Depends on the model. Check out how many varieties of potatoes the Inca cultivated. Maybe the reward was the honor of having your child sacrificed, but whatever it was, it must have worked well.
What you're saying sounds like corporations are paying for development of these varieties exclusively. Are any of these programs partly funded by public monies? Do the facilities or researchers involved at UMN receive any part of their funding/salaries from the public?
Reminds me of the book Amazon revoked from Kindles because they didn't have electronic media distribution in a contract. In an even broader sense, we might need a law that says once you've paid for something and have taken possession of it, unless it's in a general class of forbidden possessions (bombs, stolen goods, embargoed items, etc.), then it can't be taken from you. Not to mention something else I think you were implying, that no one else can force you to kill a living thing (probably with exceptions like anthrax, etc.).
had the Monolith reporting to someone/something about 450 ly distant. It had reported how bad humans behaved, and was therefore ordered to destroy them. The messages took a combined 900+ years, so it didn't receive orders until 3001. What a coincidence. Or maybe I remember all that wrong.
I loved Circuit Cellar in Byte. Steve was a good writer. I usually complain of magazines losing their focus. In this case, I'm complaining that Circuit Cellar magazine narrowed its focus too much. For me. Maybe not for hardcore hardware hackers.
Yep, model RR, R/C aircraft, and a few other categories are the only ones that seem both stable and likely to stick to their old formulae these days. Hey, and thanks for your work. I'm pretty sure you're not making a killing from it.
I mostly agree, with a few exceptions. Home Power, for one. Classic Cars, Classic & Sports Car, and a few others sometimes have some practical articles that would actually be of use to a buyer or owner actually touching the mechanical parts themselves! A few rags like Hot Rod (at least used to) still have hands-on articles, though their preoccupation with cars that sucked even when they were new gets annoying (flame-bait comment: Chevelles, for example). Model RRers have several from which to choose. Still I think, like Home Power, the niche/hobby mags that are decent come from true believers. Some of them never make a profit, but that's not their primary reason for doing it.
Another "good old days" comment... years ago, WSJ had a decent editorial staff, and reported "economics" issues as often as "financial" issues. Now it's more honest to its name—just about Wall Street. Another Murdoch victim.
I've always liked Science News, but it's just what it says, News. I prefer the in-depth stuff from American Scientist. Sort of like the difference between the first years of PC Magazine and the first years of Byte. I wouldn't have missed John Dvorak's Inside Track, but I didn't really learn anything long-term useful from it besides an attitude (thanks John!). I occasionally still pull out a 1980 or so article from Byte to help in understanding something.
Funny, I thought Tyson and Watterson had been very famous for a long time. But then I realized that no one else in my household knew their names until the last couple of years.
I don't actually buy much, but there are a few worth spending time with. They might be available online, but mostly just in the same format as the printed version. Not every issue for any of these, but sometimes Scientific American, American Scientist, Trains, National Geographic, Home Power, Smithsonian, Road & Track... that's about all I can think of without getting into obscure tightly-focused monthlies or geographically specific magazines. I think The Economist has stayed solvent by broadening their appeal. Which means the excellent columns with economics-based analyses of years ago are much rarer. I find The Economist not much different from some of the US-based news weeklies these days, aside from having much better international coverage.
Yep. Tilt the back and the seat backwards, shift much of that weight resting on thighs to back. Straighten legs out and rest feet on something tilted towards you.
I don't know about you. I can walk at any speed all day long, and it feels great, but standing still gets uncomfortable quickly, and my back starts giving me problems after just a few days of that. I still have minor foot issues left over from working in a retail department store for just a couple of years, 30 years ago. So no. No standing desks for me under any circumstances. You're welcome to one. I'm going to be up walking around every 30 minutes and frequently pacing around the cube farm to think, but I'm going to sit while I'm not walking. And I expect a decent chair to go along with a decent monitor. What we all really need is a half hour of walking every 2 hours. The productivity of the sitting time would increase at least enough to offset the time walking.
...is what I've been using for years. I'm glad that the first year I went electronic I chose TaxCut (H&R Block's software original name) the first time, because I can't see any real difference between it and TurboTax except that TurboTax is significantly more expensive for any particular level of functionality. Using the second most popular in this case is quite advantageous. Sort of like buying an MP3 player other than an iPod. Except for less third-party support, you can get the same functionality for a lot less cash.
Yes. Common Carriers. That's what they are, and how they should be treated. What they're doing, discriminating traffic, is going to get Safe Harbor provisions removed, and they'll have to filter everything. They won't mind that, except they'll be sued for not catching things. Do they care about the long term? Nope, just next quarter's profits.
