember the report in the last few weeks in which American's planned to keep new cars, on average, approximately 48-50 months. Add in leisure items like electronics that get replaced every year or two, and two closets of clothes that need to be replaced every couple seasons, and we can see where some of our money goes. The serviceable life on a car has been getting better, and plenty of cars, with good care, live 10-15 years in respectable condition, and get the insurance breaks in addition. Clothing lasts longer than a handful of uses and most of the electronics aren't used to justify initial purchase, much less replacement. Everyone has to choose their individual luxuries, but someone who wants to travel out of the country may have to sacrifice a car every 3-4 years to accomplish it. They could reduce their clothing spending, choose a slightly less expensive location for their home, etc. For the super consumer, I thank you, because if it weren't for you, I couldn't buy clothes on sale, have a huge inventory of available used cars, etc. I save several thousand dollars per year on those items and can put those into the smaller number of luxuries I appreciate.
Good fudge on the $100 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures
That said, to give credit where credit is due, Bill Gates never quite matched the extreme wealth of people like John Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie. Both over $300 billion, adjusted for inflation.
Also note, that while it may write documents and the new word processors only have say, 10x the functionality for you, it doesn't mean they don't have 1000x the functionality as a whole. First, they likely include elements you don't use, but that others couldn't live without. Second, the amount of computing power to do some of the more advanced tasks really may be 1000x more. Consider adding photos from a digital camera into a document and having it scale the image appropriately, reflow the text, and do it all really quickly. Document templates, integration with the internet, collaboration, document versioning and revision logs, etc. I think ti's subjective to say these things are 10x, 100x, or 1000x the functional increase over earlier technologies that didn't have these capabilities. It's more appropriate to look at the computing power behind what it takes to do these things and consider the amount of power to do those things.
I'd be willing to seed that game.
Can anyone give an overview of the relative performance in Windows vs Linux? I have both, and if there are going to be issues, I'd hate to have to go back and buy it again to get it running on Windows...
Doesn't this sound a lot like, "We have this super special material and this really cool laser, but we can't tell you what they are. But it lasts 1000 years...really...trust us."
Perhaps, but a poor movement system can wreck PVP.
Pandora doesn't do that because they would lose a significant portion of their target market. They want to play in the market that includes the major players, and they need to accept the fees, which, after some fighting, they have.
Your sarcasm acknowledged...
I've found that in the last few years, the generic business apps for generic business users haven't increased in required system resources enough to justify the same upgrade cycles as before. Hardware has been incredibly reliable, and aside from occasional cleanups of bloat and malware, have met the needs of newer software. The arbitrary time frames are becoming less necessary. I suspect, the economy being the way it is, that companies will start reevaluating those policies in favor of extending hardware/software lifecycles.
I suspect it acted much less like a Faraday cage than just a poor place to get much of a signal. But I also suspect they'd have a much better chance getting a cell signal than a gps signal.
And what's the problem with that? If it isn't a security risk, and there aren't any functional or productivity benefits, then why replace anything? I think buying new hardware because it's met some arbitrary time metric is silly. There needs to be a middle ground where smart people sit down and determine whether the current hardware/software is completing the necessary jobs successfully, and whether new products would or wouldn't help in some way.
Some banks already have started. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10tarp.html
Not given, lent. Wells fargo will pay that money back in full. Other banks may not, but the taxpayer isn't paying wells fargo to do this any more than a mortgage holder is paying a person to buy a house. Quite the opposite in fact.
And most pure CS programs would do well to focus on a tool or two so that students can standardize on the tool and stop focusing on it. Unfortunately, many CS degrees are actually software engineering degrees and give a broad introduction to many languages. So many, in fact, that the students stop learning algorithms and computation because they are so focused on making the particular piece of technology work.
This may be a little pedantic, but this isn't a question of mainframes vs non-mainframes. It's about mainframe software. People buy mainframes one to support 10k transaction per second processes, and second because you can't afford to drop any of those transactions. Thusly, the software that sits on top of that mainframe needs to be perfectly reliable, and when it is, you don't change it unless you absolutely have to. It means even when new, fun, fancy languages come out, we still have to maintain that huge catalog of reliable software, because we can't afford the pain of migrating, even if it means paying someone 6 figure salaries.
To be fair, it isn't just million dollar beach homes that get pummeled by hurricanes. there are some incredibly poor areas in Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana that get trashed just as bad and don't have the insurance policies to recover nearly as easily as the owners of said million dollar homes. And for most of these people, simply moving is not nearly so simple as it sounds. It's a very significant problem.
I didn't mean to imply that there wasn't a place for dedicated automotive GPS devices. But for your average commuter who doesn't venture outside a 50mi radius more than once every year or so, those devices tend not to be much more than toys. There are several types of people who could very well make use of such a device. Business travelers come to mind.