While I can't say I've tried this, it certainly looks interesting: APC TravelPower Cases
Basically a bag to carry your electronics that has an integrated power system to charge all your electronics - just plug in the whole bag and everything gets charged.
In related news, another Microsoft department is releasing a new DRM scheme that will prevent "unauthorized duplication of your wireless card, virtual or otherwise."
While IEC, ISO, and ITU celebrate today, ANSI, IEEE, and ETSI - among others - are ramping up preparations for what they contend to be the correct day for the festivities, a yet-to-be-determined date in December.
In theory, I think you make a good point. However, there are a couple of things that you don't take into consideration. For example, do we really want our elections to be for sale to the highest bidder (more so than they already are, that is)? An unlimited amount of money poured into a campaign can effectively buy a certain outcome, given how susceptible the general population is to advertising.
Also, consider the nature of most of the "speech" that results from campaign contributions. Have you ever seen a political television advertisement that added anything worthwhile to the discussion - or indeed do anything that wasn't mainly posturing and hand-waving?
I certainly think that individuals should have the right to say what they want about politics (just like anything else), and spend their own money in the process. However, I would draw the line when it comes to giving other people enough money for them to repeat their mantra loudly enough and often enough that it drowns out the dissenting voices.
Let's use the word 'understand' as a simple example. If you don't know the language, you would be hard-pressed to realize that it is made-up of just two syllables. If you try to pronounce it as 1, 3, 7, etc. sounds, it will be completely unintelligable.
You know, I speak English, and I'm still hard-pressed to realize that "understand" is made up of two syllables. But then, again it seems to make an awful lot of sense to me as three syllables, so I must just be confused. Or, as they say in Spanish when they want to use two syllables, nocomprend-o.
I don't think it's so much that there are other crimes that aren't investigated... after all, if they only went after the most serious crimes, burglary, arson, and assault would never be investigated because there will always be homicide cases that need more resources. It's even fine with me if the government invests its resources in going after people who infringe copyright. However, if they're going to be involved in this kind of thing, I should be able to expect that the local law enforcement and DA's office will be helping me investigate and charge the next person who infringes the copyright of one of my original songs I recorded in my home studio. It's an old problem: the rich get most things for free from the government (or for the cost of lobbying and campaign contributions), but that doesn't make it any more acceptable. The government shouldn't be able to cherry-pick the cases that they want based on how much money it gets them in campaign contributions or publicity - imagine if your house was broken into and a large amount of valuables stolen, but the police wouldn't come out to look at it because you didn't donate enough to the last election or you weren't in a high enough tax bracket.
Your arguments for standard guage over light rail make sense. However, I would like to ask some questions about your argument for cars over public transportation.
First of all, did you remember to include the cost to the environment? Everything I've heard indicates that public transportation is a better choice environmentally, but I'm no expert... perhaps someone who is would care to comment?
You cite crime (with the related cost of extra law enforcement) and disease as negative aspects of public transportation. Did you remember to balance those with the high number of people killed or injured in automobile accidents, along with the costs of maintaining emergency and law-enforcment personel to deal with these accidents?
How does mass transit place pressure on the government to become the "cops of the world"? I can see how it might increase the government's role in transportation (although they already play a large - if less visible role - in licensing automobiles, building the infrastructure, etc.), but how does a domestic concern such as urban public transportation make the government the "cops of the world"?
The thing about Linux is that there is no "thing about Linux." I honestly, sincerely hope that one day, a majority of people will stop referring to this etherial "Linux" that is some hive-like borg with a singleminded goal and focus. "Linux" only truly is a kernel whose development is overseen primarily by Linus and primarily a few other folks.
In theory, I agree with you, and most things that are true about Linux in general don't have to be. That being said, unfortunately it is true - across the board - that Linux is harder to use than Windows for anything but basic use (e.g. browsing the web and word processing). I challenge you or anyone else to show me a distro of Linux I can install as easily as Windows. Or perhaps, install anything but basic hardware as easily (ALSA, anyone?). Or even install advanced software on with the same simplicity (package managers are great, but what about a GLIBC issue?). Now, none of this is anyone's fault - Linus or anyone else. The fact remains, people will probably stop referring to attributes applying to Linux as a homogeneous whole when those attributes stop being true about every OS that goes under the name Linux.
The thing about Linux is that it's not supposed to be super easy to use. If you're installing Linux, you'd better have some basic competence and an idea of what you're doing - at least enough to pick the distro you're going to use (assuming you plan to do anything with it besides use it exactly as it comes packaged, with the apps that area easy to install with a single click). The goal of Windows is for it to "just work" - you're supposed to be able to use it no matter who you are. If your average user is confused from the beginning because they can't figure out which version they need, Microsoft may have shot themselves in the foot by making the barrier to entry artificially high (especially if - as is likely - the different versions are not substantially different from each other for the average user).
"... doesn't matter, you still can't legally copy them and distribute them."