Building nuclear plants would be faster than building a lot more renewable sources? No way. Nukes might be necessary, but it takes a long time to get from planning to power production. Building more factories to build more wind machines and then installing those is going to be quicker, even where it requires more transmission lines. The other route to meeting energy needs is conservation. Many of us are very tired of hearing about it, but it only takes a glance around to see how much is wasted. People driving empty pickups and SUVs, parking lots lit up brighter than cloudy days (with fixtures that send light somewhere besides downwards), houses and especially business structures with little insulation, heat pumps using ambient air rather than earth or bodies of water for sinks/sources, water heaters maintaining temperatures 24/7, traffic signals insensitive to traffic conditions, buses and delivery trucks that stop & start every minute without capturing any of the energy during deceleration, PCs that stay on 24/7 without sleeping, roofs with heat-absorptive coverings, PATIO HEATERS, houses without integrated HVAC/water heating/refrigeration systems (that would be almost all), processes that use millions of gallons of drinking water when less energy-intensive water sources would do, excessively energy-intensive farming, transportation of low-value goods around the world due to ridiculous trade rules, shipping that refuses to supplement their fossil-fuel thrust with wind, dump trucks hauling dirt around because architecture isn't designed for the site but vice versa... blah blah blah.
We could cut energy use in the US by 50% without even much inconvenience. I'll not resist nukes when a bit more effort is spent avoiding waste.
It's difficult to focus on the concepts presented when the author employs such over-used, abused, and ultimately meaningless phrases as "marketplace of ideas" and "intellectual property".
90%, 95%, 98%, 99%... what's next, 99.9%? Deniers like to argue that it's not caused by human activities. Pure bullshit, but it isn't even relevant. There are some who think that whatever happens is good as long as man didn't cause it. Those are the ones that might be OK with climate change as long as we didn't cause it. Where does this end? Is it OK for most of Earth's multi-celled life to be destroyed by a celestial collision just because we didn't cause it? Regardless of the reason for it, reducing greenhouse gases will slow it, so that needs to be done immediately.
At first Symantec's actions sounded dismaying, but in the long run using every opportunity to publicize the folly of using that API is probably beneficial. I've spent years trying to dissuade people from using (old) Excel's password "protection" due to the false sense of security. That Win API has the same effect—convinces the masses they're employing secure means when in fact they're not.
Slashdot Mirror
Cat6 for six-toed varieties.
Can't say what you'd get if you downloaded a Schrodinger Cat.
Depends on the model. Check out how many varieties of potatoes the Inca cultivated. Maybe the reward was the honor of having your child sacrificed, but whatever it was, it must have worked well.
What you're saying sounds like corporations are paying for development of these varieties exclusively. Are any of these programs partly funded by public monies? Do the facilities or researchers involved at UMN receive any part of their funding/salaries from the public?
Reminds me of the book Amazon revoked from Kindles because they didn't have electronic media distribution in a contract. In an even broader sense, we might need a law that says once you've paid for something and have taken possession of it, unless it's in a general class of forbidden possessions (bombs, stolen goods, embargoed items, etc.), then it can't be taken from you. Not to mention something else I think you were implying, that no one else can force you to kill a living thing (probably with exceptions like anthrax, etc.).
had the Monolith reporting to someone/something about 450 ly distant. It had reported how bad humans behaved, and was therefore ordered to destroy them. The messages took a combined 900+ years, so it didn't receive orders until 3001. What a coincidence. Or maybe I remember all that wrong.
I loved Circuit Cellar in Byte. Steve was a good writer. I usually complain of magazines losing their focus. In this case, I'm complaining that Circuit Cellar magazine narrowed its focus too much. For me. Maybe not for hardcore hardware hackers.
Yep, model RR, R/C aircraft, and a few other categories are the only ones that seem both stable and likely to stick to their old formulae these days. Hey, and thanks for your work. I'm pretty sure you're not making a killing from it.
I mostly agree, with a few exceptions. Home Power, for one. Classic Cars, Classic & Sports Car, and a few others sometimes have some practical articles that would actually be of use to a buyer or owner actually touching the mechanical parts themselves! A few rags like Hot Rod (at least used to) still have hands-on articles, though their preoccupation with cars that sucked even when they were new gets annoying (flame-bait comment: Chevelles, for example). Model RRers have several from which to choose. Still I think, like Home Power, the niche/hobby mags that are decent come from true believers. Some of them never make a profit, but that's not their primary reason for doing it.
Another "good old days" comment... years ago, WSJ had a decent editorial staff, and reported "economics" issues as often as "financial" issues. Now it's more honest to its name—just about Wall Street. Another Murdoch victim.
Takes me back... from the mid-80s to the early 90s I read almost every page. Haven't seen one lately, didn't know it was still in print.
Sorry, I meant Cyprus. Thought they might mention Cypress too.
At first I read not "cyrus" but Cypress, and I thought, actually it does feature Cypress frequently...
Still like SciAm sometimes but I have to agree—they seem to be trying to compete with Discover.
