Assuming these things have a high enough resolution, QR-code already solves the problem of embedding contact information on business cards in a machine readable fashion, without the need for OCR. A lot of cellphones these days support it, and it seems to me that being able to scan cards using one's monitor would be a nice extension of this sort of technology.
Your point is still valid though. People need to have a certain level of proficiency with technology in order to be able to utilise even QR-code, and if they're at that level then sending a contact card via bluetooth is probably just as straight-forward.
And all it takes is 80 unhappy parents to get the ad pulled? That's 0.0003% of the total population.
That's a very good point. By the sound of it, from the Australian/. crowd alone we could gather 80+ people who actually liked the ad and would like to see it stay around.
It seems to me that the problem is that the TV standards system is unfairly unbalanced in favour of "modding down" content - and could do with a method of modding things up to balance out all the prudes.
Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 1
True, but so do a lot of other companies. Of the 39,000 employees in the park, only 11,000 are IBM.
Good point. After some further checking it seems that the IP that hosts groklaw also hosts ibiblio.org and appears to be part of a MCNC data center. In fact, I'm kicking myself because the main groklaw page even has a little logo that says *HOSTED BY IBIBLIO*.. *duh*.
.
Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 1
check out the whois on the IP it's hosted at:
OrgName: North Carolina Research and Education Network OrgID: CNRT Address: PO Box 12889 Address: 3021 Cornwallis Rd. City: Research Triangle Park StateProv: NC PostalCode: 27709 Country: US
There may be a correlation, but that doesn't mean that there's a cause-effect relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. I've seen it argued that due to things like the 800yearlag, it's unlikely, at least for the first 800 years of the cycle, that CO2 *causes* the temperature increase, and in fact in previous cycles it's probably been the other way around. One theory I read was that with increased temperature the oceans lose their ability to trap CO2 so it gets released into the atmosphere. (Note that the first link I gave above explains why high CO2 levels may still be a problem despite this).
Anyway, all I wanted to say was that the relationship is no doubt many times more complex than Al Gore and some other alarmists would have you believe.
P.S. I think it's worth pointing out that I'm not a supporter of big-oil or corporate interests or anything like that. I'm only interested in having the full story told. Regardless of the debate I'm still doing everything in my power to reduce my personal contribution to CO2 emissions because I'd rather not take any chances with this planet that we call home. I'd love for it to still be able to support a diversity of life for many years into the future.
I think you may be confused with the % of power generation in New Zealand that comes from/all/ renewable resources.
I've been struggling to find a first-hand authoritative reference (someone else may be able to help here), but this page gives the split as approximately 60% hydro, 25% gas, 7.5% coal, 7% geothermal & 2% wind, which is more in line with my recollection.
You aroused my curiosity, and it turns out that the video at http://www.isi.edu/craft/CC/Welcome_files/resource s/animation.html (thanks to mindriot for pointing this out) shows a simple solution.
For those on limited bandwidth connections, the basic gist of it is that the floor & walls are "printed" and then a separate robot arm picks up some flat (almost I-beam looking things) that it lays across the roof. The I-beams are then "printed" over to hold them in place & seal them.
.. what I'm curious about is who checks that the RIAA hasn't already put a claim in for this particular song somewhere further up the chain?
ie. person A shares a file that persons B,C & D download. RIAA files a suit against person A, claims $750 damages. Person A pays. RIAA now files suits against B,C & D (who are now also sharing the file) claiming $750 from each of them too, even though, in theory the claim against person A was for ALL downstream sharing too.
Can someone explain the legalese behind that? I'm sure there's probably some reason why they would be allowed to get away with this, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to me at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
How about talking about clear vs opaque 'tubes'?
Assuming these things have a high enough resolution, QR-code already solves the problem of embedding contact information on business cards in a machine readable fashion, without the need for OCR. A lot of cellphones these days support it, and it seems to me that being able to scan cards using one's monitor would be a nice extension of this sort of technology.
Your point is still valid though. People need to have a certain level of proficiency with technology in order to be able to utilise even QR-code, and if they're at that level then sending a contact card via bluetooth is probably just as straight-forward.
That's a very good point. By the sound of it, from the Australian /. crowd alone we could gather 80+ people who actually liked the ad and would like to see it stay around.
It seems to me that the problem is that the TV standards system is unfairly unbalanced in favour of "modding down" content - and could do with a method of modding things up to balance out all the prudes.
True, but so do a lot of other companies. Of the 39,000 employees in the park, only 11,000 are IBM.
Good point. After some further checking it seems that the IP that hosts groklaw also hosts ibiblio.org and appears to be part of a MCNC data center. In fact, I'm kicking myself because the main groklaw page even has a little logo that says *HOSTED BY IBIBLIO* .. *duh*.
.check out the whois on the IP it's hosted at:
... and the wikipedia page on research triangle park suggests IBM have quite a large amount of their operations hosted there.
.. the plot thickens.
There may be a correlation, but that doesn't mean that there's a cause-effect relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. I've seen it argued that due to things like the 800 year lag, it's unlikely, at least for the first 800 years of the cycle, that CO2 *causes* the temperature increase, and in fact in previous cycles it's probably been the other way around. One theory I read was that with increased temperature the oceans lose their ability to trap CO2 so it gets released into the atmosphere. (Note that the first link I gave above explains why high CO2 levels may still be a problem despite this). Anyway, all I wanted to say was that the relationship is no doubt many times more complex than Al Gore and some other alarmists would have you believe. P.S. I think it's worth pointing out that I'm not a supporter of big-oil or corporate interests or anything like that. I'm only interested in having the full story told. Regardless of the debate I'm still doing everything in my power to reduce my personal contribution to CO2 emissions because I'd rather not take any chances with this planet that we call home. I'd love for it to still be able to support a diversity of life for many years into the future.
I think you may be confused with the % of power generation in New Zealand that comes from /all/ renewable resources.
I've been struggling to find a first-hand authoritative reference (someone else may be able to help here), but this page gives the split as approximately 60% hydro, 25% gas, 7.5% coal, 7% geothermal & 2% wind, which is more in line with my recollection.
You aroused my curiosity, and it turns out that the video at http://www.isi.edu/craft/CC/Welcome_files/resource s/animation.html (thanks to mindriot for pointing this out) shows a simple solution.
For those on limited bandwidth connections, the basic gist of it is that the floor & walls are "printed" and then a separate robot arm picks up some flat (almost I-beam looking things) that it lays across the roof. The I-beams are then "printed" over to hold them in place & seal them.
.. what I'm curious about is who checks that the RIAA hasn't already put a claim in for this particular song somewhere further up the chain? ie. person A shares a file that persons B,C & D download. RIAA files a suit against person A, claims $750 damages. Person A pays. RIAA now files suits against B,C & D (who are now also sharing the file) claiming $750 from each of them too, even though, in theory the claim against person A was for ALL downstream sharing too. Can someone explain the legalese behind that? I'm sure there's probably some reason why they would be allowed to get away with this, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to me at the moment.