Actually, as far as copying goes, you can legally make a backup copy under fair use - for just such an instance (the original media is lost or damaged). While you certainly can't go in for wholesale distribution of copies, if memory serves fair use also covers lending media to a friend.
"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
I'm not necessarily opposed to Google creating this service, but how do they make it fit with their mission statement, assuming the information their talking about making universally accessible isn't your credit card info.
I agree, this is integral "Your Rights Online." I protest this grave infringement against my inherent right as a human to operate a deadly weapon using some Flash game on my desktop.
Microsoft is reportedly already somewhat advanced in spintronics. A company offical reportedly said "We consider ourselves to be industry leaders when it comes to manipulation using spin."
The issue I see with going to internet-based distribution for TV is how to make a profit off of it? When you watch TV, you have to have the right equipment and a little forethought to skip the commercials. If the video is playing in your media player, however, it's trivial to skip anything you want. I think content providers will be much more open to streaming video over the internet when they can be sure of making a profit off of it.
First, let me say that I am a Christian, but I am also a firm believer in science, reason, and logic.
The argument about a 4000 year old universe having objects billions of light years away is going on the assumption that the universe started out as a point. This is omething not everyone accepts and, as far as I can see, there is no simple explanation understandable by a non-scientist (note: I'm not sure I go for this - the big bang seems plausible to me - but there are those who do).
I also find it disturbing that you are willing to sacarifice logic in order to take a jab at a particular group: "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment in the Old Testament; "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" refers to a horrific dogma adopted by a particular historical group who happened to call themselves Christians. This is a classic fallacy: using the actions of believers in a doctrine to condemn the doctrine itself. I think (and hope) that almost all Christians would thoroughly condemn witch hunts, crusades, crucifictions, and any number of other atrocities committed by 'Christians' in the past (and present).
I wonder if the potential benefits would outway the possible embarrassments - I can think of lots of cases where a wrong guess could alienate customers, from reminding you to purchase a birthday gift for a loved one who has passed on to assuming someone is older than they really are. I wonder how good the software is and how subtly their guesses will be manifested to the customer.
Slashdot Mirror
While I can't say I've tried this, it certainly looks interesting:
APC TravelPower Cases
Basically a bag to carry your electronics that has an integrated power system to charge all your electronics - just plug in the whole bag and everything gets charged.
In related news, another Microsoft department is releasing a new DRM scheme that will prevent "unauthorized duplication of your wireless card, virtual or otherwise."
What I want, is a noise cancelling dome, so two people can go under it, talk, and have no one outside hear anything, that'd be cool.
You know, something like that should be possible to create, using a special new noise-cancelling material. I think they call it "concrete".
While IEC, ISO, and ITU celebrate today, ANSI, IEEE, and ETSI - among others - are ramping up preparations for what they contend to be the correct day for the festivities, a yet-to-be-determined date in December.
In theory, I think you make a good point. However, there are a couple of things that you don't take into consideration. For example, do we really want our elections to be for sale to the highest bidder (more so than they already are, that is)? An unlimited amount of money poured into a campaign can effectively buy a certain outcome, given how susceptible the general population is to advertising.
Also, consider the nature of most of the "speech" that results from campaign contributions. Have you ever seen a political television advertisement that added anything worthwhile to the discussion - or indeed do anything that wasn't mainly posturing and hand-waving?
I certainly think that individuals should have the right to say what they want about politics (just like anything else), and spend their own money in the process. However, I would draw the line when it comes to giving other people enough money for them to repeat their mantra loudly enough and often enough that it drowns out the dissenting voices.
Let's use the word 'understand' as a simple example. If you don't know the language, you would be hard-pressed to realize that it is made-up of just two syllables. If you try to pronounce it as 1, 3, 7, etc. sounds, it will be completely unintelligable.
You know, I speak English, and I'm still hard-pressed to realize that "understand" is made up of two syllables. But then, again it seems to make an awful lot of sense to me as three syllables, so I must just be confused. Or, as they say in Spanish when they want to use two syllables, nocomprend-o.
Or, to put it more succinctly, "You will respect our authoritay!"
I don't think it's so much that there are other crimes that aren't investigated... after all, if they only went after the most serious crimes, burglary, arson, and assault would never be investigated because there will always be homicide cases that need more resources. It's even fine with me if the government invests its resources in going after people who infringe copyright. However, if they're going to be involved in this kind of thing, I should be able to expect that the local law enforcement and DA's office will be helping me investigate and charge the next person who infringes the copyright of one of my original songs I recorded in my home studio. It's an old problem: the rich get most things for free from the government (or for the cost of lobbying and campaign contributions), but that doesn't make it any more acceptable. The government shouldn't be able to cherry-pick the cases that they want based on how much money it gets them in campaign contributions or publicity - imagine if your house was broken into and a large amount of valuables stolen, but the police wouldn't come out to look at it because you didn't donate enough to the last election or you weren't in a high enough tax bracket.