They were fat, but I must've missed that issue. Sure it wasn't a Computer Shopper?
I've always liked Science News, but it's just what it says, News. I prefer the in-depth stuff from American Scientist. Sort of like the difference between the first years of PC Magazine and the first years of Byte. I wouldn't have missed John Dvorak's Inside Track, but I didn't really learn anything long-term useful from it besides an attitude (thanks John!). I occasionally still pull out a 1980 or so article from Byte to help in understanding something.
Funny, I thought Tyson and Watterson had been very famous for a long time. But then I realized that no one else in my household knew their names until the last couple of years.
I don't actually buy much, but there are a few worth spending time with. They might be available online, but mostly just in the same format as the printed version. Not every issue for any of these, but sometimes Scientific American, American Scientist, Trains, National Geographic, Home Power, Smithsonian, Road & Track... that's about all I can think of without getting into obscure tightly-focused monthlies or geographically specific magazines. I think The Economist has stayed solvent by broadening their appeal. Which means the excellent columns with economics-based analyses of years ago are much rarer. I find The Economist not much different from some of the US-based news weeklies these days, aside from having much better international coverage.
Yep. Tilt the back and the seat backwards, shift much of that weight resting on thighs to back. Straighten legs out and rest feet on something tilted towards you.
I don't know about you. I can walk at any speed all day long, and it feels great, but standing still gets uncomfortable quickly, and my back starts giving me problems after just a few days of that. I still have minor foot issues left over from working in a retail department store for just a couple of years, 30 years ago. So no. No standing desks for me under any circumstances. You're welcome to one. I'm going to be up walking around every 30 minutes and frequently pacing around the cube farm to think, but I'm going to sit while I'm not walking. And I expect a decent chair to go along with a decent monitor. What we all really need is a half hour of walking every 2 hours. The productivity of the sitting time would increase at least enough to offset the time walking.
...is what I've been using for years. I'm glad that the first year I went electronic I chose TaxCut (H&R Block's software original name) the first time, because I can't see any real difference between it and TurboTax except that TurboTax is significantly more expensive for any particular level of functionality. Using the second most popular in this case is quite advantageous. Sort of like buying an MP3 player other than an iPod. Except for less third-party support, you can get the same functionality for a lot less cash.
Yes. Common Carriers. That's what they are, and how they should be treated. What they're doing, discriminating traffic, is going to get Safe Harbor provisions removed, and they'll have to filter everything. They won't mind that, except they'll be sued for not catching things. Do they care about the long term? Nope, just next quarter's profits.
Building nuclear plants would be faster than building a lot more renewable sources? No way. Nukes might be necessary, but it takes a long time to get from planning to power production. Building more factories to build more wind machines and then installing those is going to be quicker, even where it requires more transmission lines. The other route to meeting energy needs is conservation. Many of us are very tired of hearing about it, but it only takes a glance around to see how much is wasted. People driving empty pickups and SUVs, parking lots lit up brighter than cloudy days (with fixtures that send light somewhere besides downwards), houses and especially business structures with little insulation, heat pumps using ambient air rather than earth or bodies of water for sinks/sources, water heaters maintaining temperatures 24/7, traffic signals insensitive to traffic conditions, buses and delivery trucks that stop & start every minute without capturing any of the energy during deceleration, PCs that stay on 24/7 without sleeping, roofs with heat-absorptive coverings, PATIO HEATERS, houses without integrated HVAC/water heating/refrigeration systems (that would be almost all), processes that use millions of gallons of drinking water when less energy-intensive water sources would do, excessively energy-intensive farming, transportation of low-value goods around the world due to ridiculous trade rules, shipping that refuses to supplement their fossil-fuel thrust with wind, dump trucks hauling dirt around because architecture isn't designed for the site but vice versa... blah blah blah.
We could cut energy use in the US by 50% without even much inconvenience. I'll not resist nukes when a bit more effort is spent avoiding waste.
It's difficult to focus on the concepts presented when the author employs such over-used, abused, and ultimately meaningless phrases as "marketplace of ideas" and "intellectual property".
90%, 95%, 98%, 99%... what's next, 99.9%? Deniers like to argue that it's not caused by human activities. Pure bullshit, but it isn't even relevant. There are some who think that whatever happens is good as long as man didn't cause it. Those are the ones that might be OK with climate change as long as we didn't cause it. Where does this end? Is it OK for most of Earth's multi-celled life to be destroyed by a celestial collision just because we didn't cause it? Regardless of the reason for it, reducing greenhouse gases will slow it, so that needs to be done immediately.
At first Symantec's actions sounded dismaying, but in the long run using every opportunity to publicize the folly of using that API is probably beneficial. I've spent years trying to dissuade people from using (old) Excel's password "protection" due to the false sense of security. That Win API has the same effect—convinces the masses they're employing secure means when in fact they're not.