I couldn't disagree with you more. People who read articles online are not the sort... Oooh, look - a button!
Your arguments for standard guage over light rail make sense. However, I would like to ask some questions about your argument for cars over public transportation.
First of all, did you remember to include the cost to the environment? Everything I've heard indicates that public transportation is a better choice environmentally, but I'm no expert... perhaps someone who is would care to comment?
You cite crime (with the related cost of extra law enforcement) and disease as negative aspects of public transportation. Did you remember to balance those with the high number of people killed or injured in automobile accidents, along with the costs of maintaining emergency and law-enforcment personel to deal with these accidents?
How does mass transit place pressure on the government to become the "cops of the world"? I can see how it might increase the government's role in transportation (although they already play a large - if less visible role - in licensing automobiles, building the infrastructure, etc.), but how does a domestic concern such as urban public transportation make the government the "cops of the world"?
The thing about Linux is that there is no "thing about Linux." I honestly, sincerely hope that one day, a majority of people will stop referring to this etherial "Linux" that is some hive-like borg with a singleminded goal and focus. "Linux" only truly is a kernel whose development is overseen primarily by Linus and primarily a few other folks.
In theory, I agree with you, and most things that are true about Linux in general don't have to be. That being said, unfortunately it is true - across the board - that Linux is harder to use than Windows for anything but basic use (e.g. browsing the web and word processing). I challenge you or anyone else to show me a distro of Linux I can install as easily as Windows. Or perhaps, install anything but basic hardware as easily (ALSA, anyone?). Or even install advanced software on with the same simplicity (package managers are great, but what about a GLIBC issue?). Now, none of this is anyone's fault - Linus or anyone else. The fact remains, people will probably stop referring to attributes applying to Linux as a homogeneous whole when those attributes stop being true about every OS that goes under the name Linux.
The thing about Linux is that it's not supposed to be super easy to use. If you're installing Linux, you'd better have some basic competence and an idea of what you're doing - at least enough to pick the distro you're going to use (assuming you plan to do anything with it besides use it exactly as it comes packaged, with the apps that area easy to install with a single click). The goal of Windows is for it to "just work" - you're supposed to be able to use it no matter who you are. If your average user is confused from the beginning because they can't figure out which version they need, Microsoft may have shot themselves in the foot by making the barrier to entry artificially high (especially if - as is likely - the different versions are not substantially different from each other for the average user).
Actually, as far as copying goes, you can legally make a backup copy under fair use - for just such an instance (the original media is lost or damaged). While you certainly can't go in for wholesale distribution of copies, if memory serves fair use also covers lending media to a friend.
From http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/:
"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
I'm not necessarily opposed to Google creating this service, but how do they make it fit with their mission statement, assuming the information their talking about making universally accessible isn't your credit card info.
Yes, I'm sure they were all you had. Thank goodness Slashdot is here now and has overcome all of those problems.
I agree, this is integral "Your Rights Online." I protest this grave infringement against my inherent right as a human to operate a deadly weapon using some Flash game on my desktop.
Microsoft is reportedly already somewhat advanced in spintronics. A company offical reportedly said "We consider ourselves to be industry leaders when it comes to manipulation using spin."
The issue I see with going to internet-based distribution for TV is how to make a profit off of it? When you watch TV, you have to have the right equipment and a little forethought to skip the commercials. If the video is playing in your media player, however, it's trivial to skip anything you want. I think content providers will be much more open to streaming video over the internet when they can be sure of making a profit off of it.
He said the software industry, not the litigation industry. SCO moved on from software long ago - they're on to bigger and... well, bigger things.
Until one day... so long and thanks for all the fish.
Yes, they do have this in Perl. It's called programming.
First, let me say that I am a Christian, but I am also a firm believer in science, reason, and logic.
The argument about a 4000 year old universe having objects billions of light years away is going on the assumption that the universe started out as a point. This is omething not everyone accepts and, as far as I can see, there is no simple explanation understandable by a non-scientist (note: I'm not sure I go for this - the big bang seems plausible to me - but there are those who do).
I also find it disturbing that you are willing to sacarifice logic in order to take a jab at a particular group: "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment in the Old Testament; "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" refers to a horrific dogma adopted by a particular historical group who happened to call themselves Christians. This is a classic fallacy: using the actions of believers in a doctrine to condemn the doctrine itself. I think (and hope) that almost all Christians would thoroughly condemn witch hunts, crusades, crucifictions, and any number of other atrocities committed by 'Christians' in the past (and present).
I wonder if the potential benefits would outway the possible embarrassments - I can think of lots of cases where a wrong guess could alienate customers, from reminding you to purchase a birthday gift for a loved one who has passed on to assuming someone is older than they really are. I wonder how good the software is and how subtly their guesses will be manifested to the customer.
I had a processor make exactly the same sound once. Usually after they go 'sfff' they're pretty much dead.
Rambus faces a patent infringement suite from SCO for using their business model and becoming the "SCO(tm) of the chip world"